European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

I absolutely agree. Knowing the Prime Minister as I do, I can say that he will not let down my hon. Friend’s constituents. My hon. Friend will be rightly rewarded at the next general election for how the Prime Minister will deliver for him and his constituents.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Conor Burns]

I think that doing so would test the patience of the Chair, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) would welcome an intervention when she speaks.

We are now talking about the future relationship, and today marks the day when the British dog finally leaves the federalist manger. Our European friends can now pursue their ambitions unencumbered by reluctant Brits. We are no longer a reluctant and truculent member, but a sovereign equal and close friend.

We would be deluding ourselves if we believed that leaving the European Union was, in and of itself, a panacea or solution to the challenges that the United Kingdom faces. The new freedom that we take up as an independent sovereign country will be daunting. It will test our institutions, which are not used to having to make decisions for themselves. It will take time to adjust. As a Trade Minister, when I was looking at international trade agreements, I sensed a profound interest around the world in doing business with the United Kingdom. Our businesses will have to step up and seize the opportunities that the new free trade agreements will create. We could be at the dawn of a new golden era for this country. I relish the reality that, today, we are at last again the masters of our own destiny.

Public Health

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I fully understand the lure of the precautionary principle, given the dreadful scenarios that the Government are facing, with increasing cases and projections. I understand the lure of saying, “Let’s do this, just in case; let’s take no chances.” I certainly do not envy the Prime Minister or any member of the quad their decisions. However, I have a number of concerns that simply cannot be overcome.

Let us cast our minds forward to 2 December, because I feel that we will be in this situation again. What will “Good enough that we can unwind” look like? It took three and a half months last time for us to have a haircut or our first pint in a pub. What level of daily infections or hospitalisations will be deemed good enough to unwind?

It is a mistake for the Government not to consider what those figures might be, because they would at least give the public something to aim for and look forward to, but we have no data and no concept of what that is likely to be. We are told that this is the last bridge before the cavalry come over the hill and that we have better treatments. We are told that we will have the vaccine that we are all looking for, but we do not know when it will be ready, how effective it will be or the timeframe over which it will be rolled out across the population. Let us not forget that HIV has been with us for 40 years, and we still do not have a vaccine.

There are so many clear nonsenses in the regulations. I and many others in the House, I am sure, are getting emails from gym owners and users, people who enjoy outdoor archery and those concerned about the golf situation, and a lot from churchgoers. How can it be sensible that a couple are allowed to go for a walk on the course of the golf club that they belong to, but they face a fine if they dare do it with a golf club and a ball?

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Has the hon. Gentleman received, as I have, a letter signed by 1,500 managers of church organisations, ministers and people of religion opposing these regulations and asking why on earth the Government are closing churches?

[Craig Mackinlay]

An overwhelming number of the responses that I have had are from churchgoers, and I will develop that point very briefly. Congregations that go to churches, synagogues, mosques and temples are adherent, sensible, disciplined people. To treat them as anything but is, I am afraid, nothing but an insult.

A few weeks ago, we were offered the tiered system and the House supported it. It was deemed to be the new holy grail. Liverpool, under tier 3, seems to be having results, but we simply have not given enough time for those opportunities to bed in. Kent and my constituency of South Thanet are currently under tier 1. What will all this mean to businesses and pubs that have invested heavily in covid-friendly and secure facilities? We have already seen flip-flopping on the earliest-published proposals on off-sales, and microbreweries can now continue selling beer outside. The supermarkets could always sell as much as they liked. That, I am afraid, is at the heart of the muddled thinking. I want to develop what I want to call the Wilkinson conundrum—a great store on every high street. How can it be that it can continue to sell essential and non-essential items when it is illegal for the independent shop next door to sell just some of the non-essential stuff?

I am being asked to spend £50 billion extra today, or perhaps even more. There is no data about what that means for other health issues, and no assessment about what it means to family members who are not able to see grandchildren or see off loved ones in their final days. I am here to make a decision. I will not abstain; I am paid to have a view, and I will be voting against the measure.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Indeed. Time and again, supposed Government witnesses went against the Government. My hon. Friend raises a good point with the example that he has just provided.

The other thing that came out, which relates to my new clause, was about investigations. Investigations, or the problems that lead to these issues around investigations, were the thread that ran throughout the evidence. In spite of that, what we had at the weekend—this was a really dangerous move on the part of the Ministry of Defence—was tweets promoting this Bill from the MOD and saying that it would stop investigations. It will do nothing of the sort. As a former Defence Minister myself, using the MOD’s website and tweets to politicise things would not have been allowed in my day. What was put out is just not going to happen. Let us look at the evidence that we heard in Committee from a number of witnesses. The first one I will mention, again a Government witness, is Hilary Meredith, solicitor. She was very good and concentrated on the issue around investigations. She said:

“It is the procedure and investigation in the UK that need to be reviewed and overhauled, and not necessarily a time limit placed on…prosecutions.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 16, Q24.]

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman has a long track record of supporting the armed services here. Is he concerned by the expression of doubt that has been put by members of the Royal British Legion? They have put in writing to all Members of Parliament the fact that they believe that part 2 of this Bill should be improved and that the time limit really gravely concerns them.

[Mr Jones]

I am, and I will come onto part 2 in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has hit on an issue relating to the Government’s approach to this Bill. The Minister is saying that it is standing up for members of the armed forces. It is doing nothing of the sort. In part 2, it is actually taking away rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It would. That and judicial oversight would improve the Bill tremendously. It would then actually do what it is supposed to do, which is stop reinvestigation and stop the worry that these individuals have, but it does not do that; that is the big hole in the Bill.

It is not as though the Minister has not had a chance to look at this. I have raised it with him—I tabled amendments in Committee, which he pushed aside, and we are going to go ahead with what we have now, which will be a flawed Bill. Once it has passed, it will lead to a situation whereby a lot of people think that as a result they have protections when, frankly, it will do nothing of the sort, because it will not stop investigations and reinvestigations. One of the worst things we can do in politics is promise people things and give them the impression that we have done something when actually we have not, because once the penny drops and they see it is not actually the case, they rightly feel very bitter.

As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has just said, there is time to put this in the Bill. If Ministers are not going to do it in this place, they should do it in the other place, because it will improve the situation.

There is another dishonesty with this process. From, again, using the MOD website, which I do not think is appropriate for political reasons, we see there is a promise about Northern Ireland. The Minister is on record as saying that similar legislation will be brought in to cover historical cases in Northern Ireland. Well, I am sorry, but it will not do so if it is like this Bill; if it is like this Bill then, frankly, it will do nothing at all on investigations. If it is a mirror image of this Bill, all those people who think that somehow they are going to get protection will find that they do not, and that is just not fair.

[Ian Paisley]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the officers who served under Operation Banner have been completely jettisoned and abandoned. That is the bottom line, and that is the crying shame of this—and I do not trust anyone in the Northern Ireland Office to bring forward a Bill that will help those ex-servicemen in the years to come.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point: do I feel it right that, frankly, people in their 70s or 80s and even younger are worried about this happening? No, I think that is appalling, frankly, because there is an evidence test: is it in the public interest for those individuals to be now dragged before the courts? No, it is not. Here we have another promise that will not be delivered. I must say he is right in terms of the Northern Ireland Office. I have looked at the matter in detail—I have met all parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin, along with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—and I think that finding a mechanism is going to be virtually impossible.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. The fact is this will end up in Northern Ireland Operation Banner officers being a trade-off between what the NIO finds politically helpful to buy off bartering with the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin.

[Mr Jones]

I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of Northern Ireland politics, but I will say that this will not be solved by the promise that has been made. That again is not the issue.

I turn to new clause 3. It relates to the point that was raised on part 2 and is covered by an amendment tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench. The issue is the stripping away of rights from veterans. I find it absolutely astonishing that, in this week of remembrance, we have a Government who have introduced a Bill that will actually take rights away from veterans. The longstop of six years will mean that veterans—and families—will not have access to section 33 of the Limitation Act, which allows people to bring cases out of time.

In Committee there was a lot of discussion about how many people would be affected. The Royal British Legion was very clear in its opposition to part 2 because, as Charles Byrne said in response to the Minister:

“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]

He said that the Royal British Legion thought it did breach the armed forces covenant. I agree, because the covenant states:

“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public…services”

and so on. I agree with that, but this strips away their rights under section 33, which means that if somebody brings forward a case after the six-year longstop, they cannot have recourse to section 33 of the Limitation Act, because the Bill will take those rights away. Those rights are open to every single Member in the House today, and to prisoners and asylum seekers—anybody who wants to bring a case.

The Minister said that 94% of cases were brought within the time limits anyway. That is irrelevant to me, because 6% clearly are not, and it is those 6% that will then possibly use the Limitation Act.

May I put this on record, as I did in Committee? Bringing forward a section 33 case is by no means easy. It pertains to a very small number of individuals who could not bring their case within the time limit because their circumstances were unique; and they have to go before a court and argue out the reasons. I have done it myself when I worked for a trade union on injury or disease cases that were out of time—although you would not take on such a case in the first instance if you thought you would not get anywhere. However, there are those important cases that you can take, and which do make a difference.

The case that was mentioned time and again in Committee was the Snatch Land Rover decision in 2016. The families took forward the case under the Human Rights Act, which I will come on to in a minute, on the basis that their loved ones had been killed and injured in Iraq because of negligence on behalf of the MOD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) was in her place, she outlined the concept of lawfare. There can be no doubt that that exists and has been exploited, leading to vexatious claims against our brave armed forces personnel over a considerable period of time.

Cases such as that of Major Robert Campbell are absolutely scandalous. This man had to face eight separate investigations over 17 years into a single incident that took place back in 2003. He is only 47, so we are talking about more than a third of his life. Each investigation cleared him, only for the goalposts to be moved for each successive investigation. The toll taken on that completely innocent man, who put his life on the line for his country, is enormous.

Tragically and shamefully, he is not alone. To put it into perspective, a long-running streak of claims have been dismissed as far back as the 2009 al-Sweady inquiry, which took five years, cost £25 million and the conclusion of which was that the allegations were

“wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.

Furthermore, the Iraq historic allegations team determined that 70% of cases did not have a case to answer or that it would be disproportionate to conduct an investigation. Similarly, as of June, the service police legacy investigations had closed or were in the process of closing 1,200 allegations. Operation Northmoor, which took three years and cost £10 million, resulted in no charges, but all that takes significant time and causes huge distress to those under repeated investigation.

Our servicemen and women make enormous sacrifices on behalf of our country and the practice of hounding them must come to an end. It is therefore right that the Government seek to raise the bar for prosecutions in overseas operations by requiring prosecutors to have proper regard to the uniquely challenging circumstances into which we send our personnel to risk their lives on our behalf, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West.

Opponents of the Bill have said that it would issue an amnesty for torture and war crime offences, but that is simply not the case. As the Minister has been at pains to make clear, the Bill does not provide blanket immunity from prosecution; it merely raises the threshold for the prosecution of alleged offences. Those opponents have also claimed that it would damage the reputation of our armed forces. I question instead what sort of a country we would be if we allowed our armed forces to continue to make enormous personal sacrifices only to return back home and be at the mercy—for years—of tank-chasing lawyers such as Phil Shiner, who was, of course, struck off for his actions. The Minister has outlined at length how the Bill meets the UK’s obligations under domestic and international law. I look forward to hearing him do so again in his closing speech.

Most Members on both sides of the House sincerely support our armed forces, but there have always been some who have taken sides against our armed forces and shown no respect whatsoever for our veterans. I am not among them. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who said that the Bill goes some way to protecting our armed forces but probably not far enough. However, it does improve the current unacceptable position. I therefore support the Bill to protect our armed forces.

[Ian Paisley]

May I say at the outset that I am extremely proud of our armed services and their conduct, their calibre and their gallantry? They are well renowned and well supported across Ulster. They are applauded, and have been for many years, even through the dark years when people did not like the armed services so much, because people know the sacrifice that young squaddies made to hold the line between peace and chaos in a part of the United Kingdom. They were, and are, applauded.

In principle my party welcomes the Bill and wants to support it. We do think there are many ways in which it could be improved, and we hope the Minister is listening to those calls for improvement. We are bitterly disappointed that the legislation will fulfil only part of the Government’s manifesto commitment—part of the commitment on which Members canvassed around the whole of this nation to obtain support. I will come to the detail of that in a moment.

When I was a student at university, I had a tutor from Germany. She recounted to me a story about one of her earliest and most confusing experiences of Northern Ireland. She wanted to call a colleague here at King’s College London, and for her it was not a problem. She picked up the phone, she dialled the number, and she was told by the switchboard operator at Queen’s University, “That’s fine—that’s a local call.” Some time later, she had to call a colleague at Trinity College, Dublin, but she was not able to make the call, and was told by the switchboard operator, “Oh, that is an overseas call, down to Dublin.”

So I understand the confusion that some people might have, and indeed the justification that the Government have put into this piece of legislation to leave Northern Ireland out, and leave Operation Banner soldiers out, because in theory Northern Ireland is not overseas, and service in Northern Ireland is not an overseas matter: it is a local matter—a domestic issue. But the Government’s manifesto commitment was to all of their personnel, and no matter what way we cut it, and no matter what the small print may now say, those brave and gallant people and soldiers who served in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner have been jettisoned by this piece of legislation.

[Johnny Mercer]

It may be helpful if at this stage I restate to my hon. Friend the commitment in the Conservative manifesto, which we do not resile from one bit—that those who served with such distinction in a very, very difficult time in Northern Ireland will be entitled to equal treatment when that Bill is brought forward. They have not been jettisoned, they have not been forgotten about, and we will not leave them behind.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for getting to his feet and making that commitment again from the Dispatch Box. That is important, and will go some way to alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed.

I would just say this. People in Northern Ireland—for good cause—do not believe in the good will of the Northern Ireland Office and its mandarins there. They believe that their attitude to our armed services is that they are expendable, and that there will be a time, when push comes to shove, and if it is expedient, that our soldiers who served in Operation Banner and the police officers in the gallant RUC who supported them would be easily jettisoned in some sort of trade-off with the people who were quite happy to fire bullets at our armed service personnel.

[Bob Stewart]

I support exactly what my very great friend is saying, but may I point out to the House that no Bill will protect someone like Dennis Hutchings, who has been repeatedly brought back and reinvestigated, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere? This legislation will not be retrospective, as I understand it. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my dear friend, who has travelled widely in Northern Ireland, both as a soldier and as my guest in my constituency, with former squaddies. The applause that they gave to him is now legendary in Ballymoney; but the Minister will forgive me for saying that probably the less said about that adventure, the better for both of us.

Some Members have made the point that it is difficult to make a prosecution stick. One of the cases that got me into active politics was that of the UDR Four, on which I worked as a researcher, where four soldiers were wrongly convicted of the murder of a civilian in Northern Ireland. Many Members have advocated today the books that they have written on these subjects. I actually did write the book on the case for the UDR Four, with an exceptional foreword by Robert Kee, the eminent historian. In that book, we detailed the case for those soldiers and how their conviction should be quashed. I am delighted to say that three of those convictions were quashed, but it took us 10 years to get that case before the courts and to have those wrongful convictions quashed. So I do not buy that prosecutions will be hard to pursue and make stick.

There is, unfortunately, an unhealthy appetite out there among some people to blame veterans and our armed services. That will not end with this Bill, but we wish it Godspeed and hope that we can get a piece of legislation that will defend our armed services with the integrity that the Minister speaks with.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I rise to support amendments 1 to 10 in particular. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his eloquent argument for the amendments, and I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for putting them forward. I am proud to have put my name to them.

I fear that the Bill fails to meet our obligations on human rights abroad, but it also fails to meet our obligations to service personnel when they return home. The UK should rightly aspire to be a global torch-bearer for human rights, and our military should be held to the highest professional standards. The triple lock and five-year limit on prosecutions in the Bill make a mockery of any claim that we might have respect for human rights and international law. Human rights do not change depending on the miles travelled or the borders crossed. They are universal and non-negotiable. From Hallam to Herat, we all have the right to live free from torture and war crimes. That is why I was appalled to read in the report of proceedings in Committee that Ministers had excluded torture because

“we expect our service personnel to undertake activities that are intrinsically violent in nature,”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2020; c. 206-207.]

which may lead to “allegations of torture” or “war crimes”.

Torture is clearly defined in international law. It is never accidental. It is not a grey area. It is an intentional act of inflicting very serious and cruel suffering on another person. It cannot be justified with heat-of-the-moment arguments, and it is ridiculous to say that conventional military operations could be mistaken for torture. Alongside hundreds of constituents who have contacted me about the Bill, I completely oppose any suggestion that there are any circumstances in which torture might be excusable.

Not only are these proposals an affront to human rights, but they fail to support our veterans, the group the Government say they are defending. The largest number of civil claims made against the MOD are claims of negligence brought by former soldiers. The proposal for a six-year limit on lodging civil claims makes it harder for ex-military personnel to sue the MOD for failure in its duty of care to them. It means that troops who develop PTSD, blindness and other conditions will be left with no recourse to justice. Far from supporting veterans, the Government’s proposals are entirely self-serving.

We should reject any attempt to run down the clock on civil claims, and there can be no “get out of jail free” cards for torture or war crimes. There is no stopwatch on justice, and there are no exceptions—no ifs or buts—on torture or human rights. That is why I will join colleagues in supporting amendments 1 to 10 this evening and in voting against the Bill.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill as a reasonable and essential step for our Government to take in the light of the EU’s unreasonable position. It has become crystal clear, ever since our country voted to leave, that the EU would not act in a constructive spirit and would not treat the UK as an independent country with equal basis in the negotiations, as it has with other countries such as Canada. Despite this country’s decision to say no to the project of ever closer integration, which was reinforced by last year’s general election result, Brussels has continually attempted to trap us in its orbit. The British people will never accept the status of a vassal state, despite the arrogant efforts of Mr Barnier—just look at his Twitter feed as evidence.

The Bill is a reasonable step for any Government to take to maintain their sovereignty. It upholds the principle of article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol and without it, trade across the Union of nations would be severely limited. In the light of the EU’s continued resistance to a mutually beneficial free trade agreement, no deal will be our only available option. The Bill makes provision for that. Otherwise, Northern Ireland would remain subject to the EU’s customs laws and large portions of its internal market laws, all enforced by the EU’s Court of Justice.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has put her finger right on the issue that affects Northern Ireland: under the protocol, Northern Ireland goods will be subject to import declarations, entry summary declarations, safety and security certificates, export health certificates, phytosanitary certificates and certificates of origin. The Bill, thankfully at last, clears up that we will have a Union without paperwork.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—a true patriot, putting our country’s interest above the EU’s.

EU rules on state aid would allow the EU to impose its state aid regime on any UK domestic policy. That is not reasonable. We chose to say no to further integration in 2016. Four years on, our friends in Brussels have not understood that. While we are happy to trade freely with them, we do not want to be ruled by the ECJ, we want our fishermen to have full access to our waters, and we do not want our future to still be determined by unelected EU bureaucrats.

The Bill is reasonable in solving those problems and it is essential in upholding the international obligation of the Good Friday agreement. It is essential that great effort is made to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the mainland of Britain. We have seen time and again the naked political considerations—most of the EU’s desire is to see our country fail. That is hardly an example of negotiating in good faith, and it is that that has determined and dictated the EU’s negotiating position. The Government had no option but to introduce this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

All through the Brexit debates and the referendum campaign, we were constantly reminded that we should do nothing at all to damage Northern Ireland, and particularly the economy in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with that advice, but as soon as the Government try to do something to protect Northern Ireland and the economy of Northern Ireland, we are told that we are wrong.

It has been interesting to listen to the speeches tonight. Members have quite rightly warned that we should not implement the Bill’s provisions before it is absolutely necessary. The logic of that argument is that they accept that it might, under certain circumstances, be necessary. Indeed, if one reads beyond the headlines of what was said by David Cameron, who has been quoted tonight, he goes on to say that these provisions should only be used as a last resort, therefore accepting that they may have to be used. I entirely agree with that—they should only be used as a last resort, and the Prime Minister was clear that that would be the case.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He was a wonderful Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and he actually gets the situation in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that what really perturbs us about the opposition to the Bill tonight is people saying that it will somehow attack peace when what it does is remove the impediments to economic progress? It is through economic progress that we have created more jobs in Northern Ireland and helped to create peace in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend is wrong—or perhaps premature; I am not quite sure—to elevate me to the Privy Council, but he makes a very good point and leads me on to my next point.

Although north-south trade is extremely important to Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the Republic, east-west trade is far more important for both Northern Ireland and the Republic. That is not to say that the other is not important, of course. We should therefore do nothing to damage that trade.

The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to the Act of Union. He did not have time to go into detail, but article sixth of the Act of Union 1800—the very Act that created this United Kingdom—states that

“in all treaties”

made by “his Majesty” as it was then, his heirs and successors,

“with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subjects.”

It goes on to refer to manufacturing, trade and navigation. That Act should not be breached. It may or may not have the legal status—whatever that is—of a treaty, but surely it is an international Act of Parliament, which brought two sovereign nations together. That should be respected.

Article 184 of the 2019 withdrawal agreement should be respected when it talks about the need for both sides to operate

“in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders”.

In other words, the United Kingdom’s legal order should be respected. Clause 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 asserts that

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.”

It is wrong for people to say that Ministers will run off with powers and act illegally—they would be given the powers by this Parliament if we pass the Bill. Ministers are therefore not running off and acting illegally at all. It is important that we deliver the Brexit that people voted for. I do not want a spat with the European Union and I have no reason to believe that it will behave so unreasonably as to deny all EU manufacturers and businesses—the people who send more than £90 billion of exports to this country, which is more than we send to them—trading opportunities.

I want a free trade agreement with the European Union because that would benefit businesses and people on the continent and in this country. It would also remove all the arguments that we are having tonight about the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, so I really do hope that we can make progress. That is the way forward. If there is bad faith, and if we are put to the test of deciding whether we support the United Kingdom or the European Union, then I remember the oaths that I have given on seven separate occasions in this House, and my loyalty will be to the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

Just like the overwhelming majority of Members, I was returned to this House on the promise of getting Brexit done. I am an ardent supporter of Brexit and look forward eagerly to the opportunity to bolster the United Kingdom’s position by becoming an independent, self-governing nation, possessed of the confidence that flows from our vision and principled values.

Although I stand four-square behind the Government’s policies and objectives, including those advanced by the Bill, I cannot vote for legislation that a Cabinet Minister stated from the Dispatch Box will break international law. Before I was returned to this House, I spent many years in distant, sometimes dangerous places on behalf of our country, our closest friend, the United States, NATO and the UN, where I was committed to upholding the international rules-based system, which is the only shield we have against the law of the jungle. The rules-based system is, of course, one that the United Kingdom was proud to play a central role in building.

I have every sympathy with Her Majesty’s Government and place the responsibility for the impending denouement firmly with the EU, as it haughtily refuses to deal with the UK as a sovereign equal, like our sibling Canada. The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would provide an off-the-shelf trade deal with no bells and whistles, as Monsieur Barnier himself offered. That would have involved no more than a light-touch border between Britain and Ulster. The EU has moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for the United Kingdom, creating a much harder trade border in the Irish sea than Unionists supposed. It therefore intrudes ineluctably on the Belfast agreement.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman is making; they are important to the debate. Is he appalled by the suggestion that was made tonight from the Opposition Benches that we would invoke America to stop doing a trade deal with the United Kingdom just because of this? Is he appalled that someone in this Parliament would invoke America to do that? Is he appalled that someone would do it just to save little bits of paper between Northern Ireland and GB when doing trade? Is he not appalled by that? Because I am.

[Imran Ahmad Khan]

I am mildly surprised. I worked for some time for the Pentagon and the State Department, and I know the Americans very well. Like the United Kingdom, it is a nation built upon laws and it has representatives. The Americans know their national interest exceptionally well, and of course it is in the American national interest to have an expansive and ambitious free trade agreement with the United Kingdom, given our size and wealth.

It is not only certain Members of this House who make peculiar statements. I have no sympathy with the hysterical, hypocritical and hyperbolic statements from the EU, declaring that the UK uniquely will be in breach of its international commitments. Half the countries of the EU are in breach of their various treaty obligations. Germany and France both choose to deliberately breach their EU treaty commitments relating to budget deficit limits, and others are famous for being selective in deciding which rules to follow. However, the UK has always held itself to a higher standard. Our principles of fair play and freedom, underpinned by the rule of law, are who we are. They are part of our DNA, and must be protected. Our position of global leadership and permanent membership of the Security Council is derived not from being a victorious power but from our moral authority. Moral authority is hard earned and easily lost. Once damaged, it is difficult to repair.

Having consulted highly respected experts in international law, some of us have concluded that if the EU, in breach of its obligations to act in good faith and with best endeavours, were to employ the withdrawal agreement as a Trojan horse, this Bill, if enacted and employed, would not necessarily constitute a breach of our commitments, under either UK or international law. Rather, the Bill would then serve as a protection against the abuse of our good nature and a reminder to the Commission of its obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Sometimes a piece of legislation comes along that is just so audacious, pernicious and chaotic that it is difficult to comprehend the scale of the carnage it will deliver in its wake. This single market Bill is a prime example of that type of legislation. It is almost unbelievable. It is a Bill that only this Government, with their weird assortment of Brexiteer oddballs, would consider going anywhere near. In fact, it is almost perfect for them, given their penchant for governance by chaos and disorder.

Breaking international law? For this Govt, that is a trifling detail. They just do not care. For them, being a rogue state is as natural as leaving the EU without a deal, or illegally proroguing Parliament. They are even starting to tell us now that being a pariah state somehow enhances the UK’s international standing. We can imagine, in a few years’ time, the Foreign Secretary of rogue state UK turning up to the United Nations during an international crisis that threatens the world order involving, say, Iran or North Korea, or an international convention or treaty. What authority and credibility would rogue state UK have in that situation? Kim Jong-un would turn around and say, “I’m firing these missiles, but only in a limited and specific way.”

I want to confine my remarks to what this rotten Bill will do to my nation. If the Government want their rogue state, that is up to them. If they want their no-deal Brexit, go ahead, have it, we will wish you all the best, but do not bring down our beautiful nation in the process. Never before has there been such a sustained attack on our Parliament or our democracy. The invention and development of the idea of a UK single market has been one of the most spectacular and dishonest pieces of political chicanery we have witnessed in recent times. The barefaced nonsense of this being a power surge is contradicted by practically every detail of the Bill.

There are two areas I particularly want to touch on. One is what is included in clause 46—the one that allows the UK Government to legislate directly in devolved responsibilities. This mechanism is designed to bypass the Scottish Government. The Scottish Tories know that they will never come anywhere near governing Scotland, so what they will do is just get around the process. Even under the new leadership of the ever charming ray of sunshine that is the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), they are still going down in the polls, so what they need to do is circumvent Scottish democracy and ensure that they get direct control and access to specific interests when it comes to Scotland. That is what they are doing with this particular Bill.

The other thing is the Competition and Markets Authority. I remember listening to all those Brexiteer colleagues over there, when they used to rage against all the unelected bureaucrats—remember these mythical creatures of yore? Well, I found them—they are not sitting in an office in Brussels; they are sitting in the Cabinet Office. They are not called the European Commission; they are called the Competition and Markets Authority, and it is them that will arbitrate on everything to do with devolution and what the Scottish Government can and cannot do.

[Ian Paisley]

Did the hon. Member not oppose the Northern Ireland protocol because it discriminated against the needs of the people of Scotland? Now for some reason he seems to be taking to his hind feet, wanting to support the protocol and oppose the Bill that removes those pernicious aspects of the protocol. Why has he changed?

[Pete Wishart]

I think the hon. Gentleman may be confusing me with somebody else. I say ever so candidly to him that I did not oppose just parts of the Government’s EU Brexit—I opposed it in its totality, as did the people of Scotland. We opposed overwhelmingly the idea that we have to be taken out against our will.

This is what it is coming down to. In the next few months, the Scottish people have a critical decision to make about the type of future they want for their country. They could decide to remain part of rogue-state UK, with the Government’s no-deal Brexit and all the other things that they want to do, or they could simply decide that they want to become an independent country of their own, making their own decisions and their own way in the world, deciding things in good faith, negotiating as a nation, and coming together with other nations in the world to ensure that we get the best possible future for us and our allies.

We have only a few short months when it comes to this, and I think we are beginning to see just where we are going. Independence now sits at 55%—the highest it has ever secured. There is sustained majority support for independence in Scotland. My nation is making up its mind about the type of future that it wants, and it is not this future as a pariah state, taking us out of the EU against our national collective will. We have only six months to get this debate properly focused and determined. I am pretty sure, when I am looking at opinion polls and seeing where independence is, that Scotland is making up its mind. Scotland is deciding that it is going to be a nation of its own.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The House is speaking with pretty much one voice this afternoon. I totally share people’s sense of urgency about wanting to get our wonderful creative culture and theatrical sector open as fast as we can, but the House will also remember that what we are trying to do now involves striking a balance. It is very important, as we open up the economy, that we do not go too far and risk a second spike and further outbreaks. People can see what is happening in Leicester, for instance. We need to be very careful that we do this in a prudent way. As we open the theatres, which we will, we want to make sure that we can do it in a covid-compliant and covid-secure way, and I am sure that is what the House would want.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It was excellent to see the Prime Minister participating in the Christians in Parliament event yesterday. I thank him for the kind remarks he made about our answered prayer for his own health, and I wish him continued good health.The Prime Minister said yesterday in a major speech that he wants the economy to “build, build, build”, and he announced that there will be 4,000 zero-emissions buses for the United Kingdom. Will he ensure that those 4,000 new zero-emissions buses, or hydrogen buses, will produce jobs and deliver a new green economy for the whole of the United Kingdom, and will he invest, invest, invest in hydrogen?

[The Prime Minister]

We will certainly invest massively in hydrogen. I cannot make any particular undertakings now about where those contracts will go, but as the hon. Gentleman knows well, I am a big fan of buses made in Ballymena.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very sensible point. What he notes, of course, is that we see a spike in voter registration when we have a general or a local election. Of course, this year there are no elections because of the coronavirus crisis, but just six months ago we had a general election in this country and we know that the December 2019 register is incredibly accurate because we saw a spike in voter registration.

We are also aware that electoral registration officers are already expressing concern about the impacts that coronavirus will have on the December 2020 registers, and the prevailing opinion is that the annual canvass is likely to be impacted in some significant way. I urge the Minister to favour using the very recent general election data of December 2019. The Office for National Statistics released that data just last week, and we saw more than 1 million people register between December 2018 and December 2019, indicating that the December 2019 register is much more accurate than the December 2020 register will potentially be.

The fact that the data was published last week demonstrates the lag in collating that data. So if, for example, the Government were to continue to use the December 2020 register, commissioners would probably be waiting until May 2021 before they had collected that data from EROs and could get on with their work. Let us help the boundary commissioners begin their important work as soon as possible by using the data published last week, which we already have, relating to December 2019 and the general election.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member accept that one of the key issues is to ensure that the electoral officers are properly sourced, supplied and located across the various constituencies? One of the problems in the last election was that because there had been a refurbishment and, indeed, a reduction in the number of election officers, there were errors in sending out people’s polling cards and some people did not know who in their household could vote. Does she agree that this is a good opportunity to ensure that electoral officers are properly supplied and in the right locations?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to put on record my concerns about the overstretched nature of electoral returning officers in our councils right across the country. Cuts to local government have not protected electoral returning officers and the resources that they are working with.

Turning to the issue of the electoral quota, I know that Members across the House will want to highlight their concerns about the impact of this boundary review on communities in their constituencies. Community has never been stronger than during these troubling months. Right across the country, we are seeing communities come together to support vulnerable people, and now more than ever, community connections must be valued and respected. However, the restrictive 5% quota tolerance in the Bill flies in the face of protecting community ties. I know that many of my Welsh colleagues are planning to speak this afternoon, and they will highlight some of the geographical challenges the quota throws up—by which I mean mountains dividing constituencies. In Devon and Cornwall, the Government have repeatedly ignored the historic and proud identities of those counties. Boundaries based on strict numbers that ignore identities do not carry community support, as we have seen with the so-called Devonwall seats in the last review. Will the Minister ensure that there is no Devonwall seat in this Bill? I suspect that Cornish MPs might want to table an amendment to protect Cornish identity. If they were to do so, would the Minister back them?

As the Minister knows, there is consensus among respected experts such as Ron Johnston, David Rosser and Charles Pattie, who agree that the 5% rule causes significant disruption to community boundaries. Indeed, they concluded that the substantial disruption on the map of constituencies in the aborted sixth review was not entirely the result of the reduction of the number of MPs from 650 to 600; their report showed in detail that disruption was caused by the introduction of the uniform national quota and the 5% tolerance. I commend to the Minister the private Member’s Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which suggests a 7.5% quota. Communities across the UK will be more representative if a wider quota is introduced. Why is the Minister refusing to accept the evidence and introduce a quota that would be better for everyone?

Covid-19: Strategy

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can confirm that the starting point of the fines will be £100, which will be lowered to £50 if paid within 14 days, but it will go up and up and up, as I said earlier, to £3,600. We do not want to impose these fines—nobody wants to impose these fines. We do not want to add to the burdens on our wonderful police force. That is why I hope—and I know—that the British people will exercise their common sense.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Can he assure the House that the Government will carefully manage the economy off the job retention scheme so that there is no cliff edge for the sectors he has mentioned? In hospitality and tourism, 16,000 people in Northern Ireland potentially face redundancy in a month’s time. That has to be carefully managed. Will he also protect Northern Ireland airports from unfair competition in the Republic of Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

We have made substantial provision for the protection of airports and other large businesses, with loans that the Government have made available. A question was asked earlier about the furloughing scheme. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the House will hear more about that from the Chancellor, and I have no desire to steal his thunder. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that one of the most salient and important features of this country’s response to this crisis so far is that we have looked after some of the lowest-paid people in our society—the hardest-working people—and we will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It was one of the many scandals of the last Labour Government. From memory, the PFI deals that they did saddled the taxpayer with £80 billion-worth of debts in exchange for £12 billion-worth of hospital assets. That is how Labour runs government. That is how Labour runs the economy. Let’s not let it happen again.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Prime Minister bring to an end the sickening outrage of a witch hunt against former police officers who served Ulster through the heat of the troubles and who will now face the most odious prosecutions for non-criminal misconduct? That would not be tolerated in this part of the United Kingdom and it should not be tolerated in mine.

[The Prime Minister]

We will make sure that we give support for all those who face unnecessary prosecution, and I am well aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I echo the final sentence of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) but not much else of what he said.

The Prime Minister was understandably very anxious to hold the general election before the Bill was scrutinised. As we go through the Bill in detail, the impact of his agreement on the UK will become apparent. The agreement will do a lot of damage to our constitution and to our economy, and Government Members will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents as those impacts become apparent in the years ahead.

I want to raise two points. First, I want to deal briefly with an important subject that I raised with the Prime Minister in the House on 19 October. I asked him whether he understood the worries of manufacturing exporters, as set out by their organisation, Make UK, about new rules of origin checks and other red tape that his deal will impose on them. He answered:

“The reason I am not worried about that is that there are no new rules of origin checks.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 594.]

But that is not what his deal says. Paragraph 22 of the political declaration, which he negotiated, refers to

“appropriate and modern accompanying rules of origin”

for the proposed free trade agreement, in direct contradiction to what he said in the Chamber. Of course, the reality is that there will have to be rules of origin checks to stop products from countries outside Europe entering the European Union via a UK free trade agreement.

Secondly, I want to talk about a subject—it has been aired already in the debate—where again the Prime Minister’s statements contradict directly the agreement that he has negotiated. The withdrawal agreement’s protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland—in paragraph 4 of article 5—states:

“The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 2 to this Protocol shall also apply…in respect of Northern Ireland.”

Annex 2 comprises 34 pages and lists what I count as 287 separate items of EU law that will continue to apply in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was celebrating exiting the customs union, but of course Northern Ireland will not exit the customs union.

The first of those 287 items of EU law is the European Union customs code, which will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the UK has left the EU, and that will have far-reaching consequences for Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), who both made fine maiden speeches highlighting some of these issues. In an earlier intervention I quoted from the Government’s own impact assessment. Paragraph 241 states:

“Goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be required to complete both import declarations and Entry Summary (ENS) Declarations because the UK will be applying the EU’s UCC—

the Union customs code—

in Northern Ireland.”

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has identified, does he agree that for any business in Northern Ireland—remember that 70% of our trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom—the codes that he has read out put a significant burden on doing business from Northern Ireland with the rest of our nation, and that should be changed if this goes ahead?

[Stephen Timms]

Undoubtedly the measure does that, but it is hardwired into the deal that the Prime Minister has done. What he means in claiming that there will be no checks across the Irish sea is anyone’s guess—just read the Government’s own documents. His statement is quite clearly untrue. The Treasury presentation on the Northern Ireland protocol that we have been reminded of makes the position clear:

“At minimum, this means that export summary declarations will be required when goods are exported from NI to GB, in order to meet the EU’s obligations under the SAFE framework.”

It continues, in a slide in the presentation headed “Economic Impact on NI”:

“Customs declaration and documentation and physical checks on W/E and E/W trade will be highly disruptive to the NI economy.”

That is the truth about where we are heading. There will be major damage to the Union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. One of the ironies of this is that it has been directly facilitated by the party in this House whose raison d’être is to maintain the Union.

The agreement that is implemented in the Bill will damage the UK, it will put the continued existence of the UK in its current form at risk, and it will damage the UK economy. I shall oppose it, and those who support it today will have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents as the impacts unfold over the years ahead.

Debate on the Address

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

This is the moment to repay the trust of those who sent us here, by delivering on the people’s priorities with the most radical Queen’s Speech for a generation. If there was one resounding lesson from this election campaign, and one message that I heard in every corner of these islands, it is not just that the British people want their Government to get Brexit done, although they do, it is that they want to move politics on, and move the country on, by building hospitals, renewing our schools, and modernising our infrastructure, as well as making our streets safer, our environment cleaner, and our Union stronger. This Queen’s Speech, from this people’s Government, sets in motion a vast interlocking programme to unite and level up across the whole United Kingdom, and unleash the potential of all our people.

This one nation Government will enshrine in law record funding for our NHS, take back control of our borders with a wholly new immigration system, toughen our criminal justice system with longer sentences for the most dangerous offenders, double investment in basic science research, and protect our environment with a Bill so ambitious and so vast, that there is no environmentally friendly way of printing it off.

This is not a programme for one year or one Parliament; it is a blueprint for the future of Britain. Just imagine where this country could be in 10 years’ time, with trade deals across the world creating jobs across the UK, and with 40 new hospitals, great schools in every community, and the biggest transformation of our infrastructure since the Victorian age. Imagine British scientists using new gene therapies to cure the hitherto incurable, and leading the dawn of a new age of electric vehicles—not just cars, but planes—and pioneering solutions to the challenge of climate change. I do not think it vainglorious or implausible to say that a new golden age for this United Kingdom is now within reach. In spite of the scoffing, in spite of the negativity, in spite of the scepticism that you will hear from the other side, we will work flat out to deliver it.

Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech was expertly proposed by a beacon of our one nation Conservatism, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She is not only a football coach of great distinction who has done much to champion the female game, which will be a key part of this country’s bid for the 2030 World cup, but is so personally skilled at the game, with what has been described by her adversaries as a “take no prisoners” style, that according to The Daily Telegraph—if you cannot believe The Daily Telegraph, Mr Speaker, what can you believe?—she was once barred from playing against men to protect their egos. She has even used this Dispatch Box for an impromptu game of keepy-up, using it as a goalmouth in what was probably one of the less shocking innovations tolerated by the previous Speaker.

My hon. Friend has also done pioneering work on tackling loneliness, improving dementia care, and, as we have heard, curbing the harms inflicted by gambling and alcohol. She is so dedicated to her job that she has regularly brought her son Freddie into the Lobby, so reducing the voting age to about six months. Chatham’s great parliamentary sketch writer, Charles Dickens, would himself confirm that her speech was in the very finest traditions of this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford was followed with great style by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). When he addressed this House for the first time in 2017, he said:

“the good people of Walsall North…have had to wait 41 years to hear a maiden speech from their Member of Parliament. You can only imagine how disappointed they will be”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 978.]

My hon. Friend was being characteristically modest, but I cannot help noticing how the good people of Walsall North have taken drastic steps to avoid another maiden speech. They not only re-elected my hon. Friend, but they quintupled his majority just to be sure. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out, you wait years for a Queen’s Speech then along come two in short order—something my hon. Friend will appreciate, as one of the growing number of bus drivers’ children on the Conservative Benches. He was elected—

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I know the hon. Gentleman wants to ask about buses, but I must make progress.

My hon. Friend was elected as a blue collar Conservative from a traditionally Labour seat, a path that many have just followed. Since then, as he pointed out quite rightly, he has secured funding for a new A&E department at his local hospital and a new railway station for Willenhall. I know he comes from a Labour family. In fact, I think his brother is a Labour councillor. When he first declared himself a Conservative he felt, he said, like the black sheep of the family. All I can say is I bet that if they are watching today, they will feel nothing but pride in my hon. Friend’s brilliant speech.

Let me also welcome to his place the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, a stickler, as we all know, for watching a Queen’s Speech at the right time. [Laughter.] Although I do not know what he has against coronation chicken, Mr Speaker. As our exchanges across the Dispatch Box come towards a close—alas—let me say that our personal relations have always been excellent. For all our disagreements, I have never doubted that the right hon. Gentleman’s beliefs are deeply held and his sincerity is to be admired. Certain members of his shadow Cabinet, on the other hand, are absolutely clear where the responsibility for the election result lies. The voters of the country have let his side down. They have forfeited the confidence of the Opposition and the time has come for Labour to take the only possible step: dissolve the electorate and replace it with a new one—at least, I think that is what the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said.

For my own part, I feel a colossal sense of obligation to the electorate that I and we are humbled to serve. I say to those people who lent us their votes, however hesitantly, that this Government will now engage flat out on a programme of change for the better. Tomorrow is the day when we finally peel back the plastic wrapping, about which you have heard so much, Mr Speaker, and present our oven-ready deal. It will go into the microwave as the withdrawal agreement Bill—it works in both devices, this deal—taking back control of our money, our borders, our laws and our trade, clearing the way for an overarching programme of national renewal.

Above all, it is time to invest in the institution that gives the country its cohesion and even our national spirit—the simple and beautiful idea that whoever you are, the NHS is there for you when you fall sick. As our NHS cares for us, so we will care for the NHS, delivering the biggest cash boost in a generation, and, for the first time, this Queen’s Speech guarantees a new funding settlement in law. What will that pay for? The biggest hospital-building programme in living memory, with 40 new hospitals, 50,000 more nurses—and their bursaries—6,000 more GPs and 50 million more GP appointments, and we will introduce a new NHS visa to fast-track talented staff from overseas. We will scrap those iniquitous hospital parking charges for all staff and vulnerable people, and we will guarantee dignity and fairness for everyone in their later years with a long-term and sustainable solution to social care. Indeed, I invite cross-party work on that solution, in the spirit of co-operation that I think is supported by many, many Members on both sides of the House.

While many of these measures were indeed foreshadowed in the last Queen’s Speech, fortified by our new mandate we will go even further. We will give millions of tenants greater rights over their rented homes, abolishing no-fault evictions. We will help millions of commuters whose lives are made miserable by strike action by imposing minimum service agreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important and valid point. I have no doubt that she reflects the concerns of her constituents, and we will certainly be looking at what we can do to make sure that people who are guilty of dangerous driving receive the penalties they deserve. I know that the Home Secretary will have listened very carefully to what the hon. Lady has said.

We will also end the dangerous practice of early release of terrorists, but our reforms will only stand the test of time if our system of government here at Westminster meets the challenge of a new era. The steady erosion of faith in politics has poisoned our public life, so we will establish a constitution, democracy and rights commission to recommend proposals to restore trust in our institutions and our democracy. As a first step, we will repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 so that never again can we have the ludicrous spectacle of an Opposition party trying to defy the will of a majority of the House and running away from a general election. We will do everything in our power to restore devolved government in Stormont so that Northern Ireland is once again ruled by its own elected representatives.

[Ian Paisley]

Of course, we all look forward to devolved government being re-established in Northern Ireland fairly and equitably for all. Will the Prime Minister make good on his commitment for a golden age for all of the United Kingdom by making good on his promises for bus building and infrastructure in Northern Ireland so that we can all enjoy that golden age, and will he build a Boris bridge, not just the Boris bus?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and he can certainly be assured of my commitment to ensuring that the beautiful buses continue to be built in Ballymena. I will do everything we can to ensure that that continues to be the case. As for his desire for a bridge to connect the two biggest isles of the British Isles, all I can say is that it is a very interesting idea. I advise him to watch this space and, indeed, to watch the space between the islands, because what he has said has not fallen on deaf ears.

When it comes to standing by our friends, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, one innovation that this Queen’s Speech introduces is that we will stop public bodies taking it upon themselves to boycott goods from other countries and to develop their own pseudo-foreign policy against countries that, with nauseating frequency, turn out to be Israel.