Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor, for calling me in the debate. Its focus has already tended to drift towards the issue of language, but the Bill is about identity and language. I want to comment specifically on identity and the amendments that affect that.

Identity is a pithy matter. It is not so easily defined, and it affects us all in very different ways. Dame Eleanor, you have been to my constituency on many occasions. You will know that if you go to the townlands of Dunseverick or Ballintoy and raise your eyes to the horizon across the great Dalriada bay, first and foremost you will see Scotland—the outlan of your home nation. At the same time, standing in that part of my constituency, Belfast, the capital city of Northern Ireland, is almost 70 miles away. The capital city of the Republic of Ireland, Dublin, is about 160 miles away—some might say that it is 160 light years away. The identity of that part of my constituency, which infuses itself in the people of my constituency and those of that northern corner of Ulster, is a strange mix of Ulster and Scot; an identity that is unique.

If we are to deal with the protection of an identity, we need to get back to what the law states. The law in Northern Ireland is about protecting heritage, culture and equality; it is not a single-minded thing just about language.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

Of course, I give way to another Ulster Scot.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

It is not just something that is contemporary. The view from the Glens of Antrim is beautiful, but the kingdom of Dalriada used to cover much of Scotland; it was both Ulster and Scotland. Historically, that culture and identity is embedded in the DNA of the people. What I find most offensive is that the Bill does not reflect the historic significance of my Ulster Scots, Ulster British heritage and culture, and it does not afford it adequate protection.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which he makes powerfully.

When we deal with identity in this framework, we are dealing with equality law, we are dealing with equal rights, and we are dealing with something that has an impact across the whole of this kingdom, because it is about a person’s individual and community perspective. That enforces who and what we are. It is nebulous; it is shadows; but it is who and what we are, in terms of our identity. That cannot just be written down, with the Government saying, “We will give so many millions to the Irish language and so many millions to this other thing, and then we will have protected everyone.” That is not how equality legislation should work. It should be much more thoughtful and detailed.

If we are to take a perspective only on the language issue, according to the latest census in Northern Ireland, the language spoken by 95.3% of people is English. The next largest language is spoken by 1.1% of people in Northern Ireland, and that is Polish. There are no protections in our law for that. The next language, at 0.49%, is Lithuanian. There are no protections outlined about that. We come to the Irish language, spoken by 0.32% of the population, followed closely behind by Portuguese on 0.27%. So if we are to characterise this as a matter of language protection, let us protect the Polish language in Northern Ireland and the Polish people, who make a major contribution to employment. Let us identify and protect those cultures that are actually under threat, not cultures that are emboldened in certain ways by money and resources that appear to many to be unending. That is what the Bill should really be addressing, if it is about language protection.

When we come into this building through Westminster Hall, we pass under that marvellous window—the rights, equality and liberties window—that faces the portrait of Moses. That window contains representations of scrolls, and each and every one of those scrolls signifies disability rights and equality rights—I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), is not interested in any of this—and all the legislation that the House has made on emancipation, the right to vote, and women’s rights and liberties. If we in the House are to make a piece of legislation to deal with equality in a part of this kingdom, we should ensure that it is fit for purpose. The reason why there is a screed of amendments on the amendment paper is because the Bill is not fit for purpose as equality legislation. It is severely damaged, and it would not reinforce the rights and liberties of the people we have talked about.

I think that the Minister expects Unionists just to vote for the Bill, to accept it and to swallow it down. In the negotiations that he hosted, I discussed the issue with him. Other Members of the House will not vote for it. They will not be compelled to vote for it or be under any pressure whatsoever to vote for it because they do not come through the door to the Chamber, yet the Minister will hand them issues that address a lot of their rights and concerns. They are entitled to have those concerns, but that damages and demeans the issues that I have put on the agenda and in Hansard today.

The starting point for me is this: if the Bill is already broken, at what points is it not fit for purpose? Let us take New Decade, New Approach. The Chair of the Select Committee was quick to point to that as the starting point, the refresh and where we are supposed to be. Actually, the Bill breaches what was outlined in “New Decade, New Approach”. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) went into some detail, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), in an intervention, identified where some of the breaches are. Where a negotiation has taken place on what a Bill should say and do, we are used to seeing that Bill reflect the New Decade, New Approach agreement. But this Bill is completely at variance with the issues negotiated and put into New Decade, New Approach. That is why the Bill is not fit for purpose. No matter where one stood on New Decade, New Approach, that is what the Bill is supposed to represent. As a House, we should collectively take offence when we are told, “This Bill represents what was in New Decade, New Approach.” It is pretty obvious that it does not—it just doesn’t. That is the point that the Minister needs to address. In the same way that the Belfast-Good Friday agreement has been breached by the protocol arrangements, New Decade, New Approach has been breached by the Bill. That is the problem. That is why Unionists are agitated about this and why it should be fixed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Laughing and pouring scorn on their identity leaves Unionists—[Interruption.] “I’m laughing at you, not what you’re saying”—so you’re laughing at a people and at a community—is the barrow-boy response that comes back. I do not say those things. I have a very good record of not saying those things. I cherish people’s identity. What makes me strong as a Unionist is that I can have my identity and understand someone else’s. I love—not despise—the diversity that is there. It is the diversity that makes us strong. That is the point that the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) should dwell on when he speaks later on. No doubt he will.

The issue—this is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made—is about having due regard in terms of the commissioner. That is the point of the authority of the commissioner. The commissioner that will deal with the identity that matters most to me will effectively be powerless and emasculated from day one, unable to make a single ruling that must be taken care of or noted.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The reality is that under the office of identity there are a number of principles set out about how identity should be respected. The office can monitor how those principles are being adhered to and report to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to believe that the current make-up of the Assembly will offer any comfort when the same Assembly, during the jubilee year of her late Majesty the Queen and the centenary year of Northern Ireland, refused to allow us to put up a little rock in the grounds of Stormont, a little stone, to commemorate the fact that Northern Ireland was 100 years old? It refused to allow us to plant a rose to mark the jubilee of her Majesty the Queen, yet the Minister expects us to have confidence that the same Assembly will protect our identity when it will not even allow us to mark our identity in that way.

[Ian Paisley]

My right hon. Friend really drives home the point. The problem is that it is not one or two minor encroachments; it is a catalogue and the catalogue is growing. It is not as if it has diminished in time and these were examples from years ago. These are examples at some of the most key moments in our identity as a people: when we celebrate the jubilee of her late Majesty and when we celebrate the historic foundation of the state we cherish. When those things are threatened in the immediate past, I agree wholeheartedly with the point made so powerfully by my right hon. Friend. Under the Bill, the Government and the authorities in Northern Ireland will be obliged to listen to and direct people by one side, but they can ignore the other. If anyone on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches thinks that that is a sensible way to address this issue, they really need to tell us how, because it just will not work. That is, and will continue to be, a recipe for disaster.

We should expand the protection of culture and heritage, because we are only going to protect one tiny part. As was outlined in the St Andrews agreement and later put into law, as section 28D of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Government are duty bound—Minister, I would really like you to answer this point—to “adopt a strategy” and proposals that “enhance and develop” heritage and culture. It does not say anything about language. It talks about heritage and culture, which embrace language and all those things. The law is telling us that we should have protections that develop our heritage and culture, yet the Bill will limit our heritage and culture, and any protections that will be put on them.

Members have already identified the vast resources that are spent on identity and language in Northern Ireland, and the balance is very much out of kilter—extremely so. In fact, it is through the floor on one side and through the ceiling on the other. That is how out of kilter it is. Until that issue of resourcing is properly addressed, the Bill will be unfit for purpose. Minister, I would like to see proposals and protections for my identity. I would like to see them genuinely put in place. Until that happens, the Bill will be a travesty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I want to listen to reasoned arguments. Some of the DUP amendments may well have merit, but I am dubious about amendment 1 for a detailed reason, which I will mention.

I also want to address the points about Polish, Lithuanian and other languages needing greater attention. It is important to move beyond that argument, which is often thrown up. The reason that the Bill is before us is not about facilitating the use of language and people who face a barrier to understanding. It is about respecting, embedding and celebrating the indigenous languages of the island of Ireland, particularly the northern part. We should, of course, do work in parallel with that to ensure that we properly integrate people with other European and global languages into our society, but it is important that Members do not fall into the trap of trying to conflate the two and diminish what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. It is also important that we celebrate the language as being cross-cutting and to recognise that Unionism and nationalism are not monolithic in Northern Ireland. There are many other traditions. There are people who have moved away from those traditions and people who share both those traditions. We need to celebrate all that in our life in Northern Ireland.

At times, this debate has drifted into the Bill being somehow a threat to Unionism and the British identity in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, no DUP Member has said what he just suggested. We are saying that the Bill does not adequately protect our identity and culture. We are not saying that the Bill is the threat, but that it does not adequately protect them. We have explained why and I wish that he would sometimes actually listen to what Unionists are saying, instead of being so dismissive.

[Stephen Farry]

With all due respect, I have been listening. People are entitled to look back through Hansard to see exactly what was said, but the tenor of many comments that have been made today is that this is some sort of slippery slope, where the British-Ulster identity is being eroded and is under threat, and that there is no protection for it and people are fearful for the future. We have to embrace a shared and integrated future in Northern Ireland. That is the only way forward.

The Bill also needs to be considered in line with the wider human rights and equality architecture in Northern Ireland. It is not about protecting two different traditions in Northern Ireland, but about language and culture, which are separate issues. We already have extensive equality protections in various legislation; I think we should have a single equality Bill to better embed them.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

It is the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill—identity, not culture.

[Stephen Farry]

Yes, but identity is not something that we should see in a polarised way. That is the point that I am trying to stress. Let us focus on languages and on the identity that goes with them. Let us see them not as monolithic or as the sole preserve of one side of the community or the other, but as something that is shared across the board.

The framing of the Bill, with different approaches to the Irish language and to Ulster Scots, reflects the different uses of those languages and the different demands from sectors. It also reflects the different ways in which the UK Government have embedded them in the wider European and international human rights framework around languages. The UK Government ratified the European charter for regional or minority languages with respect to Irish and Ulster Scots in 2001, but Ulster Scots was ratified only in relation to part 2 of the charter, whereas Irish was ratified in relation to parts 2 and 3. That gives some indication of the pre-existing differential approach that has fed through into the New Decade, New Approach agreement and into the Bill.

We must ensure that we do not end up creating duties and expectations that are not actually being sought. Equally, we must not magnify what is already there and build it up into some sort of trope or threat to change the complexion and nature of areas. I have to say that a lot of fear has been whipped up about what the Bill’s provisions will do to the characteristics of some areas, which I do not think stands up to any scrutiny whatever.

One of the trade-offs in the negotiations behind New Decade, New Approach was that what is being done in relation to Irish is seen in perhaps a narrower sense around language, whereas the demand in relation to Ulster Scots was to do things on a much wider basis and over a wider range of areas. We do not talk about the Irish identity in the same way that we talk about the Irish language in the Bill, or in the same way that we have added the Ulster British identity to the Ulster Scots language. Already, in the framing of the terminology, we are not seeing a like-for-like comparison. Once again, that illustrates a differential approach in the legislation.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The hon. Member touches on an important point. I am not prepared to have my aspiration determined and defined by the aspirations of others. If the key demand of nationalists is that the Bill do what it does for the Irish language, that is their right, but at no stage during the NDNA negotiations did we ever suggest that our aspiration for this legislation was limited to language. We made it absolutely clear that it was not limited to Ulster Scots; it was about protecting our Ulster British heritage, culture and identity. Why does the hon. Member feel that his Unionist constituents in North Down should have their aspiration limited to conform to the aspirations of others who have limited their demand to language? We never did so. We were clear about what we sought to achieve. I therefore think that the hon. Member does not understand, and does not seek to understand, where we are coming from.

[Stephen Farry]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his comments, but I fear he has misunderstood what I am saying. I am not attacking the Bill in that respect; I am pointing out that there is already an in-built differential. What happened in relation to the Irish language was focused more narrowly on language and arguably went deeper in that respect, whereas what happened in relation to Ulster Scots and Ulster British is wider in NDNA and in the legislation, but does not go quite as deep. That is the fundamental differential—one is deeper, one is wider—and that is perfectly fine.

I am not seeking to diminish anything or remove anything from the Bill. I simply make the point that in the Irish language aspects there is not the same reference to the equivalent of an Ulster British identity. That reflects the different demands in the negotiations and confirms my point that what we have before us was hammered out extensively in negotiations over several years. All the arguments that hon. Members—the few of us who are here—are hearing today have been rehearsed many, many times. Very little has been said that is particularly new.

Let me move on from amendment 1 and touch briefly on some others. Amendment 6 addresses the use of the word “sensitivities”—a word that I think the Government should reflect on removing from the Bill. As the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) outlined, the qualifier for someone’s use of their rights should be someone else’s rights, as it is in international and domestic human rights law. “Sensitivities” is a very subjective term, and its use could be seen as implying that not liking what someone is saying or doing, in terms of culture, is a reason to intervene and stop it happening. The criterion for stopping something happening should not be simply whether someone is offended, but whether someone’s rights are infringed.

It would be a nice gesture if the public authority duty were extended to the Northern Ireland Office, not least because the new Minister of State is very active in Northern Ireland. If the Bill is good enough for public authorities in the devolved space, it should be good enough for the NIO, at least in terms of how it operates within Northern Ireland.

Amendment 13 concerns safeguards. Regretfully, I have to say that it is necessary to have an assurance that if there is no progress on the appointment of an Irish language commissioner, the Northern Ireland Office may need to intervene. The same applies to the publication of standards. My wish is for the devolved structures to be restored and to make quick progress on appointments and the approval of standards, but regretfully I must say that evidence from the past two and a half years or more and from what has been said today does not fill me with optimism that will happen. I have spoken to the Minister and I fully appreciate that it is not the Government’s intention to come in with a heavy hand, but it may well be necessary.

My final point relates to the Castlereagh Foundation. I have no issue with the foundation being referred to in the Bill along with the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. The fact that we have the office reflects how the Bill is engaging with language and identity issues in Northern Ireland; it is broader than what we are doing with respect to the Irish and Ulster Scots languages. It is important to have proper transparency. I must point out to the Minister the lack of transparency in the appointments process whenever the advisory panel was put in place in relation to the Castlereagh Foundation. I seek assurances from him that that will not be the practice in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I will, of course, obey your request, Dame Eleanor.

Can the Minister show how that discrepancy in this Bill will give Unionists the same protection? He is welcome to get involved in the quagmire, the chaos, the complaints and the friction that this Bill will cause. He may say that the Bill will be light-touch, but I suspect he will be dragged into controversies over it time and again. A requirement to impose rather than reach agreement is not a good way to proceed. With the powers the Bill gives to the Minister, he can be sure that the default position will always be that is for him to decide. Rather than reaching a resolution on these issues, it will become yet another focus for controversy.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), my hon. Friends the Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for their contributions this afternoon.

I will not rehearse the arguments that have been made very effectively by my colleagues, but I will touch on the politics of all this, which is very important and needs to be understood by those on the Government Front Bench. I was present during the negotiations on New Decade, New Approach, and the hon. Member for North Down is right that the negotiations on identity and language were tortuous, detailed and lengthy, because these issues are very sensitive in Northern Ireland. We know that, and we know some of the trouble we have had in Northern Ireland on issues arising from identity, culture and so on.

We want to get to a new place where we mark our diversity of culture, identity, language and so on through respect. That is the landing zone for us. When I look at this Bill, I recall clearly what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach, and I understand clearly, as a senior member of the DUP negotiating team, what we signed up to. I remember the detailed arguments that took place within our party about NDNA and the detailed consideration we gave this aspect of that agreement, and I am clear that the Bill does not reflect what we agreed.

My colleagues have made reference to the other draft Bills that were published and the difference there is in respect of NDNA. I wrote to the Minister—I am not going to repeat what I said in a very lengthy letter to him—setting this out in detail. He asked us on Second Reading to explain where we were able to highlight a disparity between what was in NDNA and what is in the Bill, and we have done that in detail. I was disappointed with his response to that, because I do not think the Northern Ireland Office understands fully the strength of feeling on these Benches about this matter. That is important, because we cannot support the Bill in its current form, which means we cannot go out to promote it to the communities we represent. The Bill will therefore fail in its objective, which is to promote respect in Northern Ireland, because the Unionist community—those of us who come from an Ulster British, Ulster Scots background—do not feel that it adequately respects and protects our identity.

Our identity is much wider than just the question of language. I will not repeat what I said to the hon. Member for North Down, but let me say that if nationalist parties wanted to use this vehicle to achieve what they have sought to achieve on language, we were clear that our objectives and aspirations were much broader than the issue of language. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford made that point clear. I therefore believe that the Bill fails adequately to offer the protection we wanted for our identity, culture and heritage, and so the Bill is not adequate.

I say to the Minister that we on this side of the House have watched closely the actions of the NIO in the past week. We are coming up to an Assembly election, we are told by the Secretary of State. The draft Order Paper for business for this week did not include this Bill. I was told by the then Government Chief Whip that the legislation would not come until after any Assembly election, in order to avoid any perception that there would be an attempt by the Government to influence the election. Yet here we are, with the Bill fast-tracked. All of a sudden it is on the Order Paper and we find that the Government are putting a tick in the Sinn Féin box. Sinn Féin can go out after today and say, “We achieved what we set out to achieve.”

[Stephen Farry]

This is a point of information, which I hope will be of service to the House. To be fair to the Government, this Committee stage was announced in last Thursday’s business statement, so it did not come as a surprise in the sense that we were bounced today with this Bill; it was properly telegraphed, as far as I am concerned.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I did not say that; I said that when the draft order was published last week, this was not on the Order Paper. I spoke to the then Chief Whip, who gave me the assurance that such a sensitive issue as this would not be debated further until after any Assembly election, yet here we are.

I have to look at this and come to the conclusion that there appears in the NIO to be fairly blunt attempt, in fast-tracking this legislation today and in refusing to take any amendments to deal with Unionist concerns, to further an agenda. I do not say that lightly. I am not given to making accusations that have no substance. I believe that this is a blunt attempt by the Northern Ireland Office to deliver a key demand made by Sinn Féin so that Sinn Féin can go to the polls and trumpet their achievement, and not to accept any Unionist amendments so that Unionism cannot go out and say, “We believe this is a fair and balanced approach to very sensitive issues.”

When we signed up to the New Decade, New Approach agreement, it was about the terms for restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland after three years of Sinn Féin saying that we could not have a Government until the Irish language issue was addressed. That is an indisputable fact. That was their key demand. New Decade, New Approach was therefore a package that was designed to address the concerns of people across the community, and it was the basis for restoring devolved government.

For Unionism, two key elements—among others—of that agreement helped us take the decision to go back into the power-sharing Executive. One was the UK Government’s commitment to protect and restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market. Two and a half years later, that has not been delivered. That is why, in February, I reluctantly had to take steps to withdraw the then First Minister—because the Government had not delivered their New Decade, New Approach commitment.

The second element was ensuring a balanced outcome on language and identity. The Bill destroys that balanced outcome. I therefore say to the Minister in all candour that if the Bill goes through unamended, we will have to return to the issue, because it is a key part of New Decade, New Approach. The measure needs to be balanced and respect the identity and culture of the Ulster British and Ulster Scots communities in Northern Ireland. We will not settle for second best. We will not settle for our identity and culture being treated as second class.

Our amendments are not about changing the provisions on the Irish language. We are not seeking to level down. We are not trying to diminish the rights in the Bill. We want to ensure parity of esteem for the Ulster British and Ulster Scots tradition, heritage and culture. We are not seeking to do anyone down. We want—to use a phrase that the Government often use—to level up, so that our identity, culture and heritage can be fully protected and respected, just as we expect the identity, heritage and culture of others to be protected and respected.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way, but will he bring a little clarity to some of his remarks? He said that DUP Members would return to the issue. He is entitled to his opinion and position on any issue, but we already have no Government in Northern Ireland because of the DUP’s stance on the protocol—we will not debate that today. What exactly is the right hon. Member saying about the DUP’s position if the Bill goes through? In my view, we have a desperate need for a Government in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I agree that we want the political institutions to be up and running. We have often heard from others that agreements should be honoured. That is often the mantra of others. New Decade, New Approach is not being honoured today. I simply say to the hon. Member and the House that we will not settle for the Bill as the final outcome. We will continue to argue our case that further protections need to be provided. I will listen carefully and closely to the Minister. This is not the end of the matter. It needs to be dealt with properly. We need fairness, equity and parity of esteem. We have often been told that that is what we want. That is what we need, and that is what I desire for the communities that we represent.