EU Council, Security and Middle East

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is relatively clear what is happening: Russian troops with Russian equipment are on Ukrainian soil. The evidence for that now is overwhelming, and I think our response should be very clear about how unacceptable that is. We should be making use of the great strength we have, which is that Russia needs America and Europe more than America and Europe need Russia. We need to make that relationship pay and play so that the Russians change their approach, but it will not be an easy step to take. I do not think it would be right to try to find some military response to this, but if we make our influence and our power felt, Russia will see the consequences.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Those of us who have lived under the actual activity of terrorism for most of our adult lives will welcome any statement or action by this Government, or indeed any Government, to protect citizens, our citizenship and our land and property. I therefore welcome the steps that have been outlined today by the Prime Minister, but could he go further? If a person arrives at a British port internally with their passport and the officer decides to hold that passport, will the individual also be detained? If not, would the Prime Minister consider detaining those heading to the airport who are going to have their passports seized or those returning, in an internment-like situation?

[The Prime Minister]

The point of taking away the passport at the border post as we are proposing is that we are then able to investigate the individual and to give ourselves some time to do that, but I will look at the other suggestions that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend is right. Some 200,000 Irish personnel volunteered to fight in the first world war. It is difficult to tell who was a regular, who was Irish and from the north, or whatever. They were just termed British in those days. Some 49,000 were killed in the first world war and we do commemorate them. As a Government we get on extremely well with the Irish Government. For myself, I laid four wreaths on Armistice day at Islandbridge, Glasnevin and elsewhere—the first time, I think, that a British Minister has done that since partition.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The men of the 36th (Ulster) Division and, indeed, all Irish soldiers were volunteers in the great war. More Victoria Crosses were won by Irish soldiers than by any other section. What will the Secretary of State’s office do to encourage primary schoolchildren in Northern Ireland to learn about the great sacrifice of our volunteers and our soldiers, and the commitment of our men and women in the previous century to our nation?

[Mr Robathan]

We are very keen that all children should know of the sacrifice of our forefathers 100 years ago. Education and education policy are devolved, but the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) is leading on commemoration and is doing an extremely good job. The hon. Gentleman mentions VCs. The first Victoria Cross awarded to a British soldier in the first world war was won by Maurice Dease at the battle of Mons. It was posthumous and he was a Catholic Irishman from Coole in County Westmeath.

European Council and Nuclear Security Summit

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I really do think that my hon. Friend is right about that. We have quite a lot of shale gas deposits in the UK and shale is also available in Europe, particularly in south-eastern Europe, the Baltic states and Poland. We have 75% of the capacity of shale gas that the United States has, but whereas the US has dug 10,000 wells, we have dug closer to 100. It is not written that Europe has to have higher gas prices and energy prices than the US. If we have the political will, we can deliver this safe and secure technology for our future.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The charge levelled at President Rajapaksa that he has failed to address the issues of the past properly is frequently levelled, in slightly different circumstances, at politicians in Northern Ireland. That being the case, why is the Prime Minister being inconsistent? He steadfastly opposes the internationalisation of our internal affairs. Surely he should also oppose the internationalisation of the internal affairs of a trading partner such as Sri Lanka and urge it to sort out its own problems.

[The Prime Minister]

I would give two answers to that very incisive question from the hon. Gentleman. First, here in the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, we have taken major steps to disinter the past and to discuss it and deal with it. The Bloody Sunday inquiry is one such example. That has not happened in Sri Lanka. Its lessons learned exercise is not going into the detail that is needed about the appalling events that happened, particularly at the end of the war. Secondly, although we guard our independence and sovereignty jealously, we did call upon friendly nations, including the United States, to help us with our peace processes. Frankly, in confronting one’s own past and one’s own problems, other countries can sometimes help. I think that Sri Lanka should take the same approach.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I would indeed. My hon. Friend is right: the US has failed to sign six central ILO conventions on labour standards, including freedom of association and other workplace concerns. It may be that a deal such as this could have damaging consequences for already insecure workers in the European Union and the UK, but on the other hand it might not lower standards and it might bring an economic and jobs boost that would benefit many in Britain. That is what we have to secure and we have to make sure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are set to one side and not realised.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

We currently export more agricultural products than we import in trade with the United States, and maintaining that balance would, of course, be beneficial to primary producers across the United Kingdom, principally our farmers. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that United States produce should meet our exacting standards in the traceability of foods?

[John Healey]

I do agree. What is interesting about the way in which the debate has progressed in the seven months since the House last discussed the issue is that the Commission has become much clearer in saying that the stance of its negotiating team will be not to lower consumer, environmental or labour standards. I will suggest later that that should be one of four central tests that we or anyone else should be able to level at the quality of the negotiations and the agreement struck.

My central point at this stage is to say that, for the first time—because of the level of interest and the level of mistrust in the establishment, politicians and big business—this cannot be a traditional backroom trade deal done by the elites in Brussels and Washington. Like justice, good trade policy must not only be done but must now be seen to be done. Any legitimate agreement must command the broadly based confidence that it will bring benefits to British consumers and workers, as well as to British business. It must be subject to the scrutiny of open debate; otherwise, there will be a risk that bad policy will remain unchanged and that fears will flourish unchallenged.

My argument to the Minister in particular is that those involved in securing and ratifying an agreement—Government Ministers, negotiators and elected politicians—will have to work much harder and more openly for a deal, and those of us across all parties who are for a deal will have to work much harder to provide support to enable that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

Quite simply, there would be no negotiations. Interestingly, our all-party group recently had the Canadian ambassador in to talk to us about the Canadian deal and what lessons it might have for the TTIP negotiations. When the question was put to him, “Look, we’ve got long-standing British-Canadian relations, so why haven’t we had a British-Canadian deal like this before?” in effect, he said, in his own diplomatic way, “You’re not big enough: it’s not worth our effort.” This sort of potential boost to our economy and jobs is available to us through these negotiations only by our being part of a European Union that is capable of conducting such talks and of reaching such a deal with the US as an economic equal.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, strictly speaking, he is not entirely right? As I have said, we export more agri-food products to the United States than we import from it. In fact, we export more minced meat to the USA than we consume in this country. Along with other food products, that means we are very valuable to the US as a trading partner, and we could reach our own deal on that basis.

[John Healey]

We are, indeed, such a trading partner, but I have to say that we are not big or significant enough to be in that position. Obama has made that clear and his staff have been even blunter—this sort of negotiation would not be available to Britain if it tried on its own to reach such a deal with the US.

Let me come back to the case for why the UK needs the economic boost and benefits of trade at this time. The size of our UK economy is still 1.3% smaller than it was before the peak prior to the 2008 global financial crisis and recession. The production component of our GDP is still about 10% smaller than it was before the downturn. We also have a high trade deficit—£30 billion in 2013—which has remained high despite the large fall in the value of the pound compared with the euro or the dollar during the downturn. At a time when we still have a domestic demand problem, trade deficits can lead to further weaknesses as income generated in the UK is spent overseas. In turn, that puts more pressure on factors such as household borrowing or inflated regional housing to fuel growth, which cannot produce a balanced or sustainable economic recovery. I must tell Government Members that, in his speech in Hong Kong earlier this month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised that the economic recovery has not so far been put on a sustainable footing. He said:

“Britain is not exporting enough.”

The TTIP alone will not of course produce the kind of long-term recovery that we need. Public investment in infrastructure and new housing, an active industrial and regional policy, and a new deal jobs programme for young people are all needed, but an ambitious trade policy will be an important part of our future economic strength.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way shortly. I will merely say that the fact that we have this near consensus in British politics helps to give the UK a leading role in the negotiations. It is one of those areas where, despite our, at times, slightly tricky relationships with the EU, the UK is acknowledged to be the member state most in favour of open trading relationships. It is known that the UK’s position is not dependent on the position of one political party but extends way across the political threshold. My role, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is to ensure that British interests and influence are brought to bear both in Washington and Brussels as the agreement goes ahead. It will be of huge value to achieve this, but let no one be too complacent about the prospects of getting a comprehensive agreement. It will not be easy, but I believe that the prospects are better at the moment than they have been at any time during my political career.

[Ian Paisley]

I fully agree with the way in which the Minister has approached this debate and the TTIP, but will he give us an assurance that he will ensure that the rights and interests of farmers and consumers are the top priority for the Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Let me say at the outset that I am pro-trade. I want our export industry to increase, and I want everything possible to be done to ensure that that can happen—and happen successfully. I think that we should approach the TTIP with confidence, but I agree with the Minister that we should also be alert to the needs of our community and our businesses, and ensure that they are given as much protection as possible in the negotiations.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) not only on the fact that he represents the finest-named constituency in the House, but on his agility in rightly focusing Members’ minds on the dynamics of the Scottish debate and how important it is to us. The Minister responded to the hon. Gentleman’s comments robustly, but I think that the issue should be a priority for us as well, and that we should remind our neighbours and friends of its importance to them.

I want to focus on farming, food production and consumer rights, because they affect my constituents dramatically. As I said to the Minister in an intervention, a good deal will be marked by how we ensure that the rights and needs of our farmers—our primary producers of food, and of excellent food—are protected, aided and abetted in the negotiations. There is no doubt that we produce the best traceable food in the world. It is a £20 billion-plus industry and an essential trade, and in my part of the United Kingdom it is the most essential trade. It is a mainstay of business and employment. It is the one sector in which our productivity is increasing annually. I believe that last year our food production increased by an average of about 12%. That is a Chinese-style proportion of growth. We need to keep a careful eye on it, and ensure that it continues.

The fact that we produce the best food in the world makes that food not just worth protecting, but worth exporting. It is clear that people want to buy our food and drink products. In my constituency, for example, the Bushmills distillery produces what I am told is the finest whiskey in the world. The Minister will have sampled it many, many times. That distillery employs 102 people in my constituency, but 90% of what it produces is exported, and the vast majority goes to the United States of America. Last year, its trade increased by 14%. Such growth must be encouraged, and must be seen as a major opportunity in the TTIP negotiations.

[Jim Shannon]

Not teetotal!

[Ian Paisley]

No, not teetotal, but TTIP.

I urge the Minister to think of the 85,000 people in our community who are involved in agri-food production, and to ensure that they and their rights are put at the top of the agenda, because that affects consumer confidence. We can say to our consumers, with strength and authority, that we know what they are consuming because it is traceable. That is one of the advantages that we have as an island nation, and we must use it to our advantage, because it makes our food a very desirable commodity. We need to ensure that food that is imported to the United Kingdom meets the same exacting standards as the food that we produce here. One way in which we can do that is to ensure that labelling is accurate, so that when we, as consumers, go to the supermarket, the local butcher or another local shop, we can see for ourselves what has been imported and where it has come from.

I think that farmers in the United States have a significant cost-of-production advantage over many farmers in the European Community. US farmers bear a lighter regulatory burden; they have a different approach to animal welfare, and they have a very different approach to animal traceability in their food production. They use hormones, and their environmental legislation is very different from ours. We must take cognisance of that in any trade negotiation. Trade must mean ensuring that imports are produced to equivalent standards, and that product labelling clearly distinguishes between different production methods in a way that is meaningful and not misleading. The Minister spoke about red lines. We do not have to reveal all the red lines; this should be a priority, and we should be aware of that.

The US is very competitive in beef production. Our prices are at crisis levels. Given the significant cost and production advantages in the US through the use of hormone growth promoters, if any changes are made to the EU hormone rules and tariffs are eliminated, it is likely that the US would be in a position significantly to increase the volume of beef exported to the UK. That could damage our significant industry. We need to be alert to that and to ensure that we get the best deal for our primary producers.

The poultry sector should be treated as a sensitive sector. Why do I say that? Since 1997, American poultry has not been allowed to be imported into the European Community because of pathogen reduction treatments. Those treatments mean that we do not believe that consumers should eat American poultry. If changes to the PRT rules result in an increase in poultry imports to the EC from the US, we need to take a careful line on that and ensure that we put our poultry industry, which is one of the biggest in the world and is associated directly with Brazil, first in the negotiations.

Those are key issues that will determine business direction in our country. I hope that the Minister will, as he has said, be alert to those issues.

G8

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously my hon. Friend’s second two questions are matters for the Russians, which they will have to answer for. I am clear about the information I have been given about the use of chemical weapons. Clearly there is a disagreement between what I believe and what President Putin believes, but what matters about paragraph 87 is that it says that the UN should be allowed in unhindered and that the regime must allow that to happen, and I think it is significant that the Russians agreed that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the statement by the Prime Minister and the distinctly “British agenda” set in Fermanagh. I am very happy that the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone have given way to a new dawn. I congratulate the Government on setting the G8 in Fermanagh and I look forward to other G8 summits coming there in future, when the British Government are back in charge—perhaps they could be in North Antrim.

May I turn to the part of the Prime Minister’s statement where he said, “We will not take any major actions”—on Syria—“without first coming to this House”? Can he confirm that that includes arming the rebels?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can, and I have said that very clearly. Let me be clear: although I know the saying, there was nothing dreary about the steeples of Fermanagh. The sun was shining and the countryside looked magnificent.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

Again, I suspect that we will have to address that when we discuss clause 3 and are able to go into more detail as to what it does or does not permit. As I told the hon. Member for Rhondda, I am not willing to go through a list of the rules that might be applied to the monarch’s consent. I do not believe that that has been done in matters of tradition before when consent has been sought, but that is a matter for clause 3. Clause 2 is absolutely clear about lifting the bar on marrying a Roman Catholic but, as I have said, it does not change the parts of the Act of Settlement that require the monarch to be a Protestant and in communion with the Church of England.

[Ian Paisley]

The more I listen to the Minister today, the more I realise that she has been at pains to emphasise and explain the point that I have made in amendment 16. I have also received reassurances from her verbally and from the Library’s paperwork. That is why I believe my amendment makes eminent sense, because it says exactly what the Minister has said at the Dispatch Box—

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but because his amendment has not been selected, we cannot debate it.

[Ian Paisley]

The point that I had hoped to make without making you cross with me, Mr Bone, is that the Minister could take the issue away—or perhaps get something from the House of Lords—and then bring back an amended Bill to the House next week. There is clarity in my amendment—

“provided that person remains in communion with the Church of England in accordance with section 3 of the Act of Settlement”—

and if the Minister were prepared to accept that, the matter would be resolved. It would clear up a lot of the confusion that has been voiced today, and the Bill would then have intent, thrust and clarity.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I am glad to be under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, as we discuss the details of this provision. Clause 2 is an important clause, but it raises complications and difficulties, to which hon. Members of all parties have been right to draw attention in order to check whether we are getting this right and achieving the objective.

We are in a different world from that in which the legislation that the Bill will change was created. As hon. Members have said, that was a time when Catholicism represented an actual political threat to the United Kingdom, because of the behaviour of some Catholic powers in Europe. We are long past that era now—indeed, we are in an era in which Catholics and Protestants are aware that they have more things in common—some very important things in common—than they have matters of difference, and an era in which there are many mixed marriages between Catholics and Protestants. We should recognise that people find ways of accommodating and even sharing in the benefits of both approaches to the Christian faith.

A further fact that we cannot simply cast aside is that we have a long national tradition associated with a Protestant monarchy and an established Protestant Church in England—the Church of England—which has its own long and complex history, including its own Catholic elements. We have a long-established situation in Scotland, dating from the Union of the Crowns, whereby the monarch is expected to uphold the position of a national Presbyterian Church in Scotland and to conform to it and attend its services when in Scotland. Protestantism is also a resonant feature of life in Wales and Northern Ireland, as, indeed, is Catholicism in both places. All that is part of our history and we cannot throw it lightly aside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I think the latest figures show that 60% of the country are adherents to the Christian faith. I do not know if I have a romantic view or not, but what I do know is that this nation, which has become a magnet for people from all over the world, has been forged and fashioned by the Christian faith.

It is a matter of deep concern to me that the leadership of my Church is completely consumed by other matters—in particular, homosexuality and women bishops—at a time when this nation is crying out for spiritual leadership, so I make no apologies for stating what I have said. That is why there is more to this measure than there might appear to be on the face of it. It is also why it is important that Parliament should be able to consider clause 2 in detail—because I think it goes deep into the heart of this nation.

We are not faced with a decision today, next week or next year, because as yet there is no successor to the son of the heir to the throne. We are therefore talking about something that is a long way off. Nevertheless, it is right that Parliament should debate these matters and be absolutely clear in the laws we pass and not leave them to the courts. It is wrong for the Opposition spokesman to assert that the clause heading is clear, because I think I am right in saying that the courts do not take into account the headings of clauses. I am sorry to be a bit pedantic, but that the courts take into account solely what is in the text of the legislation.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he allows me to point out that the 2011 census found that there were only 29,000 atheists in England and Wales, compared with 33.2 million who said they were Christian. That is why, once again, this point should be emphasised in our legislation, and why we should make it boldly and unashamedly.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My understanding is that it needs to come into force in all the realms. Interestingly, two of the realms, Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, do not, for their own reasons, need to go through the full legislative process. That is partly why we are so keen to keep the precision of the terms of the Bill and the narrowness of its scope, such that it can be easily adopted and digested under all the different parliamentary and legislative conventions that exist in the 16 Commonwealth realms. We now have a very short Bill of five clauses and a schedule. I urge the House to bear it in mind that, as I have explained, the Bill must be kept narrow in order to be adopted across all 16 Commonwealth realms.

I have heard it suggested that we should use the Bill to tackle the gender bias in hereditary titles whereby titles and the benefits that come with them leapfrog eldest daughters and are handed down to younger sons, or can be lost entirely when there is no male heir. Personally, I am sympathetic to that reform and can see why this seems like the natural time to do it, but, for purely practical reasons, it cannot and will not be done in this Bill. Nor can we can use the Bill to mop up any other constitutional odds and ends. Put simply, it cannot be broadened to include UK-specific reforms, because they are not relevant to the realms of the Commonwealth.

Turning to the all-important so-called Catholic question, the coalition Government are seeking to remove the current ban on heirs to the throne marrying Catholics; or, as the current legislation says, rather insultingly, depending on one’s point of view, from “marrying a Papist”. That law is a reflection of the times in which it was written. It followed nearly two centuries of religious strife within England, Scotland and Ireland; the threat of conflict with Louis XIV’s France and other Catholic powers; and tension with Rome. It was an era when legal defences seemed vital against a dangerous threat from abroad.

That does not just apply to the royal accession—in the 40 years after the Glorious Revolution a whole range of restrictions were put in place. Catholics could not vote, they were excluded from all professions and public offices and they could not go to university, could not teach, could not be the guardian of a child, could not buy land with a lease of more than 31 years and could not own a horse worth more than £5. Edmund Burke called the laws

“well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people…as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”

Many of the laws were repealed relatively quickly. The ban on owning land was repealed in 1778 and that on voting and serving in the legal profession in 1793. By the time the ban on Catholics from serving in this House as MPs and from serving as judges was lifted in 1829, most of the main restrictions were gone.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Do not worry, I am not going to say, “Ah, those halcyon days.” If, as the Deputy Prime Minister’s colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said, the Bill will not rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic, would it not for the sake of clarity be beneficial to include that in the Bill?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Our judgment is that that is not necessary and that the Bill’s intent is entirely clear.

To bring us right up to date—given that the hon. Gentleman referred to yesteryear—it was only in November 1995 that Her Majesty the Queen visited Westminster cathedral, which was the first time a reigning monarch had set foot inside a Catholic church since Queen Mary. That was a watershed moment in relations between the British state and its millions of loyal, patriotic Catholic citizens. Now it falls to us to take a step further in this journey by ridding ourselves of the arcane ban on Catholics marrying the monarch, and this Bill does exactly that.

I know that some hon. Members have concerns—we have heard them today—about potential unintended consequences of the reform. One concern, for example, is that if a monarch married a Catholic their heir would have to be brought up in the Catholic faith, and that, on becoming King or Queen, they would then assume their role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which would, in turn, lead to the disestablishment of the state Church. If we followed that logic, however, we should be introducing bans on marriage to members of every other faith and, indeed, people with no faith. Right now the monarch can marry a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu or an atheist, yet no one is alleging today that we are teetering on the edge of a constitutional crisis.

The Catholic Church does not have any blanket rule dictating that all children in mixed marriages must be brought up as Catholics. Indeed, if we look at the current royal family, we see that Prince Michael of Kent is an Anglican, his wife a Catholic and their heirs, Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, are Anglican and retain their places in line to the throne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

I suppose it would be up to the individual to decide to do that, but we are talking not about the actions of an individual in certain circumstances but about what the law requires them to do.

I referred to the Commonwealth. We are pleased that the Government have received final agreement in writing from the other 15 Commonwealth realms. The agreement relates to the three elements of the Bill. We understand that to all intents and purposes, Parliament cannot change the Bill substantially, because if there were to be significant amendment the new text would have to be agreed by each Commonwealth realm. That would inevitably cause significant delay.

We are pleased that the Government have consulted the Opposition, and I thank the Minister for her courtesy. We have therefore agreed to the Government’s wish to expedite the legislative process. However, they have wisely recognised the mood of the House as expressed at the last Deputy Prime Minister’s questions and granted two days for the consideration of the Bill rather than one.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the hon. Gentleman asking the House to believe that faith and religion are now to become completely and totally disposable when it becomes convenient? If a future heir to the throne is raised in a faith different from that of Anglican, when it comes to the choice of retaining something that they believe in their heart, or having the prize of the throne, they could dispose of their faith. That is essentially what we are asking the nation to believe: in secularism, to a degree—that one’s faith no longer really matters.

[Wayne David]

With all due respect, I do not think that is the case. The Bill strikes a balance between modernity, which we accept we need to acknowledge, and recognising that the Church of England is central to the life of this country and its monarchy. I think a good balance has been struck and I am sure that some of the suggested unintended consequences of the Bill will be considered during our deliberations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod]

I am so glad to hear the hon. Gentleman being so supportive of Her Majesty the Queen.

[Ian Paisley]

Of course, the point is that she is our Queen.

[Mary Macleod]

I think we would all agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

At the outset, I declare an interest in that the changes brought about today will continue to discriminate against people of my faith, but I have absolutely no problem with that. In respect of those people against whom the law will continue to perpetuate discrimination, we have to recognise that that discrimination has worked consistently to date. It is utter folly on the part of the Government to unpick this settled matter, and I believe that they need to tread a lot more carefully. I agree with the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) that we should tread very cautiously and avoid rushing headlong towards the implementation of changes when little consideration and less consultation appear to have been part of the process. We simply do not know what the consequences of the changes will be or what they will achieve.

I say for the record that I agree with the provision to change the rules on primogeniture and believe that it will find wide public approval. However, we have not sought public support for this change to our constitution, and the Government should make provision for wider consultation before they implement it. We ought to be forward-looking and recognise that making such a change now has the potential for significant consequences downstream.

Clause 2(1) opens up a royal Pandora’s box. We should be minimising points of potential crisis, not creating the certainty that there will be a crisis. That is why so many amendments were tabled on this specific matter. While I welcome the points raised and reiterated by the Minister about what the Bill does and does not do, I believe it would be reasonable to insert in it a provision that ensures that the offspring of the monarch—our future monarch, the heir to the throne—will be brought up in the communion of the Anglican Church. I think that would keep a lot of sleeping dogs at rest.

My amendment gives expression to the Government’s own words that the Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic. If that is the case, they will make satisfactory provision for that in legislation that could alter that settled position. Clarity here would be a welcome addition to the Bill. However, I have listened carefully to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that that was outside the scope of this Bill. I accept that point and will reflect on it when and if we come to a Division later.

Without such a provision, the Bill could create a set of circumstances wherein a future heir will have to make a choice between faith and throne. To create a situation in which a person has to choose whether to discard a closely held faith for a position is simply unjust. We need to ensure that we do not create the conditions for such a crisis. The Bill suggests that faith in this day and age is a disposable commodity, which is pure secularism. We should avoid that and make the matter clear in the Bill.

If the Act of Succession remains unchanged by the Bill, the Government have a duty to ensure that the Bill does not create confusion at a later stage when a future heir could be brought up in a different faith and then have to discard it in order to inherit. It would be far better to leave the matter alone or to insert a clause that makes it clear that the future Defender of the Faith will be brought up in the Anglican faith, irrespective of the religious faith of one of their parents. Otherwise, the Government should be honest and consider introducing legislation that disestablishes the Church. That is a matter for another day, but one that I hope this Government will not pursue, because it would be a retrograde step.

We have a great and glorious history, exemplified by the ongoing standing of our monarch not only in this nation but across the world, and by how much she is cherished by this nation. We should tread very carefully in trying to unpick and unravel aspects of our constitution that are best left well alone, as they continue to serve purpose for which they were developed.

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding, as it is mine, that significant subsequent legislative changes will be required to no fewer than nine Acts of Parliament—the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the Union with Scotland Act 1706, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937—and that we require more time to explore the implications and impact of those changes?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Again, I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. We need time to consider constitutional issues properly, because they have complex knock-on effects and their phraseology is crucial to how the Crown might pass in future. If mistakes are made now, we could discover that we end up with consequences that we do not want, or indeed—this comes back to my amendments to this allocation of time motion—that we are not able to consider matters that are very pertinent to parts of the Bill because the phrasing is too narrow and things have been done within a time limit that makes it very hard to extend into these issues.

My amendments seek to allow for an instruction to be debated that would widen the scope of the Bill to include the consequence of a marriage to a Catholic. I speak as a Catholic or, in the terminology of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, as a “Papist”—as a member of the “Popish” religion—and I am happy to do so. I find no shame in being called that; I rather prefer it to the more politically correct phraseology of “person of the Roman Catholic faith”, which is rather middle-management-speak, if I may say so.

It is proposed in the Bill that a Catholic may marry an heir to the throne but may not then maintain the succession by bringing up a child of that marriage as a Catholic. The reason I object to that is because it is an attack on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Canon 1125 states specifically that the bishop, who can give a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, is not to do so unless

“the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church”.

When I got married, it was with great pleasure and joy that I was able to make that promise, because there is no finer thing to be able to pass on to one’s children than one’s own religion; there is nothing finer than to have that hope of faith, that joy of salvation that comes from passing on what has come from one’s own forebears through the generations. In this Bill and under this allocation of time motion, the House is not allowed to consider the natural consequence of what is being proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. I would therefore like the amendment to be made so that we are able to consider the natural consequences of what the legislation proposes.

I would like us to also be able to amend the legislation so that a child of such a marriage that the law would allow could be a Catholic, but to protect the position of the Church of England, which obviously cannot be led by a non-member of that Church, so that under the Regency Act 1937 a regent would be appointed to take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and to hold the title “Defender of the Faith”—a papal title that has been taken by the Crown since the reign of Henry VIII. That is an entirely logical extension of what is proposed in the Bill and time ought to be allowed to debate it, because when we start these changes and decide that in this modern age we need to be more politically correct and allow Catholics to marry into the throne, we have to consider the consequence.

The consequence of what is being proposed is to leave in the deeply hostile anti-Catholic language contained in the Act of Settlement and the Bill of Rights. Such language would not conceivably be used by any Member of this House in this more modern age. The consequence is to leave all that, but to take out just a few words. If I may, Mr Speaker, it might be worth my reading out a little of this language:

“And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by any King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme”.

We are proposing to remove from that fewer than a dozen words and leave the main substance intact. I would happily accept no change at all, because that is the history of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, add my support to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). What an unlikely coalition of high Papist and tight Prod, pleb. Should we call it the “Papal Prod Pleb Alliance”, perhaps stronger than the one formed in the rose garden—who knows? Hopefully, it is an alliance that will be listened to today by the House, as we require more time.

This is an important constitutional issue that affects all the people of all the islands of this kingdom and the many Overseas Territories of which Her Gracious Majesty is Queen. We should take time to go over all these matters and consider them. In an intervention, I said that there were many Acts on which the Bill will impact, spanning from the 1600s to the 1900s. We should look carefully at the implications of all those things. Members assume that they know the intended consequences of the Bill, and indeed we have seen some of them, but there are unintended consequences too, as well as unknown consequences. We should therefore take time to consider what those consequences are.

Recently in Northern Ireland, we had a move to remove a symbol of our state from a public building. People thought that they knew the intended consequences, and thought that there would be minor disruption. There have been over 70 days of disruption costing many millions of pounds, because people did not take time properly to consider the consequences of that foolhardy action. Before we unpick something that is settled—the Act of Settlement, the hint is in the name: it is settled—we should take time. We should take time before we start to unravel that, perhaps causing unnecessary tension across the nation that could have consequences far beyond those intended by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Bill. I support the amendment, as we should take more time and get this matter right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, as happens with many such things. When the civil service and the parliamentary draftsmen are asked to look at things, their predictive text mentality focuses only on certain aspects and the rest of us cannot get any other logic or language in there. That is precisely the present situation. We do not have to take huge numbers of days to debate the Bill, but if Members are to be comfortable with how and what they are legislating for, we need more time.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said that we now have separate stages, but the Report stage will be very compressed and when Lords amendments come to the House, there cannot be amendments to them in this House, as far as I can see, unless they are tabled by a Minister of the Crown. There will be a very short Report stage and a short stage for Lords amendments.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for adding to the strange and wonderful coalition that is emerging on the matter. Does he agree that the Government appear to be saying, “We cannot give you more time because we would have to go to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belize, St Lucia, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, St Christopher, St Kitts, Nevis, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon islands, Barbados, the Bahamas and Jamaica and ask them their opinions, and that is just too complex, so let’s push this through in a hurry”? That is wrong. Not only have we a right to raise all the issues that concern us, but all those other territories will have matters that are of concern to them and they should have the same rights as we have.

[Mark Durkan]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. None of the arguments or excuses that might be offered for simply microwaving the Bill through in its present form—as the Government are doing today, without looking at the suspect content that we will still be leaving on the statute book—will stand. Those of us who are calling for more time are not calling for hugely more time, nor are we talking about the sort of grand world tour that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would love to go on to consult people in those other Chambers.

I know that some Members, including probably the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have a deep allegiance to the Crown. I know that the former Member for North Antrim, who just happened to have the same name as the current hon. Member, used to state straightforwardly that he was loyal to the Crown so long as the Crown remained Protestant. I am sensitive to why people have their own issues and their own thoughts, but other people have a different conscience and a different approach.

If some people’s loyalty or allegiance to the Crown is qualified by that religious precondition, those of us in the House who do not share that view have to ask why we, as the price of taking up membership in the House, are forced to recite a form of words that we do not believe. We pledge allegiance to the sovereign and to her heirs and successors, and remember, the Bill will make a change that has implications for who the heirs and successors might be. People are concerned about some of the consequences and the conundrums that might arise as a result of these changes. But I hope that those who have such sensitivities and concerns about succession will have some sensitivity to those of us who are forced, as the price of representing our constituents, to use either the affirmation or the oath. I use the affirmation, and I then hand my letter of protest about that to the Speaker. I use it under protest because I will not swear a lie. I will not swear a lie that I will bear allegiance to someone to whom—

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I note his concern, and indeed the range of views that have been expressed this afternoon. I dispute that we have heard only one side of the debate this afternoon; I think that we have heard a range of views on the programme motion.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and indeed for the very sincere way in which she has handled the meetings that have taken place outside the Chamber. Does she agree that she is opening a royal Pandora’s box of unintended consequences that will have a significant impact across the kingdom? If she satisfies me today by saying, “The Bill does not change the rule that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic”, unfortunately she will dissatisfy other colleagues in the House. I think that those matters have massive consequences. I ask her to address that point in her comments on the timetable and the lack of consultation that appears to have taken place.

[Miss Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those further points. He seeks to draw me on one of the amendments he has tabled. In brief, I assure him that my view, and that of the Government, is that there is no need for his amendment because those parts of the legislation to which it relates still stand. That leads me to an extremely important point: the Bill, as it stands, has an extremely narrow scope. Therefore, in the view of the usual channels and the Government, it is receiving the correct amount of parliamentary time for debate.

Patrick Finucane Report

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We continue to fund the Historical Enquiries team. I think it does good work and it should continue to do that. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that whatever terrible event we are discussing, people will always bring up other terrible events and quite rightly say, “Well, what about an inquiry into that? What information can we find out about it?” What is different in this case is that it highlights the appalling level of collusion there was and brings to the surface, effectively, not just one appalling murder but a series of appalling steps that were being taken and that need to be addressed.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

As we kick over the charred embers of Ulster’s past, an appalling and awful picture emerges, but today we are seeing only one tiny part of that. The Prime Minister is utterly correct to make it clear that there should not be a public inquiry into this matter, first because it would be wasteful, and secondly because if he grants a public inquiry in this case he knows that a chorus of hundreds of people from before Patrick Finucane was murdered and hundreds of people from after Patrick Finucane was murdered will ask, “Why not my relative? Why not me?” The Prime Minister is right to hold fast to that view and should not be swayed.

I also agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and ask the Prime Minister to respond to them directly. They made it clear that there is more than a shred of evidence that the Republic of Ireland’s Government armed the Provisional IRA and that there should be an investigation into that and honesty about it so that we can see the whole picture.

My constituents are sick and tired of a one-sided narrative of revisionism that says that the Provisional IRA were actually quite good and the troops and police were quite bad. That, in the current circumstances in Northern Ireland, is bloody stupid—and I mean literally bloody. It will send a signal to my constituents that people have to push, kick, throw and petrol bomb to get what they want, and not abide by the law. We are trying to tell them all to abide by the law.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about my decision not to hold a further public inquiry. Let me be clear again that that is not because the Government want somehow to hide or run away from the truth. We could not have marched further, faster or more clearly towards the truth than we have by publishing this document today. As for his point about republican terrorism, let me read to him from paragraph 117 of the report’s executive summary, where de Silva states:

“I have no doubt, however, that PIRA was the single greatest source of violence during this period and that a holistic account of events of the late 1980s in Northern Ireland would reveal the full calculating brutality of that terrorist group.”

That is the point that he makes and he is right to make it.

Charitable Registration

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

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

[Fiona Bruce]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Five hundred years ago, a certain monk nailed a certain thesis about his faith to the doors of a cathedral. Today, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), with Lutheresque zeal, has nailed her colours to the mast of this place and made an important statement about how the House is standing up for the little fellow as he looks down the barrel of the gun of the big fellow who is nothing more than a bureaucratic bully with his views on religious faith. I congratulate her on that stance.

The Brethren are the thin end of the wedge. Many hon. Members today have indicated what may be the end—who next? Far be it from me, the Member for North Antrim, a reformed and tight little Prod, to stand up for the needs of the Roman Catholic Church, but I will do so without fear or favour, because if the Brethren Church is first, who is next? The hon. Lady referred to people being unable to take communion in the Roman Catholic Church. It would be hypocrisy for me to attend mass and wrong of me to assume that I could take communion. I would not be allowed to. Will the Roman Catholic Church face being bullied and browbeaten by the Charity Commission? I hope not. I also hope that the Minister is listening, because this is the thin end of the wedge. He must take a stand, and do so now. He must do as the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have done and nail his colours to the mast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

We can all express our opinions, but I genuinely think that in this matter the substantive point that I have to make is that as things stand, unless the Charity Commission takes a different view on the evidence presented to it by the Brethren, it is for the tribunal to decide. I think quite genuinely and I say with real sincerity that it would be unhelpful for me to express a personal view as a Minister in that context.

I will move on to the second point. My answer to the first point—was this a good or bad decision?—is that as things stand, unless the Charity Commission changes its mind, it is for the tribunal to decide. A serious concern was raised about a ripple effect from the decision. There were concerns that the Charity Commission is pursuing an anti-Christian agenda. I am satisfied that that is not the case. As a public body, the Charity Commission is bound by equalities duties and by law must not discriminate in its dealings with different religions or faiths. A fact that has not emerged from the debate is that the Charity Commission continues to register hundreds of Christian charities each year, including charities that were previously excepted. That fact has to be reconciled with various statements—some of them quite wild—about the commission discriminating.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I have very little time and I would like to close on the third substantive point: is the process fit for purpose? The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) rightly said that this issue had been reviewed by the Government. We asked Lord Hodgson to review all the regulation and legislation affecting the sector. His preliminary conclusion was that the system that we have at the moment would be difficult to change, because there is a substantial challenge in trying to condense hundreds of years of case law into a rigid, fixed definition of public benefit in this place. His view was that it was better to stay with this flexible system, which can evolve over time and whereby things are determined by case law. We are reviewing that recommendation. This debate has certainly contributed to that. My position is that we will publish an interim report as a response to Hodgson, but we want to hear in particular the evidence from the Public Administration Committee, which has been looking into the issue. However, this debate has been extremely helpful.

I, like most other hon. Members in this Chamber, would like this issue to be resolved speedily. It has dragged on too long. I share hon. Members’ concerns about the cost that that imposes on the Brethren. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the decision, I urge all who are involved to get this issue resolved as quickly as possible.