Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Hannah Bardell

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

There is great dismay in Northern Ireland at the way a Bill described by the Chair of the Select Committee as a process Bill that is narrowly focused on a particular issue—how to keep Northern Ireland government going during a period when we do not have devolution, and how to get devolution up and running again—has been hijacked by those who have their own particular interests in specific issues, and who are now using the Bill as an attempt to drive through that agenda.

I do not intend to enter into arguments about whether we should have same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland or whether there should be a change in the law relating to abortion. I have totally different views from those expressed in the Chamber today, but that is not what the debate on the Bill ought to have been about in the first place. This debate is about the narrow issues in the Bill. The other issues that have been introduced have been introduced in a way that does not do justice to this House; that creates great dangers in Northern Ireland, especially when there is a sensitive talks process going on; and indeed, that angers many people in Northern Ireland whose views will be ignored if the amendments are passed today.

I want to say three things about the amendments and the reaction of some Members of this House. First, there is a very clear inconsistency. These matters are devolved. It really does not matter whether there is a devolved Assembly in operation at the moment or not; they are still devolved issues.

[Hannah Bardell]

It kind of does.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position, “It kind of does.” If it kind of does, why are those who are saying that we should interfere on the issue of same-sex marriage and abortion not being consistent and arguing that we should be using the powers of this House and bringing back to this House all the other issues, many of which are also human rights issues, such as the human rights of people who need special education to get special education, and the human rights of people who need life-saving operations to have life-saving operations? I do not hear any siren calls from the people who are saying, “Yes, it kind of does matter that there is no devolution in Northern Ireland.” If it does, let us bring other matters back to this House.

Relationships and Sex Education

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Hannah Bardell

Monday 25th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson]

No, I will not take any interventions, because other people wish to speak.

The core issue is the freedom of individuals and families to make decisions about what the appropriate teaching for their youngsters is. There is an irony that, on the one hand, parents can withdraw their youngster from education totally and teach them at home, but when it comes to this one particular aspect of education the right to opt out is severely curtailed. That strikes me as very odd, especially for something so sensitive.

Many parents have written to me expressing concerns, and have expressed them in briefings that I have been given, that the state is taking away from them the responsibility that they believe ultimately rests with them. Parents may well decide that the relationships education that their children are receiving in school is appropriate; however, if they decide that it is not something that they want their youngster to be taught, the right to withdraw has been taken away from them.

It is also significant that most of the publicity surrounding this matter has been about lesbian, bisexual and gay relationships; when interviewed on Radio 4, the Ofsted chief inspector zoned in on that aspect. For some parents, those are not the kind of relationships that they want their children to be taught about by a stranger. If they are going to talk about those things, parents want the ability to teach their youngsters about that themselves. At least they would have control over what was taught in that instance.

[Hannah Bardell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

No, I will not.

It is important that the state should not have a monopoly on such issues when it comes to the teaching of youngsters. I thought it significant that many Members who have talked about the importance of the regulations and expressed opposition to opt-outs are the very people who would, in many other instances, continually quote human rights obligations.

In a whole range of international rulings, including some by the European Court of Human Rights, and in international human rights law—I do not want to quote specific legislation or rulings—time and again the emphasis is that parents should ultimately have the right to know and decide what is taught to their youngsters, and should be able, where it is contrary to their beliefs, to exercise their right not to have their youngsters subjected to that kind of teaching. They should be the people who ultimately decide what values and beliefs are instilled in their children. It is significant that that aspect seems to have been missing from most of the speeches in this debate.

My final point is that the current rules either place a big burden on teachers or give far too many rights to headteachers. Nowhere are “exceptional circumstances” defined, so headteachers who particularly want their schools to push certain lifestyles in relationships education could refuse to allow parents to opt their children out. They may regard such parents as bigots, as people with funny views, as fundamentalists or as orthodox, which they do not like.

We have to remember that the secular trend in education can be quite aggressive at times: it gives headteachers who want to push an agenda a huge ability to say, “No, you cannot remove your children, whether you like it or not, because I want them to hear this.” On the other hand, the rules may place a burden on teachers and headteachers, because they will be left to make judgments without any specific guidelines or criteria. If headteachers are given no guidance, schools will inevitably make different decisions. I believe that that will put pressure on headteachers.

For all those reasons—individual freedom, the right for families to decide what they want their youngsters to be taught, and the ability for parents rather than teachers to make the final decision in the absence of clear guidelines—I believe that the only answer is to give parents the right to opt out in all circumstances where they decide, “This is not the kind of education that I want for my children.” I do not believe that children will be disadvantaged by that.

There are plenty of other, probably more effective ways for schools to deal with issues such as domestic violence or homophobic bullying. Having pastoral care, making sure that teachers know what is happening in the classroom and the playground—those are the ways to deal with it. I do not believe that the regulations will be a panacea or that they will deal with many of the issues that hon. Members have raised today.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Hannah Bardell

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, may I welcome the changes that the Government have made regarding the Magnitsky amendment? It is likely to have an impact on those who think that they can get away with human rights abuses and hide behind and use their wealth in the United Kingdom. However, I am disappointed that we have not discussed on the Floor of the House the Government amendment and new clauses that were tabled as alternatives to new clause 6.

I have two main concerns. Coming from Northern Ireland, I know the impact on devolved Administrations of interference in devolved matters by the Government at Westminster, and I also know the impact that this can have on those with nationalist tendencies. New clause 6 presents a real danger in this regard. People have had to do constitutional somersaults in the House today. The Scottish National party, which has vigorously defended the rights and independence of the devolved Administration in Scotland, now suddenly has no difficulty supporting interference in the overseas territories.

[Hannah Bardell]

rose—

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Let me finish my argument. The point has been made that the SNP has done a constitutional somersault because this issue is of such importance. Well, during debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the Scottish National party was quite happy to have things devolved to the Scottish Parliament that could have broken up the internal market of the United Kingdom and affected the economy of the whole country, yet they insisted that it was their right for those things to be devolved. This constitutional somersault indicates that a different attitude has been adopted towards the overseas territories on this issue, and it is an attitude that we will live to regret.

The Minister has said that he will hold the hand of the overseas territories, give them support, encourage them along and give them the opportunity to have a say in what goes into the Order in Council. Nevertheless, those who have already done a lot of what has been asked of them will feel that we have brought down a heavy hand on them.

[Hannah Bardell]

Can the hon. Gentleman name one Scottish policy—just one—that impinges on the human rights or the economy of the rest of the UK?

[Sammy Wilson]

This is the first time we have ever had a qualification put on the Scottish National party’s view that devolution is sacrosanct. All through the debates we have had in this House about the sacrosanct nature of devolved Administrations, there has never, ever been a qualification, but today we have the qualification added—