Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

There are no amendments tabled to clause 7. We have tabled no amendments to clause 8, but, again, we will observe some of the points that others will make. Additionally, we have tabled new clause 1, which would oblige public authorities to comply with obligations accepted by the United Kingdom under the Council of Europe’s charter for regional or minority languages. It relates to a recommendation in the NIHRC’s Bill of Rights advice to the Secretary of State in 2008.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak, but it is even more of a pleasure to be called to speak second in this debate. I am very honoured. I will speak to amendments 1 to 5. Members of my party have tabled some 23 amendments, which show the quantity of our concerns and the quantity of ways in which the Bill does not set the scene for those of my Unionist community. I have been contacted by many of my constituents in Strangford, and indeed by some people who do not have an MP who will take their place to do their job. As a member of the public said to me, “Why would Sinn Féin need to take their seats at Westminster when Members of this House and”—I say this with respect—“on certain occasions, members of the Government are intent on doing their work for them?” What an accusation to those on the Government Front Bench, whose party we have supported on many occasions, and to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, with whom I have friendship but who has not grasped this issue for us, despite what we said the last time around.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on being called to speak early in the debate. Does he accept that it is not just Sinn Féin that cares about the Irish language or the protection of minority languages and cultures?

[Jim Shannon]

I accept that. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) explained very well where her party stands on this issue. I will speak from my Ulster Scots point of view and from the Unionism that I represent in this House and in the constituency of Strangford.

The fact is that a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland feel that this Bill is nothing more than a sop to Sinn Féin, and that the losers will not be simply the Unionist population, whose culture and heritage will be in second place legislatively; people will lose financially, because the money for this could be used to pay for an additional midwife on shift to assist the safe delivery of babies, an extra surgeon to perform a cataract operation, or an extra classroom assistant to help a special needs child to achieve their potential.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Bill does not reflect the terms agreed in New Decade, New Approach—in fact, it goes well beyond them. The Sinn Féin hand in the Northern Ireland Office is all over this. The NIO’s default position is always to give Sinn Féin what Sinn Féin cannot get in negotiations. It is unfortunate that when Ministers are appointed to the NIO, they seem to accept that default position, so that the NIO seems to be an extension of the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Republic of Ireland and a voice for Sinn Féin.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I believe that he is absolutely right.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

In a wee second. First let me say that we have real concerns about what is proposed in the Bill. We have had discussions with the Minister of State and the Conservative party, so they can understand our angst and—perhaps—anger. If the Minister has not understood that, by the end of this debate he will clearly understand it.

[Mr Baker]

I have clearly understood. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) are two of my best friends in this place, and to hear them speak as they just have is personally very painful. I want to reassure them and say on a slightly lighter note that while they accuse us of being a wing of Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin is perfectly content to tell me that we pander too much to the Democratic Unionist party—

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that, at the moment, what the Government are doing is about right, given that we appear to be offending all quarters. When I make my speech, I will answer the hon. Member for Strangford as best I can.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you.

[Claire Hanna]

Just to clarify, I do not know how much the hon. Gentlemen are in touch with the voting public, but believe me, between the two of them, they are driving voters into the arms of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin Members hardly need to turn up for the debate with all the platforming the hon. Gentlemen are giving them.

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to platform Unionism and more than happy to voice the Unionist opinion, which comes clearly to me from my constituents in Strangford. At the end of the day, we will hear the Minister respond and probably be disappointed—we know what he is likely to say. However, I hope he will listen intently to what we have to say. We are looking for parity under the Bill, and we do not see that.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will set out our aspirations in the amendments we have tabled. Those amendments are about getting back to what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. On Second Reading, we heard time and again that the Bill was all about honourably introducing what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. It is not. The three model Bills published at that time differ fundamentally from what we have before us this afternoon. Despite the bonhomie and friendly assurances, the Government have an opportunity to embrace amendments that take us back to what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Government to embrace what was agreed and to not set aside what was agreed for the sake of political expediency and at the behest of others?

[Jim Shannon]

I will make that point very clearly. My hon. Friend is right. That is our plea to the Minister. He and I entered this House together in 2010. We were good friends from the very beginning and we still are, but in the spirit of our good friendship, I suggest that we need some understanding of our point of view, and we are not convinced we have that at the moment.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I say very politely to the hon. Gentleman that I have had conversations with the Minister of State about the Bill. My hon. Friend understands the Bill and the issues completely; I share his understanding and think the Bill is fine as it is. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—my hunch is that he will not—that often when people say that somebody does not understand, what they mean is that that person does not agree with them, and until that person does so, they will continue to allege that that person does not understand?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has a point of view that it will not surprise him and many others to hear I disagree with. When we say the Minister may not understand, we mean that we feel that he has not grasped as we have what the Bill will mean to those of an Ulster Scots persuasion, like me. It is not that we are anti-Irish language. What we want is parity and equality in the Bill. Perhaps the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will appreciate that.

The drive to put a political weaponised language Bill before other needs during this cost of living crisis sends the message to people throughout Ards and North Down—96% of whom have no knowledge of Irish and 12% of whom have Ulster Scots knowledge—that they do not have parity and their needs are not paramount. That is the issue. The Government must carefully consider the messaging, because at the moment it is simply wrong, and if it is wrong, it has to be righted. The Bill is set to go forward regardless of timing, so I will speak to the changes to the Bill that are imperative if it is even to come close to being accepted by the people of the Province.

We all agree that the two commissioners—the Ulster British commissioner and the Irish language commissioner—should be of equal value to their respective communities, and that to secure that goal they should have different functions. Not only have we agreed this; we have insisted on it. In arguing that different commissioners should have different functions, with the objective of their being of equal value to their communities, it is plainly essential that the enforcement powers of both in respect of their different functions should be equally robust in engaging that which they also have in common—exactly the same group of public bodies. There are around 70 of them and the idea is that they follow guidance issued by the two commissioners with respect to their different briefs.

There is a serious problem though. The Bill before us today places a statutory duty on those 70 public bodies to have regard to what the Irish Language commissioner says, but places no such obligation on them to have regard to what the Ulster Scots commissioner says. What is the point of a commissioner whom public bodies can ignore? That is the straight question I put to the Minister of State. In the context of a cost of living crisis, can the Government justify spending money on creating an Ulster Scots commissioner whose representations public bodies can ignore? Why would anyone want the job of a commissioner whom all the public bodies could ignore if they so wish?



What conclusions might people from that community draw about how the Government view the importance, or lack thereof, of the community that the Ulster British commissioner is supposed to serve? They would know that they were less than second class, whereas if they had been denied a commissioner altogether, at least everyone would know that they were being discriminated against, and they would not have to suffer the indignity of being made to look as if they were being treated as equal to the other community, when everybody knows that they are not. Today, the Ulster Scots community is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

This of course is not about friendships; it is about actions and about what is right. What is not right in this Bill is that the Ulster Scots commissioner has not been given parity with the Irish language commissioner, and the issue for us is to have parity. If it is going to be right, let us have it right in every sense of the word. This is not about friendships, or about being bosom buddies again; it is about getting it right.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman misconstrues what I am saying. My support for the Bill is not based upon the fact that the Minister is an hon. Friend in party political terms. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Minister does not understand the Bill and that the Government, whom I am proud to support, seem hellbent on appeasing people who are in a politically different place from him. He suggested that the Minister was kowtowing, if one will, to a Sinn Féin agenda.

I have suffered some unfair and untrue brickbats from hon. Members over the time I have chaired the Committee. I say politely to the hon. Member for Strangford that it has to stop. This is New Decade, New Approach, and the Government are trying to move things forward with fairness and equity, respect and support for all of those whom the Government recognise as citizens of the United Kingdom. That is the central mission. That is what underpins New Decade, New Approach. That is the bedrock of the Bill. It has my wholehearted support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

I will not retract what I have said. It is absolutely correct: you stood shoulder to shoulder during the time when the Executive were pulled down by Sinn Féin at the behest of its demands. The same political activists will adopt the same approach should they not be appeased again. Like many others, there is little faith in the Northern Ireland Office's ability to withstand such demands. That is a road to further instability and division in our Province.

Intertwined with this issue is the role of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and in that context we have tabled amendments 26, 27 and 28. These amendments underline the importance of political accountability and consensual ministerial agreement in the exercise of the functions of the headline offices and bodies established by the Bill. The two commissioners and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will ultimately be appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers. Compliance with guidance or directions mutually agreed by those Ministers must therefore be a defining feature of their operation. We would point out that the wording “must comply” is drawn word for word from the three draft Bills published in the aftermath of “New Decade, New Approach”. The existing drafting in this Bill reneges on that provision, emphasising the power to direct rather than the duty to comply.

There is an urgent need to place consensus working and cross-community protections at the heart of our politics. That is the key to the parity of esteem that all parties claim to value and cherish. As I have said before, it is ignored in the Bill, and the Government have the opportunity to address that.

Amendment 1 and amendments 2 to 5 address the duty to have regard to Ulster Scots guidance, and the current imbalance in the enforceability and robustness of the functions of the commissioner for the Ulster British Ulster Scots tradition in comparison with those specified in the Bill empowering the Irish language commissioner. The amendments, if accepted, would extend the grounds on which a complaint can be brought to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition to cover the conduct of public authorities in relation to all the guidance that they issue. Importantly, it would deliver parity of esteem by applying a due-regard duty for advice and guidance to the Ulster British Ulster Scots commissioner comparable with that which applies to the Irish language commissioner. The Bill, as currently drafted, creates an office for Ulster British Ulster Scots in which the commissioner can be ignored. With no binding duty or incentive for public bodies to adhere to recommendations from the commissioner, the likely impact of such a commissioner is seriously restricted. To the Unionist community, such a toothless tiger is not acceptable. We will not be bought off with the image of a commissioner with the substance of a ghost.

It is window dressing to expand the scope of the Ulster Scots commissioner to arts and literature but not to include guidance issued in those areas as eligible for the purposes of complaints. Limiting the scope to language is not fair or balanced. It has always been recognised that in order for the Unionist community to be afforded a commissioner who is of equal value to it as the Irish language commissioner is to the nationalist community, it must have a broader focus than language, because the development of bilingual service provision in Ulster Scots has never been a priority for Unionists. If adding arts and literature to the scope of the commissioner was deemed necessary by the Government to offset the risk of the added value for Irish language trumping Ulster Scots, it follows that the parameters of the complaint’s mechanism should also be extended.

Amendments 21 and 22 seek to right a failure in the Bill as drafted relating to the Castlereagh Foundation. The amendments tabled by my party colleagues in the other place would have required the Secretary of State to take action and establish the foundation. The eventual provisions to be enacted are ambiguous and provide an escape clause for the Government to farm out the function to an outside body without a clear explanation.

Throughout my comments, I have cited instances in which there is a departure from NDNA, and we see this once again in relation to the Castlereagh Foundation. The NDNA obligation on the Government to fund the foundation is precisely that: an obligation on the Government. We do not believe it would be appropriate to vest this power on the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression irrespective of whether it is deemed an operationally independent branch. Moreover, the change ushered in by the Lords does not go far enough in respect of funding and establishment. It is not appropriate for clause 8 to rest as merely a permissive power which the Secretary of State may or may not use.

Let me now deal with our amendments relating to cost to the public purse. Amendments 31 to 35—again, in the names of my colleagues and me—address the fact that there is currently no mechanism in the Bill to ensure transparency and accountability with regard to public spending on each of the bodies and officers established. It would be wholly wrong for one office to run at a disproportionate cost to the other in fulfilling its duties. The existence of such a mechanism is therefore vital to ensuring parity of esteem between the various traditions.

An indicative £9 million is stipulated in the explanatory notes in relation to the establishment and operation of the two commissioners and the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression. However, there is no equivalent assessment of the likely financial implications for public authorities of having to give due regard to Irish language best practice standards and respond to advice on Ulster Scots. This is alarming: it is alarming for councils, who are looking at double-digit rate rises on hard-pressed householders; it is alarming for housing associations and our Housing Executive, who have record waiting lists and a homelessness epidemic to address; and it is alarming for our health trusts, who face unprecedented pressures.

[Jim Shannon]

I rise to reinforce what my hon. Friend says about councils. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council enforced Irish language signage in Saintfield town against the wishes of the people there. That is an example of pushing something that local people do not want.

[Carla Lockhart]

At a significant cost, no doubt, to the ratepayer.

Ultimately, in the delivery of visible and frontline public services, the measure will mean substantive added cost. The new Prime Minister has been elected on his handling of the public finances; let us have some management of public money in this Bill.

The last amendment I will address is amendment 29. This amendment would revise and expand the functions of the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition. The commissioner would be responsible for developing the language, culture and heritage associated with the tradition, reflecting the body of established work and existing human rights law. It is clear that all of the 70-plus public authorities engaged by the legislation provide services using a language and that the bilingual objective of an Irish language commissioner is such that they could all logically receive guidance from the Irish language commissioner. By contrast, the fact that there is no objective or duty for the 70-plus public authorities to operate bilingually using the Ulster Scots language means that the comparative engagement by the Ulster Scots Ulster British tradition commissioner will be far less. The addition of “arts and literature” is likely only to result in a slight increase in guidance for Ulster Scots. Thus a fundamental inequality remains. In this context, the case for widening the scope of the Ulster Scots Ulster British tradition commissioner to “heritage and culture” is very strong. Such a function is more likely to cut across the 70-plus bodies and have a more substantive impact for the Unionist community.

Colleagues have addressed other amendments and I am sure some will be picked up in the winding-up remarks. I urge the Government and the Minister to take heed of our desire to make this Bill better by making it consistent with NDNA, and consistent with the principles that lie at the heart of our political process around cross-community consent. I ask the Minister to seize the opportunity and to support our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), on retaining his position on the Front Bench. I am sure that he had an anxious few days waiting by the phone. I also congratulate his boss, the Secretary of State, who I know is engaged elsewhere on business related to Northern Ireland.

As I start my comments, I am very conscious of the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) about the sensitivity of the issues that we are discussing here today. I am very aware of the sensitivities relating to identity and language in Northern Ireland. As I have said numerous times, I regret that I am standing at the Dispatch Box speaking to these comments. I wish that all these issues had been resolved within the Assembly. I hope that the follow-up from this—let us be honest, the Bill will pass—is that that can be redressed and that any wash-up that needs to come will be dealt with locally.

For reasons that I will come on to, I do not want to take up too much time of this debate. Northern Ireland voices need to be heard, and I am glad that so many have been heard so far. Our view is that the Bill broadly keeps with the identity and language commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Language and identity issues have clearly always played a part in the peace process, and this Bill is a welcome development in creating an unambiguous framework for them.

It is important to remember that the Bill is an amalgamation of three draft Bills. These separate Bills were published alongside the New Decade, New Approach agreement. They were supposed to go through the Northern Ireland Assembly where I am sure that, with scrutiny, they could have been improved on and developed. Again, it is with regret that we are dealing with the legislation in this place, but the Government are right to uphold their commitment to take the legislation through Westminster when Stormont is unwilling or unable to do so. Nevertheless, it does present a challenge for how we approach the amendments today. We are conscious of not straying too far from the deal that was struck some years ago between the then Secretary of State, the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government.

Moreover, there was a very short period of time between the stages of the Bill in this House. As a result, there have been fewer opportunities for the Opposition to engage with important stakeholders. Some of the groups that I have spoken to feel frustrated that they have not been consulted to the degree that they would have wished. I had a constructive meeting with representatives from the Ulster-Scots Agency yesterday, but I would not want the Committee to misconstrue having a meeting as an endorsement from them. I fear that others may have done so, and I do not want to fall into the same trap. They have misgivings about the Bill and I have committed to meet them again afterwards to understand their concerns and to see how they can be addressed. As I said to them yesterday, I understand that this is most likely to happen from a position of this Bill having passed through Parliament. I would like to explore with them how the issues they are raising can be addressed, and I hope the Minister will similarly agree.

May I remind the Committee that the agency was set up by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement? I hope the Minister will keep engaging with it as much as possible. I have also met with Conradh na Gaeilge—

[Jim Shannon]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves off Ulster-Scots, I understand and respect him for his meetings with all the organisations that he should meet, but when he met the Ulster-Scots Agency it put forward a point of view on this legislation, asking for the same thing we are asking for. How does he see this legislation addressing the concerns of the Ulster Scots, when it is here to make those changes?

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the comments he made earlier, which I learned a great deal from. I see this going forward via the Northern Ireland Assembly taking it forward in Northern Ireland. That is how it must happen. I am happy, from the Opposition perspective and as the aspiring Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to start engaging and keep the engagement going, but I am aware that the best place to resolve these issues is within Northern Ireland itself. I hope we can create the circumstances and the Government will redouble their efforts to deliver on the commitments made to all parties in Northern Ireland, which so far have been elusive.

I also met yesterday with Conradh na Gaeilge, which has suggested parts of the Bill it believes could be strengthened regarding the Irish language commissioner. Taking this Bill through in one piece in this place, instead of in three separate Bills in Northern Ireland, has let those groups down. I am grateful for all the help those organisations have given—their expertise is invaluable. I also note that the Government Minister in the other place stated that he saw this legislation as being open to updates in Stormont once the Assembly has returned.

Our Opposition amendments 15 to 17 are probing amendments, and I hope the Minister will engage with them in good spirit. The amendments are simple and would expand the definition of public authority within the Bill to include the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. There were amendments accepted in the other place to address concerns that had cropped up since New Decade, New Approach. For example, the addition of the Castlereagh Foundation was not part of the draft legislation, but keeps within the wider agreement.

It is with that approach in mind that we have tabled our amendments today. The Bill currently excludes the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission from being subject to the proposed statutory provisions. As these bodies have a base in Northern Ireland and focus solely on Northern Ireland, it does not seem logical that they are not included. It seems to be accepted that both bodies will have a substantial role to play once the legislation is established. Considering the Northern Ireland Office is taking such an active approach with this Bill, I do not think it is unreasonable for it to have regard to the principles in it.

When these matters were discussed in the other place, the Minister conceded this point when he said:

“Of course, given the close interest of the Northern Ireland Office in the New Decade, New Approach commitments on which the Bill delivers, I would still expect consideration to be given to the national and cultural identity principles set out in the first part of the Bill, and the guidance issued by the respective commissioners. I would expect much the same with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2022; Vol. 823, c. 1020.]

For the benefit of our friends and hard-working members of Hansard, that was said in House of Lords Hansard, Volume 823, debated on Wednesday 6 July.

I do not believe that the uncertainty between what is expected and what is legislated is necessary. That is something the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission itself has made a compelling argument for amending. Its detailed briefing on the Bill stated:

“While it is reasonable to expect that such public authorities will act in good faith and comply with the Bill to the best of their ability, if they are not supported to do so it is likely that their actions will be significantly limited”

It recommended that the interpretation of public authority be amended to reflect section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which goes far beyond what our amendments suggest.

There is also the example of how Welsh language legislation works in this regard, which the Government could learn from. I am very curious to hear whether the Government’s views on amendments 15 to 17 have developed.

Turning to other amendments under consideration, we are supportive of amendments 6 and 7, which received support from all parties when they were discussed in the other place. We share the concerns about qualifying cultural expression on the basis of the sensitivities of others. Human rights groups have pointed out that it is not clear how that should be interpreted in practice. Without further definition, the concept of the sensitivities of others is subjective. We are concerned that it could restrict free expression purely on the basis of the prejudice and intolerance of others to such expression. When I put that to the Minister on Second Reading, he stated that,

“the approach we are taking is consistent with the draft legislation published alongside NDNA; it really is for OICE to implement this in practice.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 198.]

We understand why the Government do not want to stray too far from what was previously agreed, but that puts the new Office of Identity and Cultural Expression in a very difficult position as it will have to work out immediately what “sensitivities” mean in practice.

To take a step back, the Bill has been praised for trying to depoliticise language and cultural issues in Northern Ireland. In my opinion, the amendments would improve the Bill in that regard as there would be no further debate on the meaning of “sensitivities”. Using a human rights basis would provide much more certainty about the limits of cultural expression.

Finally, we are sympathetic to amendment 1. It would oblige public authorities to give due regard to the commissioner for the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition. When I met the Ulster-Scots Agency, it felt very strongly about that. The agency helpfully pointed me to the relevant passage of New Decade, New Approach, which says:

“The functions of the Commissioner will be to…provide advice and guidance to public authorities, including where relevant on the effect and implementation, so far…affecting Ulster Scots”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has said:

“For the Commissioner’s advisory function to be meaningful, public authorities must be required to have regard to that advice.”

For that reason, we support amendment 1.