Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Like other Members, I regret that we are considering this Bill in this place in this way. I regret the lack of scrutiny, innovation and imagination that can come from Budgets being done in this way, and I regret the lack of shame from some about the collective failure that we are again foisting on the people of the region. There is definitely a sense of “same stuff, different day”, because it is worth saying that the way public spending is overseen in Northern Ireland is nearly always convoluted and untransparent. I joined the Finance Committee in Stormont in 2016, and when I was trying to get my head around the process I think had to go seven or eight years back to find a textbook Budget year. The process is so far from transparent as to put people off even understanding what we are doing.

It is also worth saying that this is not a Budget in the way people would understand the use of that term, in that it is not a list of political priorities. Again, that is increasing the cynicism among citizens about our ability to spend on things that matter to them and our ability to address the short-termism and the ingrained lack of responsibility-taking that unfortunately characterises Stormont for many people. Nowhere is that clearer than in health, where many years of this sort of stop-start governance and can-kicking has left that service and the people who deliver it for us in a really parlous state.

No party is without fault in that regard, but the two largest parties deserve the most opprobrium for walking off and staying off the job in late 2016 after the Bengoa report created a little bit of shared purpose and the little bit of hope that we could possibly reform services. What we are doing instead is allowing little bits of the national health service to fall down one by one, bringing all of the downsides of reform and none of the upsides. Just one example of that is the closure of a rehabilitation ward at Whiteabbey Hospital. It is a successful rehabilitation facility and it makes no clinical sense to remove it; its closure will send patient blockages back up the system for each one of those beds that is not reopened due to a lack of decision making. As well as the failures in those people’s lives and the pressures that that builds in the staff who are delivering the services, it will make it harder to achieve buy-in and confidence in health reform in subsequent years when we finally get back to working properly, because people associate the reforms only with closures and not with the enhanced services that they can bring. We know that there are challenges across the services, including waiting lists. Yes, people have said that they are bad everywhere, but they are far worse in Northern Ireland. GP services are facing an existential crisis, and deepening levels of mental ill health are engulfing many parts of the service.

We know that it is not just in health that we are failing people. If the climate targets that we finally agreed in the dying days of the last Assembly are not mainstreamed and given effect through Budgets and plans, they are not going to mean anything. The labour shortages that employers across Northern Ireland are facing are not going to be mitigated by, for example, parents, and particularly women, coming back to work, because there are no Ministers in place to finally get a grip of childcare. Adults with some vulnerabilities but who have plenty of ability to work will no longer be supported by the many European social fund projects. They will fall by the wayside in a crude Darwinian process that seems to be happening at the moment. Projects are failing, and we will have to see which ones survive. Without ministerial intervention, we will keep exporting thousands of students because of a cap on numbers, to say nothing of the challenges in schools that many colleagues have raised.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) touched on an issue that underpins all of this. As I say, yes, I am prepared to share the responsibility of failures over decades of devolution, but we cannot ignore the austerity that has been imposed on Northern Ireland, as on other regions, over the past decade and a half. No one pretends that devolution is perfect, but we have to —and our party certainly does—imagine a much better way to run our public services than being dependent on a little bit of a hand-out and being tethered to a vision of an economy that is related to Brexit, deregulation and threadbare public services. The SDLP does not believe that it has to be that way, even when we are operating within devolution. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), said that it was our job to do the bits that we could. To paraphrase Wesley: “You do all the things you can in the places you can for as long as you can.” It is probably simpler than that. Woody Allen said that 80% of success is just about turning up, and that is something that devolution is failing to do.

The SDLP has tried to make the constitutional set-up work, and will continue to do so, but it is not the limit of our ambition. Members have given all the reasons why devolution cannot work. They have mentioned the trader support service and the cost that that imposes on the Budget—not the Northern Ireland Budget, but the Budget from the Treasury. That is another cost of Brexit, but they fail to mention the £1.3 billion in increased exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic that have been achieved as a result of the protocol. We would want to caution them: if you take away even the status quo, even the possibility of cut-and-paste devolution in the UK, you have to be aware that people will look at other ways to meet their basic needs. As I have said many times before, and as Hume said, if you ask for all or nothing in governance, you often end up as nothing. We are prepared to work with anyone who will work with us to try to make some lemonade out of the Brexit lemons that we have been handed. There are opportunities and options, and there is space for compromise, both in the EU-UK talks and in the Executive when we finally have Members there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We come to the last Back-Bench contribution, from Mr Shannon.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I support this proposed legislation. We had the bandages in New Decade, New Approach of keeping Ministers in place after the Executive fell, and we are now on to the elastoplast. It is worth stressing the limited nature of this Bill. There are very difficult choices that civil servants in Northern Ireland are not able to take. There are big challenges in all sorts of areas, including health, with long waiting lists; education, with hundreds of millions of pounds going in the wrong direction on the budget; foreign direct investment, where Northern Ireland has a great reputation but not having Ministers has an impact; and community groups and other organisations, which are desperate for political direction.

It is worth stressing to the House that there is the current period of not having an Executive, but there have also been other periods. One party is getting a lot of heat this time, but there were other parties involved in the past, and the implication in Northern Ireland when this happens is severe: if we did not have Westminster and instead just had civil servants in Whitehall taking the decisions, people in England, Wales and Scotland would be up in arms. So I want to emphasise that the implications of not having political decision making in Northern Ireland are very significant.

We have heard a lot about restoring the Executive. I was lucky enough to work with Northern Ireland parties in 2019-20 to restore the Executive then, and I took huge inspiration from the quality of politicians in Northern Ireland and the constructiveness and good will there at that time despite strong crosswinds. There are attempts to think about ways to run a negotiation to restore the Executive separately from the issue of the protocol, but that ship has sailed, because for one group and community in Northern Ireland fixing the protocol is key to the Executive getting back up and running. I have had strong views on how we have got here, on how previous Prime Ministers have handled this and on other routes that could have been taken, but the polling shows there is strong support for the Democratic Unionist party position among a big chunk of citizens in Northern Ireland.

We have heard that the new Prime Minister went to Blackpool, and I think he has developed new trust and new connections, and restored connections with Ireland, France and other European countries. In my view, however, we are now at a point where we really need to appeal to the EU to think again about how it is viewing this negotiation. There is some frustration—well, huge frustration—particularly about how the Conservative party has conducted these negotiations over the past couple of years, and I suspect that many of those complaints are correct, but we now need this.

We now need the EU to look back at what it did in Northern Ireland. It set up a taskforce, with multiple reports and multiple streams of investment. It invested in the Peace bridge in Derry, and it invested in the Peace Plus initiative. It had the widest set of co-ordinated activity in the European Commission on this particular vulnerable part of the EU. It thought very carefully and worked very hard to bring stability to Northern Ireland, and we now have one community that needs change to happen to get back to the restored settlement that is such a key part of the GFA.

My appeal to the EU is to think again about how it is going about this. Northern Ireland deals, in my experience, are not great on lots of legal detail, lots of bold paragraphs and lots of black and white. Instead, they are really based on compromise, fudge and flexibility. Whether it is two lanes, two approaches or different approaches to EU goods and NI goods, whether it is providing options to businesses in Northern Ireland about regulatory rules, or whether it is taking the European Court of Justice away from the very front of this deal to some distance in the background, all these things are achievable.

Those are all things on which the EU has recognised the uniqueness of Northern Ireland, with the very limited impact its trade and the risk at the border have on the single market. In this 25th year of the GFA, one community needs these changes to take place. We have a Prime Minister who is really trying to reset this relationship, and we now need to go for it. We now need to really encourage the EU to think about this differently and to work intensively at a political level to resolve this, because it is only through the resetting of the protocol situation that my colleagues in the DUP will come forward and restore the Executive. We can debate all we want whether that is good, and whether they are right or wrong, but that is the situation.

In any negotiation, one has to identify the realities, and the reality is that we need significant reform of the protocol at every level, with the EU leaning in on why that is so important. At a time of all this conflict across the broader European continent, it would be a tragedy should the EU not be flexible on the best possible success story in Northern Ireland. I realise this is a debate about Executive formation, but Executive formation in Northern Ireland comes from protocol renegotiation, and protocol renegotiation comes from the EU having some amnesia about its views on the Conservative party position on Brexit and moving forward in the best interests of the citizens of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the leader of the DUP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interesting and important as this is, let us have a look at the scope of the Bill. Perhaps we can now return to the Bill before the House.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Mr Deputy Speaker, the scope of the Bill is about the government of Northern Ireland. If the government of Northern Ireland cannot function because of the protocol, we need to identify the problems that the protocol is creating.

I say to the Secretary of State and the Government that I think the United Kingdom has been accommodating in its negotiating objectives, as have we. The UK Government and Unionists both accepted from the outset of the debate that there could not be a hard border on the island of Ireland. Let us really think about that for a moment. The United Kingdom accepted, and we accepted, that using the place where customs checks normally take place, which is on the international frontier, would be disruptive to the political process and to the co-operation required to operate the political institutions in Northern Ireland—and what did the European Union do? It pocketed that accommodation and drove for an Irish sea border that it knew full well would have the effect on the Unionist community that a hard border would have on the nationalist community. I say it again: I agree with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that the European Union has a responsibility to put right what was done wrong in relation to the protocol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will allow this intervention, but I think we have gone way beyond the Bill that is before us. There will be plenty of other opportunities to discuss the issues that you are raising today, Sir Jeffrey. I know that this is vitally important, but there will be many more such opportunities.

[Julian Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU, on the issue of medicines, did show flexibility this year, and did start to move into the area that we were discussing earlier—the area of compromise and less hard facts? We need more of that in other areas. We should encourage the EU to use the principle that it applied to medicines in these other sectors, and to start to move in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman outline where he saw these price differentials? Through my work, I spend half the week in London and half the week in Belfast, and I am not seeing it. I do not think the evidence provided by the retailers is bearing out that assertion. Can he give evidence of the price distortions he says the protocol is causing?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I make the same plea: there are plenty of opportunities to talk about these other issues. We have the Bill in front of us, and I think it would be more fruitful if we directed our comments towards that.

[Bob Stewart]

I will not respond to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I have not been to Northern Ireland recently, but I will be there at the weekend and I will buy something in the supermarket. I have been reprimanded by Mr Deputy Speaker, and I always take a reprimand from the Chair with seriousness.

Northern Ireland must develop and regain its devolved institutions and local decision making, and I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—he is sitting on the Front Bench and paying great attention to everything I say, as he always does—is bending over backwards to try to sort out this problem. There is no doubt about that.

Nobody benefits from the current situation, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s continuing discussion and co-operation with the Irish Government on matters of mutual concern. However, I am somewhat worried by some suggestions that, if an Executive cannot be formed, there could be some form of joint authority over the island of Ireland. That must not even be considered. It is utterly unacceptable and would be a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We cannot have that.

Obviously, we all hope that an agreement on changes to the protocol can be agreed in time for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about docking the pay of MLAs because they are apparently not fulfilling all their duties of representation. I accept that, in principle, they might not be doing all their job, but every one of them—DUP included—wants to go back to work. However, I will support the Secretary of State if he decides to take that form of action.

I presume that, unless an Executive is formed by 19 January, new elections in the Province will be inevitable. To stop this, we need the problems of the protocol to be sorted by then. We really have to fix it, because my friends in Northern Ireland do not deserve to go through all this.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I sit down, having been reprimanded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I know I will not need to reprimand Gregory Campbell, because he will focus on the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hanna]

You are doing a great job yourself.

We began that work by tabling amendments to the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 to introduce an alternative election of First Ministers—[Interruption.] We do that work despite the chuntering from a sedentary position of people who just say no, who just nag from the sidelines, who are blocking good governance, and who, day by day, move more people towards considering and exploring a new Ireland—[Interruption.] Those on the DUP Bench below me have no interest in making Northern Ireland work, have derided and mocked people like me for wanting to do so, and have shown that they are unwilling or unable to do that. Those who vote for that party to protect the Union should really take a strong look at the strategic direction that is being provided and the value that they are being given for their vote.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am going to be less generous than I was earlier. As far as the protocol is concerned, the points have been well heard. Members’ remarks are going much wider than what is in the legislation before us. Can we have a bit of focus, please? There is plenty of meat here.

[Claire Hanna]

I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and my focus is exclusively on the restoration of the Executive and restoring government to the people of Northern Ireland. I am outlining the efforts that we made last year with the MEPOC Act to introduce or reintroduce mechanisms that would move us away from veto and confrontation, which have become the political culture.

We sought to equalise the titles of First Minister to clarify the joint nature of that office and to end campaigning that is only ever built on dominating other communities. We also attempted to introduce a change that would allow for the election of First Ministers based on the votes of two thirds of Assembly Members, including broad-based, not majority rule. It is worth saying that had that been voted for last July and extended to the election of the Speaker, we would be back in the Assembly now.

Solutions do exist, and we will engage with any solutions that are serious about ending the deadlock while retaining the core principles that we adhere to of common endeavour and mutual respect. The way that things are being operated at the moment and the tactics of the DUP are destroying trust in devolution, and the DUP is profiting from prioritising victory and veto in a system designed for partnership. As John Hume said many times, “If you ask for all or nothing, you will get nothing.” [Interruption.] DUP Members may think they are being smart by chatting over me, as they do. They reject anybody whose views are not identical to their own, and they will see in the long term where they get. As long as this fiasco continues, the Social Democratic and Labour party will continue to speak up for people who are just trying to get through their days, live their lives, raise their families and run their businesses. We will support the necessary provisions in the Bill that help them do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point is so well made. The takeaway from that is that it is the industry leads who are saying that the protocol will grind east-west trade to a halt within 48 hours, and that is a stark reality.

Last week I hosted the Minister of State on a visit to my constituency, and I thank him for that visit. He met Wilson’s Country potatoes. Wilson’s is a leading potato brand, but it faces ongoing difficulty arising from the protocol, because Scottish seed potatoes, needed to grow crops of certain varieties that the market demands, are banned from entering Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I gently ask the hon. Lady to return to the legislation that we are considering. We understand why we are here discussing it, and that has been dealt with very well by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, but I do not think that we need every Member to stand up and cover exactly the same area. The protocol will be debated again in the Chamber, I am absolutely certain, but let us not have lengthy speeches on it today.

[Carla Lockhart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for bringing us back to the Bill. The fact remains that we would not need it if the protocol was resolved.

Moving on to MLAs’ pay, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, seems determined to punish MLAs for his party’s failures. His party gave us the protocol, and in doing so undermined the fundamental building blocks of the institutions and the Union which they claimed to cherish. His party failed to act when the DUP offered time and space to find a replacement and avoid the position in which we find ourselves. Does he accept any responsibility?

Let me be absolutely clear: DUP MLAs will embrace any pay cut that the hon. Member for North Dorset, or anyone else for that matter, imposes on them, whenever it comes. That will not change their stance or the stance of the DUP. As someone who was in the Assembly when pay was cut last time, I can assure the House that we are in politics because of our conviction, not for the pay that we receive.

Our refusal to enter the institutions has the support of our community, which will allow us to return to them only on the basis of respect for our constitutional position and the restoration of the integrity of the UK. The Minister of State knows that, because he heard the message loud and clear in Hillhall when he visited my constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) last week.

Today, Members are exercised about the pace and severity of a pay cut. They ought to be exercised about the reality that should a new way forward not emerge soon, there will be no MLAs, no Ministers, no Stormont and no devolution. Furthermore, should those who now seek to exclude Unionism from the institutions under the guise of reform continue to undermine the agreements they claim to cherish, restoring those institutions will be increasingly difficult. It is telling that the same voices fell silent for years when Sinn Féin refused to enter the institutions. Indeed, rather than demand their exclusion, Alliance and Social Democratic and Labour party representatives stood at protests shoulder to shoulder with those blocking government. The double standards, and the desire to exclude Unionism from the institutions, are not lost on my community.

[Carla Lockhart]

We will have an opportunity to read Hansard and the Member’s contribution today, so we will be able to see that there is a clear ignoring of Unionist views and a clear sidelining of Unionism and the many people on whom the protocol continues to impact.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Get back to the Bill please.

[Carla Lockhart]

The onus is on the Government and the EU to bring about the conditions whereby power sharing can be restored. Should a new agreement be found that meets the seven tests that my party has outlined, we will not be found wanting in returning to office. The ball is in the court of the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that he was frustrated by it. That is why I am speaking today. We have seen the frustration, and for three years women in Northern Ireland have seen multiple letters traded between Departments but little change. It is worth reflecting that even during the pandemic, women from Northern Ireland were still travelling to England and Wales, with 161 doing so in 2021 compared with 371 in 2020.

It is welcome to hear what Ministers have to say. We helped to give those women a voice in 2019, and through the Bill we want to see those women given delivery in 2022. I have some specific questions that I hope the Minister will be able to address. The Government have powers in the Bill to direct commissioning. We recognise that public services need to continue. Those services include healthcare and—let us be clear—abortion is healthcare. Those who have sought to threaten that have not protected devolution; they have simply harmed women, and in particular women from refugee and minority community backgrounds who have been the least able to take advantage of an ability to travel in the United Kingdom.

Previous Ministers have told me that, even under those powers, one of the operational actions is for women to continue to travel. I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not a satisfactory response, particularly when dealing with incredibly tragic cases in which, frankly, travelling creates a health risk. Will he set out how that will be dealt with? I recognise that there is a challenge with staffing and that we are asking Ministers to move quickly, although some of us might reflect that, in three years, it is not unrealistic to have asked for priority to be given to training and recruitment, because the direction of travel that I was told was coming by previous Secretaries of State should have been translated across. Will he set out how the Government will ensure that the service will be properly staffed not just in one or two locations but across Northern Ireland? We know that there are travel difficulties within Northern Ireland, so it is not enough to say to women, “The service that you might need does exist, but it is in a particular location.” We absolutely want to see those services start, but ultimately, when we talk about a safe, legal and local service, it really does need to be local, just as we seek similar provision for our constituents here in England, Wales and Scotland.

Another issue we have seen, which I hope this funding can help address, is that there are very clear reports that some are using the online nature of seeking guidance about where services are to cause harm. What I mean is that some people are using advertising, particularly on things like Google, to encourage women to go to services that are not about abortion, but are trying to deter women from having an abortion. One of the critical issues is how women will know how to access these services. Ministers have said that they hope that services will be available on the ground within the next 90 days, particularly services for between 10 weeks and 12 weeks. We know that access to pills is patchy, but access to medical procedures is non-existent. If women are seeking information about those services and how to access them, under this legislation, what powers will the Government have and what action will they take to make sure that those women are getting information about the right services—the actual abortion services—if they make that choice?

Finally, I want to make a plea to the Minister: there is still a stigma, as I know he understands. Contrary to what might have been said in this place, there is very clear evidence that the mood of people in Northern Ireland has shifted on this issue, as the mood of the people in Ireland shifted following the “repeal the eighth” campaign. There is widespread support for the provision of these new services and frustration at the delay that has taken place, but if those services are to survive, we need to address the stigma about working to support women who wish to have an abortion, and also having an abortion. I hope Ministers will talk about what they will do while we wait to see whether the Executive can be reformed, but also about what they will do to tackle that stigma, so that we can get the staffing and ensure that when a woman in Northern Ireland exercises her human right to choose to have an abortion, she does not face any further barriers.

As we have said, making laws—whether in this place or in devolved Administrations—requires more than just passing a Bill. It requires implementation and delivery, and the past three years have been a story of not delivering—of not meeting the promise that we made to those women in Northern Ireland. In passing this legislation today, and delivering on the work that has been done and the promise of that previous legislation, we have to show our homework, and that homework is both logistical and cultural. I hope Ministers recognise where these questions are coming from. They will have my support in working this through, and I welcome the words of the Secretary of State when he talks about this being an important provision. However, it is necessary to seek detail now, because we have had five different Secretaries of State, so many different letters and so little progress. The women in Northern Ireland who need this service deserve to be heard.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Following the next speaker, we will move on to the wind-ups. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is always a pleasure to speak in the House, but this is a subject matter that we hoped we would not have to address or bring before the House. However, because we are where we are, we feel it is important to do so. My party has tabled amendments, which I believe demonstrate our concerns; we will do what we can to address those concerns, and also to show support for our community. I respect the fact that there are Members present from different parties and with different opinions. It is no secret that we differ on many things, but there is an understanding that we do what we can to represent our constituents, so I am very pleased and proud to be able to stand here and speak for my Ulster Scots, Unionist community of Strangford.

I will speak to some of the DUP amendments, particularly amendment 13. First, I want to make it clear that we in the DUP recognise the need for what we have in front of us today. It is not what we want, but we are where we are, and we have to recognise that. We believe in the right to take a stand for the political good, and unfortunately, the fundamental issue of the Northern Ireland protocol remains. The allowance for negotiations is also welcome, which is part of why the deadline will be extended by another six weeks, but it is important to remember that time is no object in this debate. The route to a resolution will come through an understanding of our conditions in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol.

The Bill in front of us is the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation Etc) Bill. We are here today because we do not have an Executive, and we do not have an Executive because of the protocol. We can talk until we are blue in the face—or until the cows come home, as we say in my neck of the woods—about the need to restore the Executive, but if Executive formation really is our purpose, we are wasting our time unless we address the issue that stands in the way of Executive formation.

In addressing the challenge of Executive formation—to which the Bill’s title refers—it is vital that we recognise that the imperative for finding a solution arises from the fact that the current arrangements cause the UK Government to violate international law, a situation that must be terminated as quickly as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Shannon, I will allow you to touch on the protocol, but not to go into detail on that.

[Jim Shannon]

I will move straight on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Clauses 3 to 5 permit the exercise of Northern Ireland departmental powers by senior civil servants under guidance published by the Secretary of State. Our amendment 13 reinforces the importance of accountability to the people of Northern Ireland. Elected representatives have the power to legislate and make laws for Northern Ireland, and to be scrutinised and held very much accountable. The proposal sets out the framework relating to the choice to do something, why it was done and how it could be done. At the same time, it allows people to be liable to answer questions from MLAs and MPs. As policymakers, we are all subject to the same scrutiny and accountability measures. If legislation cannot be made in the Northern Ireland Assembly, those who are asked to do it are responsible for ensuring that there is robust and transparent reasoning.

The Northern Ireland Executive would be functioning were it not for the Northern Ireland protocol. The current arrangements are a clear violation of international law. Articles 1 and 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol are subject to the Good Friday agreement. It is important to remind ourselves of that, because we are all looking forward, for different reasons, to a future time. The GFA commits the state parties to uphold the right of the people of Northern Ireland

“to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

Articles 3 to 19 of the protocol are subject to the GFA and article 2 places an explicit obligation on the UK Government not to allow the impacts of the protocol to diminish the rights under the GFA. It is important to reiterate those things. I understand that everyone in the House is fully committed to maintaining the GFA.

The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is due to be on Report in the House of Lords, and I urge that all is done to secure its smooth passage. Many comments have been made about the DUP’s decision not to nominate a Speaker during the period when we have had no Assembly, yet no consideration has been given to cross-community support for this Bill. The Unionist community, which we in this House and in this party represent, are very clear about where we stand on these issues. There is no community support for this. Residents from other constituencies have contacted me to thank our party for standing up against the Northern Ireland protocol. This is not a Unionist issue, but one that impacts the Northern Ireland economy and its place in the United Kingdom. It restricts our local businesses from having free-flowing trade and, most importantly, it subjects our constituents to red tape and undermines their right to trade with their United Kingdom neighbours.

As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke at some length on this issue, for the record, the Government did a consultation in Northern Ireland, and 79% of the people who responded from Northern Ireland were against any changes in the abortion law in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland were asked for their opinion and when the Government got their opinion, they ignored it. She does not care, of course, about the opinion of 79% of the people in Northern Ireland, but we already knew that. Opposition Members will know of our opposition to amendment 11, which was not selected. We are here to represent and speak for the 79% of people who objected to that.

I note with interest amendments 1 to 4 from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on MLA pay. I reiterate that we cannot stress enough that the notion that we might be moved back into government for monetary reasons is grossly misjudged. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the leader of our party and of our DUP group here, clearly said that we will not be bullied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Well, we have a consensus! I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member and his party concur with our opinion, so I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will give us a positive answer. It is important because if 4 May remains election day, the results will extend into coronation day. That is the very nature of what will happen back home, so it must be changed to ensure the public participation of candidates, the electoral office staff, who are an important part of it all, and the party supporters attending count centres. I urge the Government to take our proposal into immediate consideration for the sake of the celebration of the King’s coronation, and I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) for his support.

The amendments that the DUP has tabled are for the greater good of Northern Ireland and our economic and constitutional position within this great United Kingdom. We hope that the Government will listen to us. They must be assured of our stealth and determination in regard to the damaging effect that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is having on Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the wind-ups.

Northern Ireland Elections

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the issues arising from the failure of the devolved Government of Northern Ireland—the Northern Ireland Executive—to form. The overriding priority of this Government is to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

“Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally.”

Since May,

“that has not been possible. However, our commitment remains absolutely clear”.

The Government believe that this is the moment for restoration of the devolved institutions

“and will work to that end as a matter of utmost priority... My predecessors have all referred to critical times for Northern Ireland, and there have been many, but this year is indeed critical”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 287.]

I can see you are thinking that you might have heard those words before, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is because you have: they were spoken by the then Secretary of State and right hon. Member for Neath at this Dispatch Box back in 2006.

Although these are different times, with different issues affecting Northern Ireland, I and this Government believe strongly that the people of Northern Ireland deserve a functioning Assembly and Executive where locally elected representatives can address the issues that matter most to the people who elect them. Back in May, people cast their votes in Northern Ireland to give their communities a voice in Stormont. However, for six months the parties have not come together.

On 28 October, the deadline for forming an Executive, as set out in the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022, passed. That is hugely disappointing. As a result, I am bound by law to call new elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly, as set out in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Those elections will have to take place within 12 weeks of 28 October.

Since 28 October, I have been engaging widely in Northern Ireland with the parties, with businesses, with community representatives and with members of the public. I have also spoken with other international interlocutors. I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of those to whom I have spoken think that an election at this time would be most unwelcome.

What people would welcome is having their devolved institutions up and running, because they are worried to see a massive £660 million black hole in this year’s public finances at the same time that their public services are deteriorating. They are worried that almost 187,000 people in Northern Ireland have been waiting for more than a year for their first out-patient appointment. They are worried that the share of working-age adults with no formal qualifications is higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. There is also legitimate and deep concern about the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol. That concern is felt across Northern Ireland and very strongly indeed in the Unionist community.

The one thing on which everyone agrees is that we must try to find a way through the current impasse, in which I have a legal duty to call an election that few people want and that everyone tells me will change nothing. I will therefore introduce legislation to provide a short, straightforward extension to the period for Executive formation. The current period will be extended by six weeks to 8 December, with the potential for a further six-week extension to 19 January if necessary. The aim is to create the time and space necessary for talks between the UK Government and the European Commission to develop, and for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to restore the devolved institutions as soon as possible.

As I stand here, the Northern Ireland Executive have no Ministers in post. That means no Ministers to make the choices that deliver the public services that people rely on, to react to the budgetary pressures that schools, hospitals and other key services face, or to deliver the energy support payments that this Government have made available to people across the rest of the United Kingdom. Before leaving his post, the Northern Ireland Finance Minister highlighted a £660 million in-year budget black hole, but there are no Ministers in the Executive to address it.

As civil servants do not have the legal authority to tackle these issues in the absence of an Executive, I must take limited but necessary steps to protect Northern Ireland’s public finances and the delivery of public services. As has been done before, the legislation that I introduce will enable Northern Ireland Departments to support public service delivery, make a small number of vital public appointments such as those to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and address the serious budgetary concerns that I have mentioned.

At a time when so many people are concerned about the cost of living in Northern Ireland, I know that the public there will welcome a further measure that I intend, which will address another matter that was addressed by the former Secretary of State whom I quoted earlier. People across Northern Ireland are frustrated that Members of the Legislative Assembly continue to draw a full salary while not performing all the duties that they were elected to do. I will therefore be asking for this House’s support to enable me to reduce MLAs’ salaries appropriately.

Let me end by repeating that the overriding priority of this Government is to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has been the bedrock of so much of the progress in Northern Ireland over the past quarter-century. In recent days, some people have called for joint authority in Northern Ireland. Let me say that that will not be considered. The UK Government are absolutely clear that the consent principle governs the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, under which Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. We will not support any arrangements that are inconsistent with that principle. In addition, we remain fully committed to the long-established three-strand approach to Northern Ireland affairs.

As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, I have found myself reflecting on the fact that political progress in Northern Ireland has so often required courage, understanding and compromise. I hope that the measures that I have announced in my statement will allow some extra time for those qualities to be displayed once again. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson, Peter Kyle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone, and for the way in which we have worked together since I took over this role. I welcome the fact that he, too, noted the contents of the Fiscal Council’s report—issued yesterday—and its explanation of what such a budget deficit means in real terms for Northern Ireland’s finances, and the difficulties that it creates.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about bringing all the parties together, and I would be delighted to do so. The one thing that I suppose the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can do is convene, and there are many conversations to be had. I know that all the parties are very willing to talk to me, and I hope they are also very willing to talk to each other. So I shall certainly take that opportunity, but I also enjoy my individual conversations with them, and believe them to be very important indeed.

The hon. Gentleman asked about updating the House and the Northern Ireland parties on the ongoing negotiations on the EU protocol. First, it is not for me to update the House on those negotiations; it is the Foreign Secretary who is conducting those. Secondly, on the basis of my experience—I spent a decade in the European Parliament, and have now spent 12 years in this place—I reckon that it is probably quite unhelpful, in many respects, to provide a running commentary on negotiations. However, I understand the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman’s request, and I will ask the Foreign Secretary to see what can be done to offer appropriate briefings to the parties concerned.

The legislation that I will introduce is intended to create the time and space needed for the talks between the UK and the EU to develop, and for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to restore the devolved institutions as soon as possible. I think it only right that, as we move forward, I do update the House regularly on those matters.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Simon Hoare.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome his proposals with regard to the pay cut, and I agree with him that now is the time for bravery, leadership and compromise, such as we saw during the period leading up to the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

My right hon. Friend said to the Select Committee recently, in relation to the rubric of the formation of the Executive, that there should be a bottom-up rather than a top-down review. May I ask him to reflect on that, given the impasse that we are in and given the more than desperate requirement for functioning devolution for the people of Northern Ireland at a time of high inflation, high interest rates and a high cost of living? Surely, in the 21st century, no one party should have a veto on devolution.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the Select Committee Chair for his words. That session before the Committee a few weeks ago was my first ever session as Secretary of State. I appreciate what he has said, in many ways, but the bedrock of the peace and prosperity that has flowed through Northern Ireland’s veins for the last 25 years is the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the three strands are absolutely clear about both consent and majorities.

I understand that various political parties, and indeed others, are now talking about how things might change in the future, and how reformation, as the hon. Gentleman put it, could occur. I know that those conversations are taking place. However, my job at this point—and I hope that this is what my statement does—is to ensure, as I keep reminding the House, that we have the time and the space that are necessary for the talks between the UK and the EU to develop, and for the Northern Ireland parties to work together to restore devolved institutions as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I very much echo his sentiment that Northern Ireland is governed best when it is governed locally, but it is also important to recognise that government and politics in Northern Ireland work best when there are good and productive relations between London and Dublin, and between the UK and the European Union.

Northern Ireland has been in the unfortunate position of having both its Governments paralysed by inaction over the past few months, albeit for different reasons, but we have made clear our view that the best place for Members of the Legislative Assembly to be—and where the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland expect them to be—is at work in Stormont, holding a functioning Executive to account as it gets on with overseeing the delivery of vital public services. We do not think it serves the interests of people in Northern Ireland for there not to be an Executive in place, but neither would it serve their interests to hold an election, which, if it achieved anything, would only be to further entrench already well-dug positions. We therefore look forward to the legislation on the period for Executive formation, to allow for essential decision making to take place in the meantime and to allow for some long overdue negotiations to take place.

While we have been clear that the protocol was a necessary measure to protect Northern Ireland from Brexit, we have also been clear that it is not unreasonable in the light of experience for the UK Government to try to renegotiate it. Does the Secretary of State agree that any new settlement on the protocol cannot only be about Northern Ireland and that a revised settlement will only be a better settlement if it eases trade for all parts of the UK, including the UK-EU export trading environment, rather than just trade between GB and Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he was on the Order Paper earlier today and did not get to ask his question of me then. I had a fairly witty riposte, which I will use next time. However, based on the precedent that I talked about earlier—when the late James Brokenshire was Secretary of State, we went through this process and there was a review—the percentage that I would be looking at would be the same as then, which was 27.5%.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for responding to questions for 52 minutes.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Claire Hanna]

The right hon. Member is right to clarify that, but we do need a promotion strategy. As someone with an interest in the language and who is inspired when I hear names and place names, if I want to read a council’s accounts, I go and do it as Béarla—I will read it in the English. The promotion is what will allow the language to be transmitted and to thrive, and the Bill is not as expansive as many people would wish it to be.

I want to address the point made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). I really regret the suspicion of Irish by many Unionists, but I do not pretend not to understand the roots of it. Some of that is just about the experience that we have all had in our lives. Few state schools, which the majority of Protestant, Unionist and loyalist children would attend, promote Irish, and trips to the Republic, where Irish-language signs are normal, were not as commonplace. They probably did not spend their summers learning Irish in Rann na Feirste or Machaire Rabhartaigh, as I and friends of mine did. I therefore appreciate that some of it is about cultural experience; that in many cases people perceive Irish language as something to be used for a buttressing phrase in a political contribution; and that some perceive it as a manifestation of aggressive Irish nationalism, but that is not what it is to so many speakers.

Yes, no doubt there has been weaponisation in the past, but some of that is about the failure of political parties over decades to internalise and sell the concept of parity of esteem where it applies to culture, and to tar and tarnish an entire community of people because of the phraseology of others. The reality of the long war and the long peace that we have had is that “their” and “our” cultural archetypes are reinforced all the time with all the decades of suspicion and baggage that many people have. But we have an opportunity, through legislation such as this and more, to fly by those nets, particularly to a generation for whom “us” and “them” does not mean as much as “all of us.”

As the right hon. Member said, we can make language about the richness of communication and heritage and not about an identity marker. That is why so many take such inspiration from the work of Linda Ervine and Turas—Irish for “Journey”—the project that she set up with the east Belfast mission of the Methodist Church. Linda has not changed who she is—she has not changed her identity or her aspirations—but she is connecting many hundreds of people from a Protestant background with their own history and the Irish language. She received an MBE from Her Majesty the Queen for her efforts in that work, where she has taken such a mature approach to these issues. Her views on Irish, like Ulster Scots, are rooted in a real understanding of the entwined nature of nationalist and Unionist history. She said:

“I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have a rich cultural identity, a mixture of native Irish and of the many peoples who made Ireland their home. This rich ancestry influenced our surnames, our place names and our everyday language. Our vernacular of hiberno English reflects this mixed identity. We are native…speakers whose English is littered with beautiful Scots and Gaelic words. The syntax of our speech reflects that of Gaelic. As a people, we are culturally rich, yet instead of embracing that wonderful cultural mix, we separate it into narrow divisive boxes and deny ourselves.”

Many of us should take on board her approach to language and many other things.

I also acknowledge the work of people such as the much-missed Aodán Mac Poilín, who was the director of the Ultach Trust, a cross-community language promotion agency, and an inspiration to me as a late learner of Irish, which I picked up in adulthood. His posthumously published collection of essays, “Our Tangled Speech”, is one of the most nuanced and perceptive books that I have ever read on Northern Irish politics and culture. He argued that to get the sustainable transmission of language, it needs to be embedded in public bodies and have the support of Government and other interest groups. He was also clear about the need to shift our attitudes and learn from our past. He had theories about how nationalists and Unionists have believed each other’s propaganda over the years and found themselves reacting to both the position that they think is being ascribed to them and their opponent’s ideological position, which he believed was why our debate has often got so extreme. He always perceived the Irish language to have been a victim of that. I think the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) would probably concur with a lot of that analysis

I also want to mention the work of the recently deceased Dr Roger Blaney, whose work “Presbyterians and the Irish Language” was a revelation to many people about the work done by so many of that denomination in Belfast to preserve and protect the language because it was at its most vulnerable. It is a matter of fact and the politics that the rights component of language has been a product of the withholding of support. Many Gaeilgeoirs I know over the years were not as bought into the concept of an Irish language Act as they were into that of promotion and the living language. It is a fact that what are seen as small-minded approaches to language and the cancellation of programmes has made people believe that it needs promotion. Organically, the community of Irish speakers is growing in number and in breadth and that is a win for all of us.

We believe that this Bill will help to grow that wider embracing of language. Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine—it is in each other’s shadows that we grow. We are better when we all work together, and I hope that that is something that Members will keep in mind when we vote on the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Stephen Farry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

It is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this Bill. I am glad to see that it is not a stand-alone Irish language Bill, as was being peddled by those who wanted to have it as such. However, the identities issue within this Bill causes concern, because there is an imbalance in how things are dealt with.

I understand that both commissioners have certain powers, but one seems to have more power than the other. By that, I am saying that the Ulster Scots commissioner will really be there as a tick-box exercise, as opposed to somebody who can effectively take complaints forward and recommend that they be addressed by the public authorities that are being used. I appreciate that there are a large number of public authorities in Northern Ireland to be consulted—I think it is somewhere around 70-plus—but all of them have different interpretations of what they have to do.

I use this as an example: local authorities in Northern Ireland have off their own bat started to go down the route of language signage for street names. In doing so, they have created a problem. Many people may not understand the nuances of this, but it is seen as territory marking. If someone goes into a certain area and sees Irish language signs, they will say, “Well, that’s an area I will not be buying a house in, because being from my community I will not be happy or safe there.” That is another area where division is being driven into our community, and Irish-language signs are being used as such by councils.

There was mention made by Members from my own party of those who have removed emblems and pictures of our monarchs from our council buildings. All those things have been stripped out to try to make a neutral environment, yet some are still putting what I call some of their republican agenda and driving it forward. Those measures and the powers that are supposedly within this Bill, such as the language aspect, need to be addressed.

I will say a wee bit about the language aspect and bilingualism with Ulster Scots. That is not necessarily their priority. They have areas they want to focus on, and one of those might be looking not just at the art and literature aspect, but the culture and heritage aspect. Our heritage needs to be respected. I feel very much that we are under attack not only from this Bill, but from those who put in place the protocol and made those people who live in Northern Ireland—whether you believe it or not—feel like second-class citizens. That is what is being portrayed here, because we see our Ulster Scots heritage and culture being treated as second class, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned.

I also have concerns about the cost associated with the implementation of this legislation. There might well be money associated with setting up the office of the commissioners for both languages and the shared services in relation with that, but I have a problem with the cost impact on each Government Department of the implementation of aspects of what is put forward in this Bill. Some control needs to be put in to ensure that the Bill does not run away with itself.

I, for one, come from the Ulster Scots background, as many Members will know, but I know and am friendly with fluent Irish speakers who were brought up as Protestants in Donegal and had to learn Irish as part of the culture where they lived. Language was used not as a cultural identity issue in Northern Ireland but as a weapon, and it continues to be.

I appreciate that some people try to steer away from that, but as the leader of our party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), mentioned, Danny Morrison said way back in the 1980s that each word spoken in Irish is a shot fired in relation to Irish liberty and freedom, so I think we need to be very careful about how the law is interpreted by those within the Unionist and Protestant communities. They do not necessarily buy into Linda Ervine’s approach on this whole thing. I do not discount that she is there for the right reasons, but let us be honest: a large section of the Unionist community do not buy into that agenda because they believe that it has been used as such.

I believe that we need to use the opportunity in Committee to table amendments that will make the Bill acceptable. I am not saying that it is not acceptable as it is, but our party’s amendments should be listened to, taken on board and respected, as we feel very much that we are being treated as second-class citizens because of the Bill’s imbalance. It does not necessarily take into account the so-called “parity of esteem” that is peddled by everybody. That term is used to suit an agenda on many occasions. On this occasion, we will use it because we do not believe that we have parity of esteem in how the legislation has been measured out. I want to ensure that that is taken on board.

I appreciate that the Minister of State has listened to us and agreed to have a meeting. We will have that meeting—we want to put our message across, and we will do so—and we will also table amendments to ensure that we get the redress that is required to make the Bill acceptable. It is wrong to say that we accepted this when NDNA was brought forward. This legislation is not what we agreed to, and we have fought it tooth and nail the whole way through the process. We will continue to do so until we get that redress.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the Front-Bench speakers, if there is to be a Division, I would welcome the names of the Tellers for the Noes. I call Tonia Antoniazzi.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Members may wish to note that a manuscript Government new clause and manuscript Government amendments to improve the drafting of amendments agreed in Committee on day one have been tabled for consideration on Report. They are now available in the Vote Office.

Clause 33

No criminal investigations except through ICRIR reviews

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 114, in clause 34, page 27, line 19, at end insert—

‘(2A) But enforcement action may be taken against P to prevent P from seeking to profit from their conduct in relation to that offence (see section (Grant of immunity: criminal memoirs etc).’

This paving amendment is linked to NC2 which is intended to prevent a person who is granted immunity under this Act from profiting from the from the conduct which they received immunity for.

Amendment 107, page 27, line 19, at end insert—

‘(3) But any sentencing decision in respect of a serious offence committed by P after 10 April 1998 may take into account the panel’s findings on any relevant serious Troubles-related offence committed by P’.

This amendment is intended to allow the offences for which immunity has been granted to be taken into account in sentencing for post-Trouble offences.

Clauses 34 to 36 stand part.

Amendment 121, in clause 37, page 28, line 11, at end insert ”,or

(d) a file relating to P in respect of an offence is submitted to the Public Prosecution Service.

‘(2A) But if no prosecution of P is directed on the basis of the file submitted to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, the case relating to P should be returned to the ICRIR for investigation in accordance with this Part.’

The purpose of this amendment is to treat as criminal enforcement action the passing of a file to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.

Amendment 122, page 28, line 17, at end insert—

‘(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), a criminal prosecution of P is to be treated as having begun when a file relating to the criminal investigation into P’s conduct has already been submitted to the Public Prosecution Service on or before the day that section 33 comes into force.

(3B) But if no prosecution of P is directed on the basis of the file submitted to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, the case relating to P should be returned to the ICRIR for investigation in accordance with this Part.’

The purpose of this amendment is to treat a public prosecution as having begun when the file is passed to the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.

Clause 37 stand part.

Clause 38 stand part.

That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 116, in clause 39, page 30, leave out lines 15 to 42.

This amendment would remove the provisions inserted into the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 that require the closure of existing Troubles related inquests in Northern Ireland.

Clause 39 stand part.

Amendment 117, in schedule 10, page 79, leave out lines 4 to 39.

This amendment would remove the provisions inserted into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 that require the closure of existing Troubles related inquests in England.

Amendment 118, page 81, leave out from line 18 to line 16 on page 82.

This amendment would remove the provisions inserted into the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 that require the closure of existing Troubles related inquests in Scotland.

That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 40 and 41 stand part.

Amendment 108, in schedule 11,  page 83, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) In subsection (2)(a), replace “four” with “five”.

(1B) In subsection (2)(b), replace “four” with “five”.’

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 110.

Amendment 109, page 83, line 21, at end insert—

‘(6ZA) The fifth condition is that the prisoner has been fully cooperative in responding any request for information made under section 14 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2022.’

This amendment is intended to add a fifth condition for prisoner release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to ensure that prisoners who take part in the reconciliation process are not treated in the same way as those who do not.

That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.

New clause 2—Grant of immunity: criminal memoirs etc—

‘(1) A person (P) who has been granted under section 18 immunity from prosecution for an offence may not seek to profit from their conduct in relation to that offence.

(2) The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is amended as follows.

(3) In section 156 (Qualifying offenders), in sub-paragraph (3)(b)(i) at end add “or a citizen of Ireland who would qualify to be a United Kingdom national”.

(4) In section 159 (Relevant offences), after paragraph (1)(a) insert —

“(aa) a serious Troubles-related offence (see section 1 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2022,”.

(5) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the First Minister and deputy First Minister if practicable, make regulations to prohibit the exploitation for profit of Troubles-related offences by any individual granted immunity under section 18.

(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may further amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and make any necessary provision to amend any relevant primary or secondary legislation.

(7) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative procedure.’

The intention of this new clause is to prevent a person who is granted immunity under this Act from profiting from the conduct which they received immunity for, by adapting the exploitation proceeds regime under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

New clause 3—Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998: repeal—

‘(1) The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 is repealed at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make any necessary temporary, consequential or transitional provision in connection with the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.’

This new clause provides for the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to be repealed when Part 3 of this Bill comes into force.

New clause 5—Revocation of immunity (No. 2)—

‘(1) This section applies if a person (P) has been granted immunity from prosecution for the offence under section 18, but later evidence is submitted to the immunity requests panel established under section 21 which the panel considers to be conclusive evidence that the Condition B in section 18 was not met because P’s account was not true.

(2) This section applies if, after the immunity requests panel has ceased to operate, the Secretary of State considers that there is conclusive evidence that the Condition B in section 18 was not met because P’s account was not true.

(3) Where subsection (1) or (2) applies, the immunity of P under this Act is revoked.’

Clause 42 stand part.

Amendment 120, in clause 43, page 34, line 12, at end insert—

‘(3A) The designated persons have an overarching duty to ensure that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences.’

Amendment 110, page 34, line 15, at end insert—

‘(3A) The designated persons must take into account the interests and concerns of victims of the Troubles in the preparation of the memorialisation strategy.

(3B) “Victims of the Troubles” do not include any person P who has received immunity under this Act and whose physical or mental harm was caused by Troubles-related conduct in which P participated unlawfully.’

This amendment is intended to ensure that only innocent victims are included as victims in the memorialisation strategy under this Act.

Clause 43 stand part.

Clause 44 stand part.

Amendment 41, in clause 45, page 35, line 22, leave out “of the period of operation of the ICRIR” and insert

“from the date on which this Act is passed”.

This drafting amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Amendment 42, page 35, line 38, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Amendment 43,page 36, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Amendment 44, page 36, line 8, leave out “the ICRIR reports and”.

This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Amendment 45, page 36, leave out lines 18 to 21.

This amendment removes a reference to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.

Clause 45 stand part.

Clauses 46 to 48 stand part.

Amendment 93, in clause 49, page 37, line 43, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 15 on page 38 and insert

‘establish an independent panel of experts to make appointments for the purposes of this Part.

(1A) The independent panel of experts must include—

(a) representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive, the United Kingdom government and the government of Ireland,

(b) representatives of the British Academy, the Royal Irish Academy or other comparable learned societies, and

(c) a person of international standing with experience in or comparable to the post of special rapporteur on transitional justice for the United Nations.

(1B) When deciding whether to designate a person for the purposes of this Part, the panel must, in accordance with clear and transparent criteria, ensure that the individual has the necessary expertise in at least one of the following: oral history, academic research, archiving, trauma, gender studies and memorialisation.’

This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s power to designate persons for the purposes of Part 4 of the Bill and instead provide for the appointment of an independent panel to designate persons for the purposes of this Part, while keeping the provision for financial and other resources to be supplied by the Secretary of State.

Clause 49 stand part.

Amendment 94, in clause 50, page 38, line 20, leave out from ”means” to end of line 21 and insert

‘persons designated by the independent panel established under section 49 (1);’

This amendment removes the definition of designated persons in Part 4 of the Bill as persons appointed by the Secretary of State and instead refers to appointments by an independent panel.

Clause 50 stand part.

New clause 4—Offence of glorifying terrorism: Northern Ireland—

‘(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by a reasonable person as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to some or all of the members of the public in Northern Ireland, to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

(2) A person P commits an offence if—

(a) P publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and

(b) at the time P publishes it or causes it to be published, P—

(i) intends members of the public in Northern Ireland to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism; or

(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public in Northern Ireland will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood by a reasonable person as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism include every statement which—

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation in the past of Troubles-related offences; and

(b) is a statement from which members of the public in Northern Ireland could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances.

(4) For the purposes of this section the questions how a statement is likely to be understood and what members of the public in Northern Ireland could reasonably be expected to infer from it must be determined having regard both—

(a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and

(b) to the circumstances and manner of its publication.

(5) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3)—

(a) whether anything mentioned in those subsections relates to the commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of terrorism, of acts of terrorism of a particular description or of acts of terrorism generally; and

(b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or Troubles-related offence.

(6) In proceedings for an offence under this section against a person P in whose case it is not proved that P intended the statement directly or indirectly to encourage or otherwise induce the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism it is a defence for P to show—

(a) that the statement neither expressed P’s views nor had P’s endorsement (whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and

(b) that it was clear, in all the circumstances of the statement‘s publication, that it did not express P’s views and (apart from the possibility of P’s having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection (3) of that section) did not have P’s endorsement.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years, or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(8) in considering sentencing for an offence under this section, the court will take into consideration as an aggravating factor any immunity granted to P under the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2022.’

This new clause, based on section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, makes having received immunity under this Bill an aggravating factor in sentencing for the offence of glorifying terrorism.

New clause 6—Opening closed files—

‘(1) Every Minister of the Crown must review the status and classification of files held or sealed by the Department for which the Minister is responsible which relate to events which formed part of the Troubles with a view to ensuring that relevant information, is duly and truly accessible for the various purposes of information recovery, historical records, memorialisation and academic research provided for in this Act by those mandated to discharge those purposes.

(2) Classified government files for the purposes of this section relate to deaths, injuries, other public harms and miscarriages of justice which occurred as part, or in consequence, of the Troubles.

(3) No later than six months from the date on which this Act is passed, each Minister of the Crown must compile a list of such Troubles-related files which have been sealed from public disclosure for longer than standard periods, showing the previously specified date until which they were to remain closed and indicating, on the basis of the review referred to in subsection (1), how and when relevant information in those files will be available to bodies or persons undertaking work enabled or mandated under this Act.

(4) The list referred to in subsection (3) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(5) A Minister of the Crown must make a statement to the House of Commons on steps being taken to ensure disclosure of such information in order to afford more truth to those bereaved or otherwise harmed by events related to the Troubles, fuller public awareness and understanding and to assist the cause of reconciliation.’

This new clause deals with opening closed files as a State step towards truth and reconciliation. The duties of the Minsters of the Crown apply to any Minister including the Prime Minister, any Secretary of State (including the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland) as well as to the Lord Chancellor and the Cabinet Office.

Amendment 46, in clause 51, page 39, line 12, leave out subsection (1).

This paving amendment would remove Schedule 12 which amends existing legislation in relation to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery and the limitation of legal proceedings.

Amendment 47, page 39, line 35, leave out paragraph (c).

This drafting amendment removes a provision which would be redundant if Clause 38 and Schedule 9 were removed from the Bill.

Amendment 48, page 39, line 35, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment removes references to criminal investigations and inquests.

Clause 51 stand part.

That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 49, in clause 52, page 40, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Amendment 50,  page 40, line 11, leave out from “they” to “may” in line 16.

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Amendment 51,  page 40, line 11, leave out lines 21 to 28.

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Amendment 52, page 40, line 29, leave out from “procedure“” to second “the” in line 34.

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Amendment 53, page 40, line 37, leave out from “Parliament” to the end of subsection (4).

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Amendment 54, page 41, line 9, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Clause 52 stand part.

Amendment 55, in clause 53, page 41, line 20, leave out subsection (1).

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Clause 53 stand part.

Clause 54 stand part.

Amendment 56, in clause 55, page 46, line 18, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment removes provision relating to the repeal of the Coroners Act 1988.

Clause 55 stand part.

Amendment 57, in clause 56, page 46, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would be consequential on the removal of Schedule 12 which amends existing legislation in relation to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery and the limitation of legal proceedings.

Amendment 58, page 47, line 32, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment removes provision which is not necessary for the operation of Part 4 of the Bill.

Clause 56 stand part.

Amendment 59, in clause 57, page 46, line 35, leave out “Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation)” and insert “(Memorialising the Troubles)”.

This amendment would change the short title applicable to an Act comprising only Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill.

Clause 57 stand part.

New clause 7—Compatibility with Article 2 of ECHR—

‘(1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the exercise of powers, the performance of functions and the discharge of duties under this Act, including by bodies or offices created under this Act, may be subject to civil action and judicial review on grounds of incompatibility with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(2) Recourse to civil action under this section shall be open to—

(a) a close family member of a person whose death was caused by conduct forming part of the Troubles; or

(b) if there are no close family members of the deceased, any family member of the deceased.

(3) The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission may—

(a) provide assistance to individuals or families who take civil action under this section; or

(b) bring court proceedings itself in respect of policies, practices and performances of relevant authorities with powers and functions under this Act in order to test their compatibility with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights or to vindicate that right or others under the European Convention.’

Amendment 72, in title, line 1, leave out from “by” to “providing”.

This amendment would change the long title applicable to an Act comprising only Parts 1, 4 and 5 of the Bill.

While we are in Committee of the whole House, Members should refer to me as Chair or Mr Evans, and not as Mr Deputy Speaker. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

The short answer to my county neighbour is yes. That is why we are reflecting very carefully on the points that the hon. Member for Belfast East, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, and others, have made as to whether that is the right way to proceed, or whether we might want to have another look at that whole area and the wider context of the Bill as it progresses through its remaining stages.

I have done less today than I did last week, which I think is a good thing for everybody, including me. I look forward to hearing the detailed debate during the afternoon and evening, and look forward to returning to respond on behalf of the Government to the Committee later today.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Could I ask anybody who intends to try to catch my eye to stand so that we can get an idea of numbers?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Right—thank you very much.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible as well. We do not want to end up in the situation we did last Wednesday, where it took three hours before we heard a speech from a Northern Irish Member.

Today, we are going to scrutinise parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, followed by the final stages. This is a major undertaking in such a small amount of time, particularly for legislation on such sensitive issues. The Government’s rushing the Bill through has only deepened mistrust in its proposals. Opposition amendments 114 and 116 highlight some of the gaps between the Government’s rhetoric and what the Bill actually delivers. I hope the Committee considers the amendments with the same generosity it did amendment 115 last Wednesday, and that once again we can find agreement on how to improve the Bill. The Opposition will be supporting other parties in their attempts to remove clause 39. We will also support new clauses 4 and 5, which are thoughtful attempts at improving how immunity works.

Our amendment 114 is based on exploitation proceeds orders from the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which stop criminals in our country profiting from their crimes, usually through books or memoirs. Our amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that people given immunity cannot then profit from the actions that they have just admitted to. The test that Labour has set remains that this Bill needs to offer greater benefits to victims than it does to perpetrators of terror.

The Government have repeatedly told us that as a result of this Bill all victims might get—might get—information, yet perpetrators stand to benefit much more. If basic tests are met, they must be granted irrevocable immunity from prosecution. There are no conditions to that immunity. There is nothing stopping people from then using their immunity to write down their own history of their crimes and profit from them. What is more, only perpetrators have to give the immunity panel an account of events that is true to the best of their knowledge. No input from victims is required. Quite simply, the Bill hands perpetrators control over the narrative of their crimes. Indeed, once a perpetrator has been granted immunity, I cannot see any limits on what they can do with it. There is nothing to stop terrorists writing books and seeking to justify the mayhem and senseless killings that they have carried out. Undoubtedly, that would re-traumatise victims. This is not idle speculation but a concern that victims have raised with me directly.

Just after my appointment, I travelled to Northern Ireland and sat with Paul Gallagher. Paul was left in a wheelchair after a loyalist gun attack in 1994 when he was just 21 years old. Paul told me that it cut to the core when he learned that his shooting featured in a book about his attackers. It contains a first-hand account and justification of Paul’s shooting by the paramilitaries. No one asked for Paul’s consent, or his version of events. This Bill would not only allow perpetrators to live in freedom, but empower them to tell their own version of events in their own names, without fear of prosecution.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will call the Minister no later than 10 minutes to 7. You can see how many people are standing, so if you want to get your colleagues in, please show some time discipline—we cannot have speeches of the length that we have had up to now.

[Claire Hanna]

I will try to be brief, because I appreciate that there are colleagues who have been working on these issues for years and decades, who understand them fully and who wish to advocate for their constituents. I shall build on the points that we made on Second Reading and speak to some of the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).

By way of context, we spent Monday discussing the departure from the rule of law and bilateralism that is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. This is another day and another treaty breach. People have to understand that many see this Bill in that context—that it is unravelling the culture of lawfulness that we have been working on for many decades. I say that completely without pleasure and I agree with the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, who believes that the Bill is unamendable.

I will focus on the setting up of the ICRIR. It relies on the fiction that is being presented, which is that we are doing the same things over and over again. We are here because things have not been done, because the architecture to enable truth and justice has been suppressed, because files have been locked up, because omertà has been practised by paramilitaries, and not because we have done all these things incorrectly. We are taking this action when there is a live and productive programme of investigations. Hon. Members have referred to Operation Kenova, which is an active programme of investigation and inquest.

The Bill exploits a population who are worn down by discussing legacy. They are tired of these issues, the politicking and the revisionism. Nobody is being false with victims. Everybody knows that the possibility of prosecutions is vanishingly rare, but information can come out of these inquests and investigations. That is what people want and it has absolutely not been demonstrated that that will come out of these bodies in any way. That is why victims oppose this. Nobody wants to move on more than victims, but we have a general amnesty masquerading as a conditional amnesty, with perpetrators walking free. As Members have indicated, they will have no licence, which they would have had under prisoner release. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether the licences of prisoners who have already been released will go under the Bill as well.

We have examples on the books, such as the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which existed for years. People could clear their conscience and give information to relieve families and give them the dignity of a burial without any threat of prosecution, but people did not do that. Nothing in the Bill or during these days of debates has indicated why we suddenly believe that people will come forward.

It is fair to say that the amnesty is a variation on a theme. We have been down this road before. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle asked about files that have been sealed for decades and will be sealed for decades to come. How are people supposed to believe that the same Government who do that are suddenly interested in advancing information to them? As we all know, national security means whatever the security agents want it to mean. We know that they were intimately involved with both loyalist and republican paramilitaries—it is a fact. Although Members may wish to shut down the inquests, court cases and civil actions that establish that, it is a fact, as has been acknowledged by many people. How are people supposed to believe that the same Government who are suppressing that information suddenly want to advance it?

We know that the first motivation is the protection of security force elites, but we can call a spade a spade: this applies equally to paramilitaries. There is a joined-up quid pro quo between the sets of victim makers that keeps all this behind closed doors. Our amendments seek to address that.

The Bill outlines reviews that are not compliant with article 2 of the ECHR. They are a sham and are half-baked. The ruling on “flexibilities” because of reconciliation has been ruled out by a number of witnesses to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It is also clear that the Secretary of State will be the person who can appoint all the commissioners who will be involved in the process of investigation. I refer to my earlier points about the fact that they have been actors. Essentially, victims are being told, “Move on because Brandon Lewis and Boris Johnson want you to move on, and they will create all the people who will help to facilitate it.”

I want to be very clear: the SDLP does not propose that we do nothing, and we are not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have worked with integrity on the issues for many years. We supported Eames-Bradley, which was imperfect; we supported Stormont House, which was imperfect; and we supported Haass-O’Sullivan, which was imperfect. The Government committed to Stormont House in December 2014 and committed to it again two and a half years ago, under this Prime Minister, so they cannot say that it has been done on anybody else’s watch. We are asking for the principles of that agreement to be enacted, which would address the issues with the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland. It was a bilateral treaty that had obligations for the Irish Government as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank Claire Hanna for keeping her remarks short.

[Mr Baron]

Let us be clear. In this debate, which overall has been a very good one, there is great sincerity about the issue among all hon. Members. However, I respectfully point out to Opposition Members that I stand by what I said earlier: there have been relatively few successful criminal prosecutions since the troubles. That is a fact, no matter how one cuts and splices it.

I hear from Opposition Members about the quest for justice. We get that. Those of us who support the Bill genuinely get it. I know that time is short, but let me point out that I served in a variety of locations in the Province during the troubles. As a young platoon commander in Crossmaglen, I played billiards with a Royal Ulster Constabulary officer one evening. The following day, I had to put up a cordon because he was caught by an improvised explosive device and he was in pieces. That brought home the cost of the troubles not just to the individual but to the families concerned, and how bloody they were—for both sides, but I can speak only for the side that I was representing.

I say in the nicest possible way that I will not accept any suggestion that Conservative Members do not believe in justice. We firmly do, 100%. I am not suggesting that there is any division on that point, but from what we have heard, one could take away the view that we downgrade the need for justice. That is simply not true.

We must remember what the Bill is trying to do. I have not heard too much in this debate about the fact that the Bill is trying to provide answers to many, many families of victims. Answers help people to move on, but there are too few answers, given the scale of the troubles, the number of lives lost and the number of people injured. I think we need to focus on that, because it is a large part of the purpose of the Bill: to try to move things on in the hope that we can bring about greater reconciliation and provide answers for families, while leaving the door open to prosecutions for those who are not co-operating.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is not in the Chamber now, but I have certainly been pressing Ministers on a number of the amendments he mentioned. What we must try to understand about the Bill is that this is not the end of it; there are other stages to come, and some of us, while we support the Bill, will be seeking to firm it up and give it some teeth. I ask Opposition Members to bear that in mind when we vote tonight.

I do not want to speak for much longer, because I know that others want to contribute, but I will say this. Some say that the legal system was not suspended during the Good Friday agreement, but in many ways it was. People who had committed heinous crimes were let out of prison. The Democratic Unionist party may not have agreed with that, and at the time I had trouble swallowing it, but it was put to a referendum in the Province, and 71.1% of the people of Northern Ireland backed the Good Friday agreement. In many respects, the legal process was suspended then. No one could pretend that the rule of law was being enforced, whether I agreed or not. The bottom line is, however, that we have to deal with the art of the possible in trying to help many, many families in Northern Ireland to move on.

The Bill is not perfect, although I hope it will get better as it proceeds through its various stages, but as I said earlier, perfection should not be allowed to be the enemy of the good, especially when we are dealing with such a momentous period in our history as the troubles were. The Bill encourages co-operation, as I have also said, in trying to provide answers for families while also trying to ensure that we do not completely lose sight of the need for justice. I will look very sympathetically at amendments 97, 98 and 115, for example. I have had a chat with the Minister, and I know that the Government are actively engaged in looking at those amendments.

Let me end on this note: we have to see things in the round. Twenty-four years after the Good Friday agreement, there have been relatively few successful criminal prosecutions, but a great many answers are still needed for a great many families. If the Bill helps us to move closer to providing those answers without ruling out the use of the criminal justice system for those who do not co-operate, it still may not be perfect, but it will be better than what we have seen in recent decades, and we will have a chance to improve it beyond the votes tonight.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. As I said earlier, I will be calling the Members who will wind up the debate no later than 6.50 pm. In order to accommodate as many Back Benchers as possible, I am now introducing a time limit of seven minutes.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I should declare an interest, as a veteran of Operation Banner.

I will speak as briefly as I can, because I want to give as many other Members as possible an opportunity to speak. Let me begin by saying that the Bill is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation that I have been asked to consider during my time in the House. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s intentions, and I completely understand how complex and difficult this issue is, but if passed in its current form the Bill will mean that those who are guilty of kidnap, torture and murder will never see the inside of a courtroom or a prison, or even, for that matter, be subject to a proper investigation. Indeed, they will not even need to say sorry to be granted immunity for their crimes.

Members have rightly focused today on the impact that the Bill will have on victims. As has already been observed, many of the victims were members of our armed forces, and it is this cohort on whose behalf I want to speak, very briefly, this evening. I know that many of their loved ones and comrades will be watching this with great interest. They will know that 722 UK service personnel were killed in paramilitary attacks while serving on Operation Banner. A freedom of information request to the PSNI from the Centre for Military Justice just this month revealed that it still had 202 unsolved cases of victims who were members of the armed forces and a further 23 cases where the victim was a veteran. That is 225 unsolved alleged murders where the victim was someone who had stepped forward and put themselves in harm’s way to serve our country. Behind every one of those 225 cases is a story of enduring pain caused by the absence of truth and justice.

One of those stories began on 11 August 1971 outside the Corpus Christi church in west Belfast, when a joiner by the name of John McKerr fell to the ground after being shot by a single bullet to the head. John’s family only found out he had been hurt from a newspaper report the following day after he failed to return home from work. He was labelled a member of the IRA. A little over a week later he died of his injuries in hospital, becoming one of the 10 victims of the Ballymurphy massacre. For half a century, John’s family were forced to live under a cloud not just of distress but of deception.

On 11 May last year, Mrs Justice Keegan published the findings of her inquest into the Ballymurphy killings, confirming what John’s loved ones had always known to be true: John was unarmed and not doing anything that could have caused a threat. He had no associations with the IRA. In fact, John had lost his right hand while serving in the British Army in the second world war. His daughter said:

“The only thing he belonged to was the British Legion.”

In the words of the coroner:

“He was an entirely innocent man who was indiscriminately shot on the street.”

The inquest at least removed the stain on John’s character, but it is worth noting that under the Government’s proposals, inquests will be brought to an end, meaning that others will not have the same access to the truth as John’s loved ones. After more than 50 years, the McKerr family still do not know who was responsible for his murder. John sacrificed so that we could be free, but he was shot in the head and left in the street to die. The response of the institution he once proudly served was to tarnish him as a terrorist. John McKerr’s family told the inquest that their objective was not punishment but truth. It is in that spirit that I urge the Minister to consider the merits of amendment 115, about which there has been much debate, and also amendment 111. Strengthening reviews in line with the standards set by Operation Kenova will at least provide the families of members of the armed forces killed during the troubles with a degree of truth and justice.

There is deep unease in the service community about the Government’s proposals, not least from the family of Private Tony Harrison, a soldier from 3 Para who was brutally murdered by the IRA in front of his fiancée and his fiancée’s family. One of those involved has admitted his involvement, but no one directly responsible for his killing has been investigated. We owe John McKerr, Tony Harrison and all those who perished a debt. We can start to repay that debt by giving their families the dignity of knowing what happened to their loved ones. As it stands, the Bill will not afford them any comfort. It will only compound their misery, and for that reason I cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am going to reduce the time limit, because there are four Members left to speak. If I reduce it to six minutes, by the looks of it, we will hopefully get everybody in. I call Ian Paisley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Like other Northern Irish Members, I live among so many people who, through no fault of their own, are victims of terrorism. Those victims have approached me, while going about their daily business, to express how hurt they are by the Bill and how it extinguishes that glimmer of hope of any form of justice—although they know all too well that justice has already been grossly perverted in Northern Ireland.

We table our amendments in recognition that the Bill is likely to be made law. It will never be good law; it will always be fundamentally flawed and will always represent injustice and pain. However, it can be made to be better law, and we urge hon. Members to give serious consideration to what we believe are measured, constructive and victim-focused amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has eloquently outlined the rationale for the amendments in our names and the names of our colleagues, and I wish to reiterate some of the thinking behind some of the amendments.

Much of the public cynicism, certainly within the victim’s community, is based on the belief that if someone is willing to put a gun to a person’s head and take their life, lying about their actions will not disturb their moral compass. Amendment 97 would offer some form of recourse for lying to the panel. It is also, we believe, appropriate that such cases at the very least be directed to the Public Prosecution Service. If this process is to have any semblance of credibility, surely the Committee will agree that making a mockery of the process should come with an appropriate penalty.

We must also consider the situation of those who have deliberately evaded justice. That is our rationale for amendments 96, 98 and 99. The DUP utterly rejects the idea of immunity for any terrorist, but the Bill needs to offer specific provision for cases where those terrorists fled from justice. Whether they have scuttled off to the safe haven of the Irish Republic, the United States or elsewhere, those subject to active proceedings should not be afforded immunity. The thought of such individuals being welcomed through airport terminals by cheering crowds, to be embraced as heroes by leading figures of Sinn Féin, makes me sick to the pit of my stomach, as did similar images at the release of terrorists following the Belfast agreement. To permit such circumstances through this Bill would be wholly wrong. We therefore ask the Committee to support our amendment that addresses that salient point.

Amendments 100, 101, 102 and 199 relate to the whole issue of immunity. My party has always opposed immunity, for one reason—it is wrong. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave numerous examples of terrorist atrocities in a very personal and moving contribution. His story is the story of so many people in Northern Ireland, and indeed here in Great Britain. How anyone could listen to that account of loss, pain and suffering and believe that immunity for the perpetrator is acceptable is beyond comprehension. Members across the Committee seem to think the situation is justified by saying, “It is not perfect and we don’t like it, but we have no other option.” Yet there is always one option, and that is to do what is right. Victims want this Committee to do what is right.

I cannot close my contribution any more powerfully than by using the words of two victims of IRA terror. I urge Members to give their ear to these voices—to listen to these broken hearts speak. Abbie Graham lost her father, Constable John Graham, and Louie Johnston lost his father, Reserve Constable David Johnston, when they were shot dead while on foot patrol in Lurgan in my constituency of Upper Bann on 16 June 1997. Abbie and Louie were aged seven and in primary school when their much-loved fathers were murdered. I urge Members to listen to these words. Abbie says:

“The way the law works is that if the killers were caught and jailed they could only do two years. That would be a formal recognition of the wrong that was done. But if this law was to come in and then someone came forward with the information, it’s too late.”

Louie Johnston states:

“We’re 25 years on from and there are always new forensic opportunities becoming available and always the chance someone will come forward. But if the government is going to remove that opportunity it leaves us without any hope. This was the murder of two fathers who said goodbye to their children on a normal school day, the same thing that was happening in every decent human being’s house.”

He says:

“We need to look at what is right and wrong and take the politics out of all of this. What is happening now is that we are creating a justice system based on a postcode lottery. You can get justice as long as you don’t live in Northern Ireland. This government is burying justice and Boris Johnson and Secretary of State Brandon Lewis are playing the role of undertaker.”

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please do not refer to the Prime Minister by name.

[Carla Lockhart]

My apologies, Mr Evans. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are playing the role of undertaker. Louie went on:

“How can you say to someone that if their loved one was killed before April 1998 it doesn’t count? How can people be willing to stand for that?”

That is the question for this Committee: how can anyone be willing to stand for that?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call Jim Shannon, but please resume your seat at either 10 to 7 or before.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Mr Evans.

I am not unaware of the Government’s aim. We absolutely need to move forward. We need to investigate processes to be used in proper form instead of the rewriting of history that currently sees us so badly abused, with Sinn Féin being the guilty party. We need our ex-service personnel to be allowed to retire without, at 75 years of age, being questioned about a case that they handled 45 years ago and asked to validate statements or investigations they carried out, and the pressure of that leading to illness. We need soldiers to be allowed to retire and not to be asked the exact wording of an order given to them 40 years previously when under fire and attempting to save their colleagues.

I understand the Government’s objective, but in the time that you have allocated to me, Mr Evans, I want to be very conscious of the victims. I did that at some length in the previous debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said. For me, it is all about the victims and all about justice. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to the flicker of light.

I hold on to that flicker of light that someday justice will come for the murderer of Lexie Cummings—he fled across the border. He has an on-the-run letter. He is a prominent Sinn Fein member, and he has not been held accountable for his misdoings or for the murder. Kenneth Smyth and Daniel McCormick were murdered on 10 December 1971, some 50 and a half years ago. Where is the justice for them when it comes to this Bill? I do not see that tonight either. I do not see justice for the four UDR men murdered in Ballydugan. Nine people were arrested, and only one person has ever been held accountable. I cannot see that justice.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the Committee that 10 minutes are allocated for the first Division, with eight minutes for each subsequent Division. I am anticipating at least three Divisions, but—who knows?—there may be more.

The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Immunity from Prosecution

Amendment proposed: 97, page 16, line 30, at end insert—

“(6) If Condition C is not met because P’s account is found by the panel to be not true to the best of P’s knowledge and belief, the Chief Commissioner must direct the Commissioner for Investigations to submit a prosecution file to the Public Prosecution Service for consideration and direction.”—(Gavin Robinson.)

This amendment is intended to reduce the risk of claimants deliberately misleading the panel.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If we have speeches lasting 16 or 17 minutes, we will not get everyone in. Guidance was given earlier about looking towards 10 minutes, and I hope that people will now start to look to do that. Going a shade over is not too bad, but I just want to get as many people in as I possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman 100%. We have a job here to go down that route. It must be abundantly clear to families in particular that the powers in respect of information held by the security forces sit not with the Northern Ireland Office but with the commission, which has unfettered access to that material. Any evidence that exists must be allowed to have modern techniques applied to it, as is the case under Kenova, to ensure that the truest accounts—not a version of the truth, but the truest accounts—are given to the families. The commission must have the right to speak to anybody who is still alive and could shed light—the barman in Spain, for instance.

Finally, I do want to address the matter of veterans. This Chamber is not packed today. I tell Members now that there is no other country in the world that would treat its veterans like this. I totally get the emotion in people’s speeches—I genuinely do—but the way that this has carried on over the past 25 years is an absolute disgrace.

I promised veterans before I was in Government and when I was in Government that I would do whatever it took to help them—that I would not allow them to be left behind on the negotiating table, or to be left in that “too difficult” column, as has been the case for decades. Those decades have seen lives ruined and lives ended prematurely. The whole premise of a generation’s sacrifice in Northern Ireland has been questioned openly with almost no defence, save from a few hon. Members, some of whom are here today.

I never served in Northern Ireland and I have no relation to that wonderful part of the United Kingdom, but I know the institution that shaped me. While I know the UK’s armed forces will always have their challenging individuals, as any organisation does, and we must do better in holding them to account, the overwhelming sense is one of deep professionalism, humility, courage, integrity and self-sacrifice. Those values have been tested to destruction and beyond. I have personally seen men die in the upholding of those values.

In this journey, one of the most affecting testimonies I have heard—I realise I am going slightly over 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is important.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Not slightly; you are well over, Mr Mercer.

[Johnny Mercer]

Okay. I just want those soldiers’ voices to be heard at the end of this. We talked about the two-year limit and the pain that that has caused. Veterans are not stupid. We understand the need for difficult compromise. Peace must prevail and endure; that is ultimately why we sign up in the first place—to protect the peace. However, allowing veterans’ sacrifices to be used as pawns in this political settlement has to end. When I came to this place I could not believe the ease with which those sacrifices were trashed or the ease with which political leaders abandoned those veterans to their foes, who are now invited into government in Northern Ireland, with the full utility of the levers of state at their disposal. Never again must we allow them to rewrite history in their favour.

I say to veterans: the nation is deeply proud of your role in securing peace in Northern Ireland and profoundly grateful for your sacrifice. Whatever happens in the process of this Bill—I urge colleagues on both sides to work with Ministers and I urge Ministers to bend over backwards to get it through—I hope veterans begin to understand that there are some of us in this place who will do whatever it takes to get there in the end.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind people again that 10 minutes is the target we are looking at, otherwise I will introduce a time limit. And let us have temperate language, please, to one another throughout the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood]

Do you know what? I won’t.

The Bill is attempting to close down the police ombudsman’s opportunity to investigate issues of the past. I wonder why. It is also closing down access to the civil route for families. What happened last Tuesday? The Secretary of State announced that there would be no new civil cases after that day. Families who had been told that they were supposed to be at the centre of this were running around with their lawyers trying to get access to the courts before they closed that day. That is some way to treat the people who have suffered the most!

It is all right for the rest of us, who are still here and doing quite well out of the peace process. The people who have been left behind have been treated shoddily by this Government as recently as last week. People who have waited decades for an inquest and are now in the queue for one are being told that they will not have any opportunity to get the proper truth. If this is about truth, why are we afraid of inquests? I just do not understand it.

This legislation is riddled with Government overdrive and there is nothing independent about how the organisation will be constituted. There is no meaningful article 2 compliant investigation. Frankly, it is a recipe for impunity.

I have heard reference to Kenova. This Bill is not Kenova. It is nothing like Kenova. Kenova allowed proper judicial processes and proper investigation processes so that families and the rest of us could get access to the truth. South Africa, equally, it is not, and that argument has been well debunked.

The Government are telling us they want to see access to truth. Let me tell the House about two cases I know well. Paul Whitters was 15 years old in 1981. He was shot in the head by a police officer with a plastic bullet. Despite promises from this Government given to me, his file has been closed for a further number of years. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know when that file will apparently be opened? In 2084. He was 15 years old. In the same year, 1981, the British Army fired a plastic bullet that killed Julie Livingstone, 14 years old, in Lenadoon, west Belfast. Her file will not be opened until 2062.

The Government are telling us that they want truth and access to reconciliation for victims, but every single thing they have done—whether this Bill, the Ballymurphy inquest or the Bloody Sunday inquiry—has been to protect the state, to deny access to truth and to deny access to justice for those people who do not have the same ability to protect themselves. I heard we have a new shiny headquarters in Belfast for the Northern Ireland Office. Victims were standing outside it today, protesting these proposals. They were also in Derry and at Downing Street, because they believe—to a man and woman, in my experience—that these proposals are absolutely wrong. Raymond McCord is in the Public Gallery. He has had to fight against the state and loyalist paramilitaries to try and find truth and justice for his son, Raymond.

The question is, do this Government really care about Raymond and all of those victims, or do they simply care about fulfilling a manifesto commitment, protecting the state and protecting paramilitary killers, because that is exactly what this piece of legislation will do if it is passed?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much for keeping within the unofficial, but fairly official time limit.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Everybody can see how many people want to contribute and the winding-up speech will start at 8.34 pm, so will Members please be mindful of the length of their contributions so that we can get as many people in as possible?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this brief debate.

The Lords amendments are indeed a matter for the Government, but let me be absolutely clear in response to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith): there is absolutely no question of some form of collusion—a popular word in Northern Ireland—between my party and the Government on the timing of the amendments. As far back as last September, I indicated the course of action that I would take if the Government failed to act and to honour their commitments in New Decade, New Approach. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the timing of our decision was not influenced by any amendment to the Bill.

The amendments will ensure that the Bill’s provisions are retrospective in nature, to a degree that is, as I say, a matter for the Government, but if we do not get a resolution to the issues that have given rise to the current impasse in Northern Ireland and to the decision to withdraw the First Minister, frankly the amendments and the Bill will be irrelevant. If we do not get a resolution within the next six weeks, it matters little whether or not this legislation is retrospective. Personally, I would love to see a resolution in the next six weeks. I can assure the House that if that happens, we will not be found wanting in reinstating the institutions and restoring Ministers to office.

In the short time available, I want to remind the House, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that New Decade, New Approach is a detailed, delicately balanced agreement. I commend him for his work during his time as Secretary of State to help to bring it about, but it is an agreement that has not been fully honoured. I commend the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for recognising the frustration felt among DUP Members about the Government’s failure to honour their commitments.

Annex A is titled “UK Government Commitments to Northern Ireland”. Those commitments were made on behalf of the Government by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who I accept is not in office and therefore cannot directly be held responsible for the failure to deliver them. However, the idea that it is merely for the parties in Northern Ireland to deliver their commitments, and that the Government can sit on their hands and not deliver their side of the agreement, just does not add up.

I am a Unionist. I believe passionately in Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. At the heart of the Belfast agreement is the principle of consensus. The former leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, John Hume, told us time after time that the way forward in Northern Ireland was not the politics of one side being in charge of the other and of majority rule; it was about consensus. On a matter as fundamental as Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom and the harm that the protocol is doing to that relationship, there is not a consensus in Northern Ireland. There is not a single Unionist party and not a single Unionist elected representative who supports the protocol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It seems there is an election in the air. It is wonderful to hear all the new converts to the Good Friday agreement and civil rights. I wonder where they were when the Good Friday agreement was being signed, or when people were marching for their civil rights on the streets of my constituency and others. [Interruption.] Well, you weren’t there anyway.

I remember that, in the negotiations that led to the New Decade, New Approach agreement, the people arguing for this piece of legislation were the Democratic Unionist party. Rightly, they made the argument that Sinn Féin might bring the Assembly down. Of course, we had good evidence to say they might because they brought it down and it was down for three years. At that point I thought, “Good, everybody’s learned their lesson. Bringing the Assembly down gets us nowhere. All it does is have longer waiting lists. Our school estates are crumbling, our economy is not being dealt with. Maybe finally we are at the point now where people have learned their lesson that when you get elected to be in a position you have to go there. You have to take the power in your hands and try to change people’s lives.” But then this very week, coincidentally, four days ago, just within the seven-day gap that the new amendment will allow people to avail themselves of, the DUP walked out of the Executive and now we do not have an Executive at all.

I hear a lot in this House about the precious Union and how this is all about the Union. Where is the Prime Minister or even his Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when a key part of that supposedly precious Union, the Executive of the devolved Administration of Northern Ireland, has collapsed? Nowhere to be seen is the Prime Minister of this precious United Kingdom. If I was a Unionist in Northern Ireland today—I can assure the House I am not—I would be looking very closely at how this Government treat them.

To be honest, I find it quite shocking we are in this position today. One of the things that has led us to this position is that the Prime Minister, the former Brexit Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have been promising to trigger article 16 for months. Of course, the protocol was part of the withdrawal agreement that this Prime Minister negotiated, signed and told everybody was fantastic. But what is worse about all this is that the DUP actually believed him. I have a four-year-old who would not have believed him. It is astonishing that, after all of this, the DUP, which championed Brexit—it’s all one United Kingdom referendum, we all have to leave together, we were told—[Interruption.] Then there was an opportunity—[Interruption.] Members really want to listen, Mr Deputy Speaker. Then there was an opportunity to stop a border in the Irish sea by voting for the whole of the United Kingdom to stay in the customs union and single market. The DUP rejected it. [Interruption.] I hear, “That wasn’t Brexit.” Well, maybe it is about time that the DUP chose between the purest version of Brexit and the Union they profess to love. Now we have a protocol that had to be put in place because the DUP and others forced the hand of a previous Prime Minister into ensuring there would be a border in the Irish sea. It was not as if this was a surprise. Many of us, people of a nationalist persuasion and people of no persuasion at all, were shouting it loudly on TV and on the radio to tell them: this is what is going to happen if you don’t do something sensible about Brexit. We also have an opportunity. Let us get rid of most of the checks. Let us do it tomorrow. Let us have an SPS agreement with the European Union. The DUP reject that as well. How did they think this was going to end?

Now we have the DUP, who for months have held a gun to their own head, telling the British Government and the European Union, “If you don’t get me what I want, I’ll shoot.” And now they have shot and what have they got? This will never precipitate the result they want because it is impossible to do what the DUP wants. That is the reality. This is not about the protocol; this is about an election that will come in the next few months. All this is about is shoring up the Unionist support. That is what every election in Northern Ireland is about. Let’s get the people worried! Let’s get them scared! Who is going to be First Minister? Who is going to be Deputy First Minister? The Union is at risk! Why not actually work to make the institutions work and persuade the people out there who are interested in this big constitutional debate that they actually should vote for the Union at some point? But everything that the DUP does makes my job easier and easier. I do not have to do anything to persuade people to vote for constitutional change. I just have to let the DUP speak, because everything it has done over the past five or six years has led to more support for the Union.

The real losers in all this are the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who are going through a health crisis—our waiting lists would embarrass a third-world country—and who are seeing rising gas prices. They want to see the climate change legislation, they want to see the welfare mitigations going through and they want to see the domestic violence and stalking legislation, but what the DUP wants to do is walk away from its responsibilities. I hear from Sinn Féin that it wants an election as soon as possible, never mind about getting all the legislation through. Surely we have to learn the lesson that politicians are elected to go to work, to be at their desk to deal with the problems, and to sit down and work together to solve the problems on behalf of the people. All we got from the DUP this week, and from Sinn Féin five years ago, is that they walk away if they do not get what they want. Well, look how it is going to end up. The waiting lists will be longer, the schools will continue to crumble and our young people will continue to emigrate. That is the legacy of those two parties running Northern Ireland over the last 15 years, and it is about time people looked for something different.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will begin the wind-up speeches at 8.34.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

There is truth in the point made tonight that, almost five days into the crisis, the Prime Minister of this nation has not spoken. That is wrong. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ought to have spoken on Thursday evening about this issue. He should not shut up about it until the issue is resolved. These are his responsibilities. When we view a constitutional crisis through the prism of a divided community, which is what Northern Ireland is, we create suspicions and we raise concerns unless those matters are properly addressed. There is a fear among some people that the Conservative and Unionist party that governs this nation is actually an English nationalist party that is concerned not about a border in the Irish sea but about a red wall on the mainland island, and that that is what eats it up every single day. If that is this Government’s only concern, they are betraying the Union and the Unionist people.

That is the reality of where we are this evening. It is obvious to all of us who have been warning about this crisis—whatever side of the divide we are on, whether nationalists, Unionists or whatever—that this was bound to come to a head. That is the unfortunate reality of what has happened.

--- Later in debate ---

Either we ensure that the people of Northern Ireland unite and fight against that—I encourage every single Unionist to get out in the coming election, put their divisions and different party loyalties behind them and ensure that Unionism continues to be the first party in Northern Ireland—or this nation is heading towards a referendum on the future of the Union. Whether that referendum is in Scotland or Northern Ireland first, I am afraid it is more than likely that unless Unionists get out in the election and fight and vote for the right party, there will be a campaign towards a united Ireland. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Foyle recently cited, and rightly so, that his mother would not vote for a united Ireland because of the NHS. I hope that people do start to recognise the benefits of this Union; otherwise, we will get into an awful handling that the Government will never be able to unravel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To resume his seat at 8.34 pm, I call Stephen Farry.

Northern Ireland

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is a denial, Sir, not to acknowledge the consequences of decisions taken by those on both Front Benches, and imposed on Northern Ireland, which have caused seismic societal, economic and community breakdown. That is the Northern Ireland protocol, and we are witnessing that breakdown today. I condemn the violence, but all the condemnation in the world will not make the violence go away if action is not taken. The cause is not covid-19. Seriously? The cause is not Bobby Storey’s funeral, although that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Secretary of State knows that the protocol lies at the heart of this, because the identity of Ulster is at stake as a result of the protocol. I fear a continuing downward spiral unless the Secretary of State takes action, and the key action he can take is to invoke article 16, take control of the situation, and address—[Inaudible.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sorry Ian, but I think we got the gist of the point you are making.

[Brandon Lewis]

Yes, I understand the point the hon. Gentleman was making. He referenced a few of the things I outlined in my opening remarks about the challenges, the straw that broke the camel’s back and the issues around the protocol earlier this year. That is why we took unilateral action a few weeks ago, which he supported. We have been clear that we will take the action needed to make sure this works for Northern Ireland. Our focus is on working through the proper channels with our friends and partners in the EU to get an agreeable solution that works for those EU friends and partners we trade with as well as people across the United Kingdom, and enables the GB-NI trade that we all want to take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I agree in large part with what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is why it is important for us to be working to find solutions for the impact of the outworking of the protocol on the ground and—he is absolutely right, and I absolutely understand this—the impact on people’s sense of identity. I welcome his condemnation of the violence we saw the other week.

On policing, it is important that people are clear that the PSNI’s work is to be there to support, keep safe and protect people of all communities on an equal basis. People need to have trust and faith in that, and I know the PSNI is focused on looking at what it can do to make sure it is delivering it. It is simply unacceptable, particularly with such a set of regulations, that any one community should be in a position where it believes it can see there has been a difference in treatment from one part of the community to another, especially with something so sensitive as family funerals over the last year or so. I absolutely understand people’s frustration, and I know the PSNI does as well. It is working to ensure that people are clear and can have confidence and trust that it is there to work for people across the whole community of Northern Ireland—equally, fairly and properly—to keep us all safe.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 31 questions in just over an hour. We are going to suspend now for three minutes for cleaning the Dispatch Boxes, so that after the ten-minute rule Bill we can go straight into the Finance (No.2) Bill.

Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted the strength of feeling across communities on this issue, and understandably so. It is absolutely right that we are all clear that there are too many people from across Northern Ireland—and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—who lost people and who still do not have the information about and understanding of what happened in the way that they should. We must all work to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to get that information, with a pathway to reconciliation for people. Any life lost is one too many, and none of us should be doing anything other than respecting the people who lost people through the troubles in such tragic circumstances and often in a way that none of us today could ever excuse.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I just want to remind everybody to take care that they do not make reference to any live cases that may be ongoing at the moment.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he set out for the House what he expects the timescales to be for these reviews? This has all gone on over an extended period. The family are clearly concerned. Indeed, everyone in this House will be concerned about the length of time for which this has been allowed to drag on. If he could give us a position on timescales, I think that would settle some of the issues of concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I do not agree with what the hon. Lady has outlined. The March statement was the start of a conversation, which, as I said, we obviously paused; victims groups particularly requested that we pause it while they were dealing with that first core wave of covid. My view has been, as I have said all along, that I want to engage with civic society, as well as political parties and our partners in the Irish Government, on legacy—on finding a way forward that we can then bring back. I find it interesting sometimes to read what people assume is our position when I have not outlined it yet. It is important that we engage and listen to the people of Northern Ireland rather than making assumptions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 25 questions. The House stands suspended for three minutes.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).