Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

There is a range of things that businesses can be doing and should be doing now, regardless of what the outcome may be, such as signing up to the Trader Support Service. We are intensifying, and have intensified, our work with the specialist Joint Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in supporting the clauses in the UK Internal Market Bill that will give businesses certainty by delivering unfettered access to the whole of the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have been contacted by a large number of my constituents who are involved in the agrifood sector and other businesses. With special reference to the packaging of products and the new labelling structure, I am ever mindful of the approach of 31 December, which has a cost factor for the labels as well. What information has been released for manufacturing companies to have certainty over their packaging?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that underlines why we are working with him to provide as much certainty as possible. On this particular matter, I am pleased to be able to tell him that we have recently updated our guidance on labelling changes that are required at the end of the transition period. That guidance is now available on gov.uk, and I will make sure that my office sends him the link so that he can send it on to any of those businesses that are inquiring already.

Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady about the process that we are going through. We are determined and focused on delivering on our article 2 obligations, as I have outlined. I would also suggest that she looks at the information that we will now be publishing. It has not been in the public domain before this stage, and it is an important part of the process, as is the work of the police ombudsman and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We thank people across society for the work they have done to keep this country safe at various times in our history.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I too thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I wish to extend my sympathy to those who grieve the loss of their father, husband, son and brother, but will the Secretary of State further outline whether the rationale used to exclude this case from public inquiry is the same as the criteria used to refuse requests for inquiries into the La Mon atrocity, for example, where 12 were killed and 30 were injured, including my constituent Billy McDowell and his late wife Lily, or the slaughter of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men, John Birch, Michael Adams, Steven Smart and Lance Corporal Bradley, at Ballydugan outside Downpatrick some 30 years ago? We need equality, and we want to see it.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman highlights, as have other colleagues this afternoon, some of the tragic circumstances and the importance of people across all communities, and us all, understanding the losses that have been seen across all communities. I would just say to him, as I have said, that every case has to be looked at on the merits of that individual case. In this particular case, as I say, I believe the next steps are the right ones: to allow the PSNI and the police ombudsman to do their work.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

Yes, I can give that assurance. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the importance for real people living in the real world in places such as South Down. We want to ensure that there is delivery on the intentions of the protocol, and that it can be seen through so that people can go about their lives and their business without having been impacted negatively.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The agrifood sector in my constituency provides some 3,000 production jobs, so it is very important. Can the Minister of State outline what specific inroads have been made on information for agrifood producers about the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure that, in six weeks’ time, their perishable valuable goods can continue their journeys in a smooth manner not only to EU countries, but to the UK mainland? Furthermore, what discussions have taken place with DAERA for that very smooth transition?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman raises a hugely important point. I have met many farmers and agrifood producers in Northern Ireland, and I recognise the crucial importance of that industry. The protocol ensures that movements of Northern Ireland produce into the European Union—into the Republic of Ireland—are protected. We deliver on the movement into the rest of the UK through our unfettered access commitment, and we continue to work very closely with DAERA on all these issues.

Pat Finucane

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I first congratulate you, Ms Bardell, on being elevated to your new position? I wish you well and know that you will do the job extremely well. I thank the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) for raising the issue. I spoke to him beforehand, so he knows where I am coming from. I just want to put some things on the record. On the facts of the case that he has so meticulously outlined—I say this for the record—my heart goes out to the family members who have been left with an empty chair that will never be filled. They have my sincere condolences. No one should ever lose a loved one in such circumstances. That is where I am coming from. That is my standpoint.

Unfortunately, it is the history of Northern Ireland that too many families have been left feeling this endless grief. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) just referred to that. Too many daughters have walked down the aisle alone, too many sons have graduated without their proud parent watching on, and too many mothers have wept over the clothes of their sons whose scent has long faded away. The devastation is clear in so many households in the Province to this day, and their loss must be acknowledged. I want to put that on the record.

I wish that that were not the case. I wish that my cousin Shelley did not have memories of that first Christmas without my cousin Kenneth Smyth after he was ruthlessly murdered 49 years ago, on 10 December 1971, by the IRA. I wish that his companion, friend and fellow worker, Daniel McCormick, had not been murdered. He happened to be a Roman Catholic, by the way, and the IRA murdered both of them on a road outside Castlederg 49 years ago. When Shelley came to me with Kenneth’s file clutched in her hands and tears in her eyes, I wish that I could have given her the justice she sought—I and everyone else here has equally sought justice—but I could not do that because it was not in my power.

This is not about tit for tat. I do not seek in any way to take away from the pain that the Finucane family felt and feel today. I, too, have had my debate in this House calling for the murder of Kenneth Smyth to be reopened, as well as that of Lexie Cummings, who was murdered by the IRA in Strabane. I have called for their murderers and the collaborators to be brought to justice, but nothing has been achieved, not because they did not deserve it—they did—but because they did not get their justice.

Kenneth Smyth’s sister and family, including my side of the family, long to see justice, yet we must trust in the most righteous judge of all. I am a Christian and I believe that you might escape justice in this world, but you will not escape it in the next. I believe that in my heart. I am sure that others here would concur with my sentiments. The righteous judge will mete out the appropriate justice to all those evil men and women who killed and have not been made accountable.

This debate was titled well: that consideration be given to the potential merits of an inquiry. I do see a family devastated and I want justice for them. At the same time, I see Kenneth Smyth’s family and Lexie Cummings’ family. I have a meeting coming up on a case that has come to me in the last few weeks. Private John Birch was one of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered at Ballydugan, which I have spoken about in this House—two or three Members here will remember that debate. Of the four UDR men murdered, I knew three of them personally. I know where they come from. Corporal John Birch’s son seeks answers to assuage his perpetual grief. He wants an explanation. He has told me in an email that he needs to talk to me about it. I said I will do that.

In any consideration of any public inquiry, the consideration of the third of cases that remain unsolved must be enshrined within. Do the families that I have spoken about, my constituents, not deserve the same treatment? They do. With all due respect, who will meet my cousin Shelley and tell her why the disgraceful murder of Pat Finucane deserves a level of justice that Kenneth Smyth is unworthy of? Who will explain why her pain and quest for answers should not merit a public inquiry, but Pat Finucane’s does?

I wish—I mean this with all my heart—for every grieving person in the Province to have the closure that we all need and we all wish to have. I wish for every child to feel that the loss of their father or mother has not slipped by. I want to fight for Jonathon Birch to have the full story of the murder of his father at Ballydugan 30 years ago to be heard, just as it is being done on behalf of the Finucane family today. I will not say that one person must simply accept a life of pain and questions while someone else deserves attention from the Government— I say that very respectfully.

Unless someone will attend the homes of any of the 211 widows of RUC officers and tell them that the slaughter of their loved ones is acceptable but that of others is not, I will not be able to accept this call. Unless someone will tell a child whose father was taken away so early that he has no memories of him, that his pain is not deserving of a high-level intervention, I will not be able to accept this call. I say again that this is not tit for tat, or saying that my pain is worse that your pain—it is not that. It is acknowledging that the Government should not create levels of mourning.

I want peace. I want peace for the Finucanes, just as I want it for every family who still grieves, but public inquiries cannot be the solution. Pat Finucane’s death mattered, and it still does, but so did the killing of Kenneth Smyth and Lexie Cummings. The same is true of John Birch, Steven Smart, John Bradley and Michael Adams—the four UDR men killed at Ballydugan—and of Stuart Montgomery, an 18-year-old police officer who was murdered in Pomeroy. It is also true of the other 3,200 murders in the Province. Their loss is felt today, and the pain of the innocent matters. So does the call for equal justice and, indeed, for this nation collectively to move forward.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Unfortunately, we are missing a Member, so we will now move to the shadow Minister and then the Minister. Even though we have gained a bit of time, I ask that we make time for Colum Eastwood, given the importance of the debate, so that he has an opportunity to wind up at the end.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I do intend to refer to some of his comments in my speech, and I will happily take his intervention shortly.

Further measures will be set out in the Finance Bill. These will have the same effect as those already proposed in the UKIM Bill, and will make it clear that no tariffs will be payable on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland unless those goods are destined for the EU market, or there is a genuine and substantial risk of them ending up there. We will take the necessary powers in the Finance Bill to ensure that this is defined in a reasonable and proportionate way, which ensures that legitimate traders are not penalised, while also resolving the outstanding issues relating to the payment of VAT and excise duty. So we are taking limited and reasonable steps through the legislation to create a legal safety net by taking powers in reserve, whereby Ministers can guarantee the integrity of our United Kingdom and ensure that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in line with the three-stranded approach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which has contacted me, and it says:

“there will be a total amount under the NI protocol that will be a maximum we can give to agriculture in the form of support and there will be a certain percentage that we could give as coupled support.”

It clearly sees that less state aid will be available for Northern Ireland and we will be treated differently from Scotland, Wales and the rest of England. Does the Minister of State agree with that?

[Mr Walker]

I will come in detail to the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman’s party later in my speech, but I do recognise that when it comes to state aid, we have made specific agreements under the protocol on goods traded between Northern Ireland and the EU, and we should stick to those in order to ensure the effective functioning of trade north, south, east and west. We are taking steps in the Bill to clarify the state aid elements, and some of those will be to the benefit of businesses in Northern Ireland. I will come back to that point in more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I mentioned the chilling effect. Arguably, if the UK Government and officialdom in Whitehall had not offered such religious observance to EU regulations over the past 40 years, this country would not have agreed to leave the European Union. We know that of other countries in the European Union, France has, en français, an à la carte approach to which regulations are important and which are not. The religious observance of regulations in this country has caused that chill factor and it is why people built up frustrations and resentment on the application of those regulations over the years. There is a fear that that could happen in this case.

Let us consider the Addison Lee case on state aid application of rules in this country. Addison Lee wanted to use bus lanes in London, but it was told it could not use them. Addison Lee took a case on the state aid implications because it thought the state was unfairly given an advantage over Addison Lee in London. The UK Government’s position was “Catch yourself on! It is a UK-funded public service versus a UK private business, and EU state aid rules do not apply” but the EU resolved that, yes, the rules were engaged because Addison Lee could equally have been owned by representatives from another member state. That is how the question was resolved, and Addison Lee can now use bus lanes. I have no doubt that the far-reaching implications of state aid law would open the opportunity for claims from elsewhere.

[Jim Shannon]

To back up my hon. Friend’s argument, the farming community and businesses across the whole of Northern Ireland have expressed their great concern about the different levels of state aid. They are not only referring to food, because subsidy comes in many forms. My constituents tell me that they are also concerned about being precluded from the tax reliefs available on the mainland, because potentially our competitive ability may be greatly hampered by that discrepancy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gavin Robinson]

I do agree. I know that the Minister went through a number of the amendments we have tabled and said, “Look, there are provisions about direct and non-direct discrimination and those still apply.” However, where a business is competing in a sector for which there are state subventions and subsidies in England, Scotland and Wales but where those same subsidies and subventions are precluded in Northern Ireland, there will be discrimination. There will be an unfair playing field in the economy of this internal market, and that square is not circled in this Bill. There are no satisfactory answers from the Government to say, “If we run with the implication of EU state aid rules in Northern Ireland, and if we support businesses in GB but not in Northern Ireland, how is there not unfair competition? How are there not direct or indirect discriminatory outworkings of the provisions of this arrangement?”

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a useful document, which I hope he will spend time considering. I refer to the Northern Ireland stakeholder response to the UK’s research and development road map consultation, which considers clearly some of the things the Government could do under clauses 46 and 47 in providing financial support for sectors in Northern Ireland. We hear an awful lot in this Chamber about doubling down on levelling up. We know that research and development support across the UK is hugely uneven, and that the majority of that money goes into the south-east of England, to London and to the east of England, and that Northern Ireland and other regions throughout the UK do not get their fair share.

The stakeholder response is a collaborative piece of work by Belfast City Council, Belfast Harbour, Queen’s University, Ulster University and Catalyst Northern Ireland. It asks that the Government ring-fence R&D support, with a minimum of £250 million per year for Northern Ireland; that they create bespoke arrangements that allow for flexibility of funds for the Northern Ireland economy; that they appoint regional delivery partnerships; and that they are considering an ARPA—advanced research projects agency—for the cyber-security hub in my constituency, our FinTech hub, the advanced and high-end engineering and manufacturing in my constituency, and the aspirations of a digital free port in Belfast. That ARPA opportunity is well worth considering and it is well worth showing that even though we may have an uneven playing field, our Government are serious about doubling down on levelling up and will extend support to Northern Ireland.

I would love to go through a lot of the amendments, but I am conscious that I have gone over my self-imposed timeline, so I will just discuss the importance of amendment 68, which proposes a change to clause 40. It proposes that Northern Ireland Assembly consent would be required for any new arrangements or requirements for goods traded from GB to NI, and new requirements would not come into force unless they were agreed with the consent of the Assembly. It would also provide that:

“No additional official or administrative costs”—

arising from new requirements—

“may be recouped from the private sector.”

The Minister referred to the trader supporter service, and we know that the Government have said that there are going to put £355 million into that service at this stage. Huge questions remain unanswered for businesses in Northern Ireland, which have heard that they have unfettered access to the UK internal market. Some understand that that promise is one way; some understand that that promise is NI to GB. Some do not understand that there are huge constraints on GB to NI trade, because the Government gave that power away in the withdrawal agreement. They passed it to the Joint Committee and therefore they are only half of the equation. We know that the Joint Committee is considering what goods are at risk, but businesses are trying to access goods in the rest of GB and their suppliers are saying, “Are we able to send this to you? Will we be able to sell you these goods? Will we be required to file exit declarations? Will there be a cost for us doing business with you in Northern Ireland, one that we are not prepared to meet or you are not prepared to pay?” If that is the case, it makes a whole nonsense of this internal UK market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is always a joy to come in on the fag end of a debate, when so many people have said everything that needs to be said and we have had a surfeit of lawyers on what is a very legalistic Bill—I am not one, thank goodness.

There is much good in this Bill. It is about the continuity of trade and the integrity of the United Kingdom, the principle of mutual recognition and the principle of non-discrimination of goods within the UK, and there is much practical stuff that, in the absence of an early agreement with the EU, we need to do. However, I have serious reservations about the inclusion of clauses 41 to 45 because of the implications well beyond this Bill, or indeed, well beyond our withdrawal process from the EU. They raise serious question marks about the intent and good name of the United Kingdom in being party to other international agreements.

When a Government Minister at the Dispatch Box states that the UK will be able to break the law, albeit in a “specific and limited way”, parliamentarians should prick up their ears and ask why and how, and demand proper justification from the Government and the Ministers to whom this part of the Bill gives considerable and ongoing powers. When the Government published this Bill in a hurry, that justification, I feel, was just not forthcoming from the Government, and on Second Reading, I therefore could not support the Bill. I would like to support the Government. I would like to support the Bill, but I need more assurances.

Amendment 4, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and which forced the hand of the Government with Government amendment 66, certainly helps, although it just gives an additional check without removing the powers reserved to the Government fundamentally. I say this as a concerned Brexiteer, but this is not a question of leave or remain. It has no impact on the UK leaving the EU fully after the end of the transition period on 31 December, but it does have an impact, potentially, on how we carry on our business in the world beyond the EU after 31 December.

I think the EU has behaved disgracefully throughout the negotiation period. It has exploited shamelessly the unique position of Northern Ireland as our land border with the EU but subordinate to the very important status conferred on it by the Good Friday agreement. It has used all sorts of underhand tactics to promote its pet causes, to keep the UK under the control of EU laws and regulations, be that British fisheries or state aid considerations and preventing us from being able to compete fairly, which is all we ask. “Unless you give us what we want, we will impose checks and tariffs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there is nothing you can do to stop it”—runs the subtext of the negotiations.

It has now become clear that the EU is trying to reinterpret the terms of the withdrawal agreement to impose control over internal markets within the UK that no other country would tolerate and none has been required to agree to as part of any other EU trade deal. Of course, as we heard from many hon. Members, the EU is no stranger to breaking international agreements when that suits it, especially as regards the WTO. Has the EU really been negotiating an agreement in good faith, especially when a precedent has already been set of what was possible with a Canada-type deal?

Despite all this, it does not, and should not, mean that we, the United Kingdom, have to follow suit and act badly as well. The United Kingdom has a reputation for upholding the rule of law. The Conservative party has always had as one of its most cherished doctrines the importance of upholding the rule of law, so I share, for once, the concern of many lawyers who are worried that these clauses represent a significant risk of violation of the UK’s international law obligations, including the principle of good faith and sincere co-operation; that the Northern Ireland protocol and associated case law would have a subordinate role dependent on ministerial interpretation; and that this would have potentially a serious impact on the reputation of the UK as a centre for international legal practice and dispute resolution. This would not go down well, given the professed ambition of UK, quite rightly, to be a leader in global trade and a trailblazer for free trade in particular. As the former Attorney General put it, assenting to these proposals

“would amount to nothing more or less than the unilateral abrogation of the treaty obligations to which we pledged our word less than 12 months ago, and which this parliament ratified in February.”

If we do not like what we signed, there is an arbitration process, so finally, I am genuinely bemused about why these clauses have been brought forward now and what they were intended to achieve. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Government amendments about them only being used in extremis, after all those other routes have been exhausted, and that includes the formal arbitration process. If we are going to pre-empt that arbitration process by saying that we will not go to arbitration, why include an arbitration process, and if we do believe in an arbitration process but we will not follow the result if it goes against us, that arbitration process is worthless and pointless.

Why now? Why not when negotiations have not come to a conclusion, if that is the case, despite the severe strain that this move has put on them? Why not nearer 31 December, if it has become clear that a deal has not been reached and the EU is determined to enact our worst-feared scenario? If this is a bargaining tactic, it does not seem to have gone down very well. It has not made negotiations any easier. It has not made a US trade deal any easier. It has not made any other trade deals any easier.

If this really is a bargaining tactic, it is necessary to be able to deliver on it, and there are doubts about whether the Bill can get through the other place. I am afraid that I just do not understand it. I hope that before we vote, Ministers will make everything magically clearer. I may give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but if it comes back for the vote of the Commons—not the Lords, notably—and those questions remain unanswered, I will not be able to support a Bill that retains these clauses unqualified. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong.

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. This is an intricate matter that is not helped by those with little or poor understanding of the Belfast agreement, or indeed of the truth of the troubles and our painful journey, using it as a political soundbite. Seeing Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, being led by a reporter to outline the consequences of this Bill for US-UK trade relations would have been laughable had it not highlighted the severe misunderstanding that many people are under.

This Bill is not designed to tear up the Belfast agreement; in fact, it is there to recognise that until the will of the people is to be Irish, we are to be considered British, and we are to remain so until a border poll is carried out. That border poll has not been carried out yet. The Belfast agreement underlines the notion of consent; for us to have an absolutely separate rule for state aid and other trade and transport damages the very principle of consent in the Belfast agreement. That is the reason that the Democratic Unionist party have tabled amendments on state aid—yet, for some, the message is not getting through just yet. Clauses 45 to 50 are very clear in their purpose.

The Ulster Farmers Union has also been very clear in relation to the levels of state aid in clause 43. The Republic of Ireland has a responsibility to its constituents to secure the best deals and the best advantages, but let us be clear: it is not our friend. It is at best a friendly rival, and at worst simply a rival with a voice to implement and effect change in Europe, against our voiceless efforts post Brexit. History has shown that when it comes to doing the right thing by refusing to allow criminals to take harbour over the border, it has no desire to help us as a nation. When I have listened to debates in the Dáil, I have never once come to the conclusion that it has our best interests at heart.

That is why my colleagues and I tabled our amendments to ensure that the fears of the Ulster Farmers Union and others are not realised. How, for example, do we allow fair trade for any of our dairy products when the mainland has state aid in place in the form of grants for dairy farmers? The answer is that we simply cannot. That is why we need to change state aid through these clauses tonight. Trade is at the core of our amendments.

Clause 41, which supports the delivery of the UK Government’s commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, does so by precluding new checks, controls or administrative processes on qualifying goods as they move from Northern Ireland to GB. It similarly precludes the use of existing checks, controls or processes being used for the first time, or for a new purpose or to a new extent. That does not show the destruction of the Belfast agreement, but it is necessary for the stability of food supply and state aid. Without it, we will certainly see the destruction of our country.

As the EU sees it, the UK has committed to comply with applicable notification and standstill obligations. That means that the ceiling put on state aid by the EU still applies in Northern Ireland in relation to trade. We will be constrained under the Northern Ireland protocol to a certain level of support for agriculture, only a certain proportion of which can be spent, for instance, on coupled payments. With that in mind, I believe that Northern Ireland could be constrained by these very rules. That is why tonight we wish to support our amendments and the clauses that the Government have put forward. We urge Members to do the same.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who I very much agreed with.

Today we are talking about the answer that Margaret Thatcher gave to Dean Acheson’s famous question, “What is Britain’s role in the world?” She was right: our national mission is upholding the rule of law. That lesson served her and our nation exceptionally well. It gave moral legitimacy to the courageous defence of British nationals in the Falkland Islands and strength to the treaty that she signed two years later with China to protect British nationals in Hong Kong. Trust in the treaties allowed Margaret Thatcher to start down the road of peace in our own nation and conclude the Anglo-Irish agreement with the then Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also thank the Secretary of State for all he has done with regard to the victims’ pension fund. May I ask him to outline what steps have been taken to claw back the money from Sinn Féin that was spent on the court case that took place solely because of Sinn Féin’s refusal to do the right thing and appoint a Minister to oversee the fund. Sinn Féin should pay the legal fees.

[Brandon Lewis]

The court was clear that the Executive, through their action of not designating, or refusing to designate, a Department, which was down to the Deputy First Minister, were acting illegally. The hon. Gentleman puts forward an interesting proposal, which I am sure that the Finance Ministry, in terms of wanting to make sure that Northern Ireland’s finances are well spent, will consider properly.

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

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 General Committees

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[The Chair]

I will take one final point of order.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Sir David. In the deliberations that this DL Committee will make, the issue of legality becomes a very clear one, and if I do get the opportunity to speak I will want to make that point. From the Minister’s point of view, and from your point of view, Sir David, when it comes to the issue of legality and whether this legislation is legal to take forward, I am ever mindful of QCs’ opinion, which will probably be given at some length. I think it is important that we know where we are with this Committee legislatively, because if QCs’ opinion—legislative and legal opinion from Northern Ireland and elsewhere—seems to indicate that we are following a procedure here that is wrong, then I question whether we can proceed.

[The Chair]

Again, I say to the hon. Gentleman that that really is not a point for the Chair. However, I can reassure him that these proceedings and the way that we are going about dealing with this piece of legislation are entirely legal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

As my right hon. Friend knows very well, the Government never comment on legal advice. However, he is quite right to refer to the fact that there has been a write-round process, and the Attorney General of the United Kingdom has supported that process to allow these regulations to move forward.

This statutory instrument, the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, came into force on 14 May and revoked the earlier regulations. These regulations have been made in accordance with the statutory duty that Parliament imposed on the Government last summer through section 9 of the 2019 Act. That duty was to make regulations to provide for lawful access to abortion services in Northern Ireland in a way that implemented the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women report of the inquiry concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, under article 8 of the optional protocol of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The CEDAW recommendations mandate access to abortion services at least in the cases of

“(i) Threat to the pregnant woman’s physical or mental health without conditionality of ‘long-term or permanent’ effects;

(ii) Rape and incest; and

(iii) Severe foetal impairment, including FFA, without perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities and ensuring appropriate and ongoing support, social and financial, for women who decide to carry such pregnancies to term.”

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister will know that the GB law allowing discriminatory abortion is already under fire. The way things are shaping up here, abortions of those who have Down’s syndrome, for instance, could actually take place. What consideration has the Government given to the GB law allowing discriminatory abortion, given that it is already under fire but this legislation is coming through with the same intention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Absolutely, and I recognise that the decisions that this House took to give the Government the locus to act on these issues were partly in the light of those judgments, both in the Belfast High Court and in the Supreme Court. The hon. Gentleman is right to address those issues. I must say, having met with Sarah Ewart and her mother, that I was hugely impressed by the courage that she has displayed in bringing her issues to light and publicly engaging in this, coming from a background that was not necessarily one that people would expect.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the Minister recognise the depth of feeling among the community across Northern Ireland? He referred earlier to churches and so on, but he will know that some 20,000 people signed a petition in Northern Ireland. In comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom, that would equate to half a million people on the mainland signing a petition. When it comes to looking holistically across the whole of the community, the number of people who are unhappy with the legislation going ahead is very important. There are indications that some 71% of the population would be unhappy with this liberalisation of abortion going ahead in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Gentleman refers to statistics, and numbers of people. These are contested matters; we hear of different polls giving different results on these issues. What is very clear is that this Parliament mandated the Government to deliver on this issue. We have the vires to do so, and we have sought to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I very much appreciate the opportunity to address this Committee on a matter that I have a great interest in. Abortion is a devolved matter and it should be a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann referred to the fact that 100,000 people in Northern Ireland today are alive because of our legislation. That was disputed by some, but the fact is that after an investigation it was clear that that figure was reasonable. It has been important for people in the rest of the UK, but it is very important for us in Northern Ireland. Some of the people we meet are alive today because of our legislation.

In 2016, the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly voted on primary legislation not to change our abortion law. The process begun in July last year is ongoing. We are all very fond of the Minister, but on this issue we really are at different ends of the spectrum. This impacts our law and constitution and poses deep questions.

The first convention that was flouted was through the application of the accelerated procedure. The fast-tracking of Northern Ireland legislation reduces further the scrutiny that these measures should receive. We reiterate our concern about the routine nature of fast-tracking legislation relating to Northern Ireland.

The second convention that was flouted was that, despite the Clerks’ advice to MPs, the amendment that became section 19 was clearly out of the scope of the Bill. The whole point of constitutional democracy is that it is not crudely majoritarian, especially if the policy affects different national units of different sizes, but it is subject to constitutional rules, devised for the good of the polity as a whole. Constitutional rules, however, have been ignored.

The third constitutional convention that was violated was the convention that Westminster should not vote on a devolved matter: 100% of MPs who took their seats in Northern Ireland were present, and 100% of those who were present voted against a change in the law. The constitutional outrage was and is on a par with two very dark moments in the recent history of the Union, which are now regarded as huge mistakes, and which have both been the subject of public apologies.

Others Members have referred to how much the Union means to them—how much it means to you, Sir David, and how much it means to us as Members. In the 1950s, it was decided that Liverpool needed access to another reservoir. It was decided that the best way of doing would be to flood and thereby destroy a village in Wales called Tryweryn. The people of Wales were rightly outraged that a Government should deem it appropriate to remove an entire village, with its history and its culture: 35 out of the 36 Welsh MPs voted against, yet the legislation was passed in this House, disregarding the opinion of the MPs in Wales.

The people in Scotland were rightly outraged in the late 1980s when the Government proposed to make Scotland the guinea pig and introduced the poll tax one year early. In the vote, the overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs voted against the legislation; yet it was passed, courtesy of the votes of MPs with no mandate in Scotland to make decisions. In 2005, the city of Liverpool finally issued an apology to the people of Wales. David Cameron also issued a public apology to the people of Scotland for this particular abuse.

I will quote a couple of people, although I am very conscious of time. Professor Hill said:

“The text of international treaties such as CEDAW are carefully crafted expressions of intent and belief. There is no reference to abortion in the text of CEDAW. There is nothing in the text of CEDAW which requires a state party to allow abortion on specified grounds and/or decriminalise abortion generally. The absence of such a provision in the formal text gives a clear indication that no such obligation exists”.

It is not just the view of one lawyer. It is also the view of Supreme Court in 2017. The conventions and the covenant to which the UK is a party carefully stop short of calling upon national authorities to make abortion services generally available. Some of the committees go further down that path, but as a matter of international law the authority of their recommendations is slight. It is hard to find words to express how deeply distressing for the people of Northern Ireland it is to be disenfranchised, like they were in Wales in 1950 and like they were in Scotland in 1980.

What they were doing has been described as a travesty of constitutional due process. The terms of the law were completely rewritten from the text debated on one occasion by the House of Commons, and were then subject to a time-limited debate of one hour, which covered all Lords amendments and was dominated by Brexit. If we add up the fragments mentioning abortion and the amendment, it took up 17 minutes of debate. Again, that underlines our concerns.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said:

“Public consultation began on 4 November 2019 and lasted for a period of six weeks. In our view this is too short for so sensitive a topic. Added to which, it took place during the General Election period and in the run up to Christmas, neither of which conforms with best practice. Of the over 21,000 responses received, 79% registered general opposition to any change to the established position in Northern Ireland.”

I am not going quote, because of the time, Sir David, but David Scoffield QC has been on the record and answered on many occasions, and we cannot ignore his opinion:

“The NIO states that, where possible, this statutory framework mirrors the Abortion Act 1967 so that provision will be broadly consistent with the abortion services in the rest of the UK. The NIO was, however, obliged by law to implement the specific recommendations of the CEDAW Report which relate to Northern Ireland. This report has sought to expand on some of the Government’s policy choices and also to air the main issues drawn to our attention in submissions, to assist the House in the forthcoming debate.”

I would have to say that the Northern Ireland regulations need to be referred to the Attorney General. We have ignored the John Larkin recommendations to the Committee. He said that the regulations in section 9(11) do not go as far as being able to the Act, which is a reform in the recommendations.

[Stephen Farry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

I am conscious of the time, and the hon. Gentleman has had his chance. I also want to give the Minister a chance to respond.

Liz Crowter says:

“At 24 weeks babies are viable. You cannot have a law that says it is OK to end the lives of some viable human beings because they have Down Syndrome, while saying that other viable human beings of the same age cannot be because they don’t have a disability, without saying human beings with non-fatal disabilities are worthy of less protection and are therefore less valuable.”

It is not just Heidi Crowter. Máire Lea-Wilson’s one-year-old son Aidan has Down’s syndrome. Papers were lodged with the High Court just last week. Mindful of such things, Parliament must vote to reject the regulations and ask the Government to think again. We have a functioning Assembly that can make its own abortion law, as has happened since the 1861 Act. Yet the Government are proposing that, before 19 June, Parliament vote on a devolved matter by passing the regulations. Others have referred to the 75 MLAs who oppose abortion on the basis of non-fatal disability. My point is that there is a stronger legal argument for us to leave the matter to the Assembly.

I would like to ask the Minister some other questions, but I do not have time. I will finish with one more point. The Government have cast constitutional due process to one side, through pressing for out-of-scope amendments in the context of accelerated procedure; failing to point out that there was no international legal imperative for changing the law, especially if doing so involved violating a key constitutional convention; the effective disenfranchisement of the people of Northern Ireland on a Northern Ireland piece of legislation on a devolved matter; peers having only a few hours’ sight of the amendment that became law before the debate; permitting only 17 fragmented minutes of debate on a completely new text that proposed making hugely controversial changes through secondary rather than primary legislation; giving only six weeks for the consultation; knowing that 79% of people said, “Please don’t do this”; the failure to welcome the restoration of the Assembly as giving Parliament the opportunity to repeal section 9; the production of regulations that undermined devolution significantly more than Parliament required after the restoration of the Assembly; the production of regulations in respecr of which the Attorney General has pointed out that the Secretary of State repeatedly exceeded his power; and responding to the cross-community vote of the Assembly by rejecting the regulations with absolute authority.

The British constitutional position is predicated on the assumption that no Parliament can bind its successors. The 2017-19 Parliament, happily, is no exception. The Government now have the chance to extricate themselves from a catalogue of abuses and save themselves from the huge embarrassment of asking Members to vote for disability discrimination in violation of the requirement in paragraph 85 of the Committee report on the regulations.

Abortion Regulations: Northern Ireland

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend expresses, and his experience of meeting directly with some of the women affected by this. As part of the consultation process, I have also met some of those people, and their stories are in many cases harrowing, so he makes a powerful case. Absolutely, yes, we will continue not just to write to the Department of Health but to provide all the support that we can in getting it to implement this. It is important to recognise that this law is already in force and in effect, but this House will debate it in Committee in the coming week, and I hope that it will then be absolutely clear that the House fully supports these regulations and wants to see them observed. That in itself will send a message to the Executive.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Could the Minister of State further outline the reasoning behind the refusal to repeal the Act and instead allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to take the reins? Before the initial vote in this place, Ministers and Members underlined that this should be a devolved matter but that if the Assembly had not reconvened, Westminster would step in. Now that the Assembly is convened, this week the people of Northern Ireland have spoken through their elected representatives, and they have spoken in a largely ignored consultation process. Now we are speaking about this again in this House. Will the Minister revert to the democratically approved method? Let the Northern Ireland representatives and the people of Northern Ireland decide. That is really where it should be done—not here.

[Mr Walker]

I have great sympathy for where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, in terms of the fact that the Assembly should have decided on this issue some time ago. It was a responsibility incumbent on the Assembly before it broke up to address this issue in a way that would satisfy our human rights obligations. Unfortunately, it did not, and to date it has still not agreed a way forward on this issue. As he will know, the legislation passed by this House set a deadline of 21 October for the Assembly to be back in place, beyond which the responsibility to legislate was placed on to this House, and that is the law by which we are bound.

With regard to the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman and others have made to simply repeal section 9 of the Act, that would not excise from the Government its wider human rights obligations or the responsibility of this House to deliver on our human rights commitments. We would still have a responsibility to deliver on this, unless the Northern Ireland Assembly had taken it upon itself to do so. I would point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly can reform and take forward these regulations, so long as it does so in a way that is compliant with our human rights obligations and CEDAW.

Victims of the Troubles: Payment Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

Again, my right hon. Friend speaks with huge experience and is one of the people who has contributed most to this issue being as advanced as it is. I totally share his frustration and desire to see it resolved, and to see it move forward. I agree with him that by far the most important people in all this are the victims themselves.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister outline exactly how he intends to operate the scheme, regardless of the machinations of Sinn Féin? How will he ensure that a scheme that is designated to acknowledge and support those who suffered innocently during the troubles is not used to traumatise them yet again through the despicable abuse of office by Sinn Féin? Will the Minister of State commit to take steps to rectify that abuse immediately?

[Mr Walker]

As I said in my statement, the Secretary of State is out there meeting with the parties and talking to the party leaders to address that very issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the huge importance of moving forward with this issue, addressing it and removing any blockages. It is absolutely essential that we get on and deliver it in the interests of the victims. The last remaining hurdle is the issue of designation, which we need to make sure is crossed. It requires the Executive to reach an agreement, but I think it is very clear where the challenges to reaching the agreement lie.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave a few moments ago. The British public want to see us deliver on our promises, and the Prime Minister is rightly determined to ensure that we do that. The best certainty that we can give businesses in Northern Ireland is that, as part of the United Kingdom, they will continue to have unfettered access, and to benefit from the trade deals that we seek to establish around the world.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Can the Minister further outline the plans in place to ensure that, post December 2020, the UK works and moves as one entity and that Northern Ireland is not precluded from alignment with its biggest market, mainland GB?

[Brandon Lewis]

We are absolutely determined to make sure we deliver the protocol in a way that, as we have said, ensures we deliver on our word that Northern Ireland has unfettered access to Great Britain, is part of the United Kingdom economy, is part of the United Kingdom customs union and will benefit from our trade deals around the world.