Northern Ireland Troubles Bill (Carry-over)

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The protections that are contained in the Bill currently will apply to RUC personnel and others who served the state, and the hon. Gentleman will see the further amendments that we will bring forward.

I would point out that every Member of the House has just received a letter from Joe McVey, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland, urging us to vote for this motion tonight and making the argument that

“beyond every clause and every amendment there are people whose lives have been shaped by loss”.

One important part of the Bill is the consideration it gives to those who served the state so bravely in the form of protections for veterans and police officers to ensure that they are treated fairly and with dignity and respect. In recent months, as I set out in my written ministerial statement last week, my ministerial colleagues and I have been consulting widely on the legislation. We have been very grateful for the time that veterans groups have spent with us, explaining how they think our legacy processes need to be improved. That is why we are putting in place new protections: no repeated investigations; an end to cold calling; requiring consideration to be given to the age and welfare of veterans; and enabling any veteran asked to give evidence to do so remotely and anonymously.

In Committee, I will be bringing forward a substantial package of amendments to further strengthen those safeguards, including clearly differentiating between the lawful actions of soldiers and police and the unlawful actions of paramilitary terrorists, and to put in place arrangements to oversee how those protections operate in practice. Without the Bill, all those new protections—which were not in the legacy Act—would not be there for veterans while the commission continues its work, including investigations. That would be a complete abdication of our responsibilities to families and veterans, who would face continuing uncertainty. Is that really what those who have expressed concerns about the Bill want to see happen?

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

For several months now, including when the Secretary of State has appeared before the Select Committee, he has in all good faith promised these amendments. Does he understand that his case this evening would be assisted if the House were to see those amendments? The motion effectively asks us to sign a blank cheque on a promissory note when we have no idea what it might contain.

[Hilary Benn]

The best way to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House see the amendments is to pass the carry-over motion tonight.

Northern Ireland Troubles

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I spoke yesterday to the victims’ commissioner in Northern Ireland. On 19 September when the framework was published, the Tánaiste and I met the victims and survivors forum in Northern Ireland and explained what the framework seeks to do. I made a commitment to the victims’ commissioner yesterday that I will come back to meet the victims and survivors forum once it has had a chance to look at the legislation to find out what it thinks.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In the interests of trying to solve this issue, I wish the Secretary of State well and hope that he will bring forward the Bill and deal with its progress in the spirit of compromise and co-operation between the parties to find the best landing spot possible. He mentioned good faith, which is a precious resource that is often in short supply when it comes to this issue. I think it would be helpful if he works vigorously with the Irish Government to get them to ascertain at speed and pace what, if any, legislative measures they require to make good on what they have committed to, and could he as best as possible work those two pieces of legislation in lockstep to give confidence to both sides, who have concerns when it comes to good faith—or rather the absence of it?

[Hilary Benn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I hope he knows that I will do anything and everything I can to try to find a way forward, in partnership with as many Members of the House as possible. For a long period of time, this question has been subject to the bipartisanship which, in the main, has characterised relations between the parties in the House on matters to do with Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are disagreements in relation to one aspect of what we are putting forward; that does not mean that we cannot work together on the others.

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of seeing the legislation required in Ireland to give effect to the proposals. I was standing next to the Tánaiste when he made it quite clear—to give an example—that he would ensure legislation was in place to deal with the commitment to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh public inquiry before the hearings resume in March. That seems to be an important example of good faith.

Privilege

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That

(1) the transcript of unreported oral evidence taken from Mr Baxter by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in private session on 11 November 2009 be referred to the Committee of Privileges;

(2) the Committee consider the petition from the Secretary to the Omagh Bombing inquiry in relation to that evidence and take any advice it considers necessary;

(3) the Committee’s powers, including the power to report and publish evidence if it considers it appropriate to do so, shall apply in respect of that evidence;

(4) the Committee report to the House on the actions it has taken and any other matters it considers relevant by 30 October 2025; and

(5) if the Committee considers the evidence should remain unreported, the Committee’s report should include a recommendation on the desirability or otherwise of the release of the evidence to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing this debate today. I raise the matter as a former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, a current member of that Committee and the current Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which by dint of shadowing the Cabinet Office overlooks the Inquiries Act 2005. I have worked closely with the current Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), on the motion. We simply hope to take the procedural step needed to enable the important work of the Omagh bombing inquiry to be effective, while in tandem respecting the rights of the House.

On Wednesday last week, my hon. Friend for Gower—for she is a friend in respect of this work, as well as in many other respects—presented a petition from the secretary to the inquiry asking for access to unpublished Committee evidence. We must not forget what lies behind this motion, so let me quote from the 2008 report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee into the Omagh bombing:

“On Saturday 15 August 1998, a 500 lb car bomb exploded in Market Street, Omagh, County Tyrone, killing 29 people and two unborn children. The bombing caused more death than any other single atrocity committed during, or since, the Troubles in Northern Ireland. More than 250 people were treated in hospital and hundreds more were also injured. The Real IRA claimed responsibility for the attack three days later. No one has been convicted of causing the bombing.”

Like colleagues across the House, I think it is important that we remember and honour those innocent people who were killed and injured that day. Questions still remain and the inquiry seeks to answer them—let us hope that it does so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was born in Omagh a long, long time ago—70 years ago, to be precise. I do not remember very much about it, but Omagh has always been dear to my heart. I remember well the event as it took place, the people that day and the tears we all shed for the people of Omagh, and we seek justice. Families have suffered for too long and I support their quest for justice. Does the hon. Member agree that justice should be at the forefront of the minds of all right hon. and hon. Members during this process?

[Simon Hoare]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. If this place is not a champion of justice and its pursuit as a high court of Parliament, what is it?

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I have had the privilege of sharing time on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), in the names of whom this motion has been laid. It is crucial that the Omagh inquiry gets the information it requires, and we have raised concerns about the Irish Government and their reluctance. It would be useful for the Privileges Committee to hear very clearly from me and, I hope, from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that it would be entirely incongruous if in an inquiry set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which was passed by this Parliament, to seek answers for the Omagh bombing families and construed in their names, information that Norman Baxter gave to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was available and could assist the inquiry, but was refused because of privilege. That would be an intolerable situation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that having gone through this process and agreed this motion, the information will be made available.

[Simon Hoare]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I endorse it entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) and his Committee will look at the motion, if the House decides to pass it this evening, and I know he will have heard that. I echo what the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has said. I hope that if the House agrees to this motion, the Privileges Committee will look favourably on the request and do so in a timely manner.

The inquiry was established in February 2024 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Its task is to investigate whether the bombing in the town of Omagh in August 1998 could reasonably have been prevented by UK state authorities. As part of its terms of reference, the inquiry was specifically asked to look at

“the allegation made by Norman Baxter”—

a former senior investigating officer in the investigation into the Omagh bombing—

“in the course of his evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 11 November 2009, that police investigators into previous attacks in Moira (20 February 1998), Portadown (9 May 1998), Banbridge (1 August 1998) and Lisburn (30 April 1998) did not have access to intelligence materials which may reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists prior to the Omagh Bombing.”

I quote that because I think it is germane to our considerations.

The inquiry has established that some of the evidence taken from Mr Baxter by the Committee has not been reported to the House, so it remains unpublished and inaccessible. That is effectively the kernel of this motion. The petition asks for access to that evidence. We find ourselves in the strange position whereby in setting up the inquiry, specific reference is made to that piece of evidence submitted, but because of a procedural problem here it was not published and is therefore not on the public record. That is why the inquiry has asked for the evidence.

At this stage, I express my gratitude to both Mr Baxter and the inquiry team. They immediately realised that if the evidence had not been published, it belonged to this House. They sought advice from the House authorities and received it. They have been careful to ensure that they have acted properly throughout.

There are two issues here. The first issue is that if a Committee wants to publish evidence, it must report it to the House and obtain an order to publish that evidence. If it wants material to be available to Members but no one else, it can simply report the evidence to the House. Evidence that is reported but not published is available to Members in subsequent Parliaments, but unreported evidence is accessible only to the Committee to which it belongs and in the Parliament in which it was taken. Once that Parliament is over—which, clearly, it is—no one has access to unreported evidence until the archives are open. There is no wriggle room here, hence the reason for this motion and the detailed explanation—I am sorry to detain the House.

If a Committee wishes to see unreported evidence from its counterpart in the previous Parliament, the House must refer it to that Committee. If anyone outside the House wants that evidence, they must petition for it, as the secretary to the inquiry has done. That is what this motion seeks to advance. It is very hard for the House to decide whether to release evidence that it has not seen and cannot see before the decision is made. It is particularly difficult in this case, as that evidence may contain sensitive information.

Accordingly, the motion invites the House to refer the evidence to the Committee of Privileges. That Committee can undoubtedly consider the matter and probably take advice. If it is advised that there is no reason not to publish the evidence, which was taken more than 15 years ago, it might simply decide to publish it—I hope that it can and does. Otherwise, it can consider the matter and report to the House with a recommendation on what would be appropriate. The House can then make an informed decision subsequent to the work of the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire.

The second issue is that article 9 of the Bill of Rights says:

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

That means that courts should not evaluate what is said in this place. That is not simply a matter of us being free to speak freely in Parliament; it extends to all those who participate in our proceedings, including our witnesses. It is clearly important that people should be free to give evidence to the House and its Committees without fear of legal consequences.

This is also a matter of the constitutional separation of powers between Parliament and the courts. A “Place out of Parlyament” does not mean anywhere outside Parliament: it has been taken to mean something with powers like those of a court. The ban on impeaching and questioning means not that no use can be made of parliamentary material, but that the use must be careful. The Omagh statutory inquiry is like a court: it has power to take evidence on oath, and its Chair may direct people to attend as witnesses and/or to produce documents if requested to do so. The House authorities consider it a “Place out of Parlyament”. For that reason, the House authorities regularly contact statutory inquiries to draw their attention to the important provisions of article 9.

I am delighted to note that the petition is clear that

“the Inquiry has taken advice on the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to its proceedings and will be mindful of the privileges of the House.”

I am confident that Lord Turnbull, who has the onerous task of chairing the inquiry, and his team recognise the issues; their behaviour demonstrates that. I expect that if the Privileges Committee considers the petition should be granted, the key issues that the inquiry is invited to consider will be informed by the evidence without impeaching and questioning. I trust it will be possible for us to assist the inquiry in its work.

I hope that I have made as clear as I possibly can the genesis and importance of this motion, the lacuna that it seeks to fill and the requirements that this House has quite rightly guarded jealously for a long, long time on how evidence submitted to it is treated. I hope I have made clear and impressed on the House the importance of its passing this motion, and I urge it to do so. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Belfast East, we set a timeline in the motion to the Privileges Committee, but I know that it will tend to it with expedition.

I hope colleagues will agree to this motion, which will allow informed consideration of all the issues. It will hopefully bring justice or clarity to justice, as we have discussed with regard to the inquiry, which is looking into that terrible crime that blighted the lives of so many and ended the lives of so many prematurely, including two unborn children.

Northern Ireland City Deals

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman is right: a number of things have been paused. I can think of a levelling-up project in my constituency that has been paused as a result of our fiscal inheritance. That is what the Treasury is having to deal with.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State knows, one of the unsung and often undervalued benefits of city deals is that they underpin the argument for the rebuilding of a new, post-conflict Northern Ireland, delivering normalcy and forging partnerships between sectors. That is an argument that is often lost on the bean counters in the Treasury. Can he assure the House that he will be making that key point as we all seek to rebuild Northern Ireland in the image of what we would all like it to become?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point. The progress that Northern Ireland has made over the past 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is what everybody is striving to continue. I am confident that the Treasury will pay close attention to the exchanges on this urgent question, and the hon. Gentleman’s eloquence speaks for itself.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We still have other questions.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Anglo-Irish agreement is absolutely vital, and the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach is to be welcomed. Prime Ministers’ diaries become very full; will the Secretary of State use his good offices to ensure that that dialogue between Taoiseach and Prime Minister continues to build on that relationship to see it flourish still further?

[Hilary Benn]

I can indeed give that assurance. My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has agreed there will be an annual summit.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. The many amendments to this Bill throughout the last year have included measures on how families should be engaged with and how their views should be heard throughout the process. To ensure that the commission can obtain as much information for families as possible, we need to ensure that the right incentives are in place for individuals to come forward and provide that information. The possibility that eligible individuals who co-operate fully with the commission could then be prevented from obtaining immunity from prosecution is highly likely to act as a significant disincentive for individuals to disclose that information.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

This was never going to be an easy issue, or an easy Bill. If it was easy, it would have been done many years ago. What the Government are proposing may be right, or it may be part right and part wrong. I certainly think that giving those survivors and their families a right to veto would be the wrong step to take, so the Government are right on that. However, I think the House will find comfort in the fact that the Secretary of State will keep the progress of the enactment under review, and if there is abuse or things that are wrong, we can revisit it, tidy it up and make it work better. This cannot be seen as a closed chapter, job done. Rather, it is the start of a new process—quite experimental in some ways—of learning from other people’s experiences. If we have that comfort that this is amendable and reviewable, it might help to assuage some, if not all, the concerns.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his point. He will know that other amendments I have tabled have tried to make this body as independent as it can possibly be. I am sure he will have taken great heart from the appointment of the chief commissioner designate, Sir Declan Morgan, and from the comments he has been making about how he intends to go about his business. He is engaging widely, even at this point, and will do so even further when the Bill gets Royal Assent and becomes an Act. Just in the practice of Sir Declan in putting the flesh on the framework that we are building here for the commission, I think my hon. Friend will see that there are lots of opportunities for it to do exactly what he wishes it to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I wish my right hon. Friend a happy anniversary. I also thank, as he did, the outgoing shadow team and welcome the new. He is right to reference the recent data breach, which will have very much changed the backdrop of the morale of the police in Northern Ireland—and not just officers, but those in support services. Budgets are under pressure, as we know, but the security and safety of serving officers and those who work for the PSNI is always important, particularly post the data breach, given the potential risks from dissidents that that creates. Can he assure me that he will do all he can to deliver safety equipment, protection and security for those who are feeling most vulnerable at this time?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, I absolutely can. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the PSNI’s senior leadership team, who have a wealth of experience and are dedicated to keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe. I know that they are continuing to work closely to ensure the very best possible response to this breach. Just to give a tiny bit of detail, very briefly, the PSNI and security partners will continue to take proportionate action to protect their officers, staff and families and they have full Government support in responding to the data breach. At the moment, our focus remains on providing specialist support and expertise to the PSNI from across Government.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Rosie, in this Committee. I will keep my remarks brief to allow us to hear from the Northern Ireland parties on Third Reading.

Once again we come together to debate legislation that should be dealt with in Stormont. We still have civil servants running Departments with restricted powers, trying to plug a gap of £800 million and unable to consult with Cabinet Ministers. Stormont is the right and proper place for scrutiny to take place. In this place, we cannot simply provide the level of consideration and scrutiny that this budget deserves.

To quote today’s report from Pivotal,

“managing this situation has been extremely challenging, if not impossible, thanks to two interlocked problems: no political leadership for decision-making and impossibly tight budgets.”

On the first problem, sadly I have seen no sign over the recess that indicates the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive is any nearer. I would welcome hearing from the Secretary of State what discussions he has had over the summer with parties in Northern Ireland, as the situation is now beyond breaking point.

On the second problem—the budget—we do not oppose the Bill, as services are in desperate need of funding, but the fact is that this budget is not enough to address the problems facing public services in Northern Ireland. A real-terms funding fall of 3.3% means that existing services simply cannot continue to function as normal. The people of Northern Ireland have been left facing cuts to support and increases in charges for everyday necessities during the cost of living crisis. While we appreciate the need to explore avenues to raise revenue, the measures put forward so far may cause more societal damage than the monetary gain is worth. As I have mentioned, we are missing a vital level of scrutiny and accountability for these measures.

We, the Labour party, agree with the principle that local decisions should be made by local politicians, but the situation is now extreme. While there continues to be no functioning Executive, I ask the Secretary of State to consider what he can do within his power to help the people of Northern Ireland. This is a critical state of affairs, and the full impact may not yet be realised, as any overspends will inevitably lead to further cuts the next year. The only viable way forward for Northern Ireland is the restoration of the Executive, and I implore the Secretary of State, the Minister and the main parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that happens sooner rather than later.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

If I may, I will both put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and my congratulations on his new job, and welcome the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to his new position. I remember the speech the right hon. Gentleman gave in our debate on the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, just before the Easter recess, which showed a depth of knowledge of, interest in and love for Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee look forward to working with him in the weeks and months ahead.

While I understand that new clause 1, tabled in my name and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), has not been selected for debate, I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to the merit that underpins the argument with regard to the maintenance of the Audit Committee, notwithstanding Stormont not being in place.

The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) is absolutely right. The delivery of public services in Northern Ireland is under huge pressure as a result of the covid backlog in health, as we know, and an increase in demand with a shrinking supply. The recent events with regards to the PSNI will clearly be putting additional pressures on other budgets as well.

The restoration of Stormont would not provide all the keys to unlock all the currently locked or semi-locked doors, but, by God, it would make a huge difference. The hon. Lady is right on that. I have said right from the start that one can understand the points and principles of the Democratic Unionist party with regard to the protocol and the Windsor framework, but I think the Government have made it clear that will not change; it just has to be made to work. The Minister in the other place has signified that there will be additional statutory instruments. My cri de coeur is one that I have made before—it has hitherto fallen on deaf ears. This is a situation affecting public services and those who are most reliant on them. Those people—protected to some extent by this necessary budget Bill—have no choice other than to use the services provided by the state and the public sector. They cannot go elsewhere. They are looking to local politicians with a depth of understanding to find the answers to these questions.

I appreciate that this is a slightly wider point, but this Bill is required—it is brought about not through the desire of Government but through necessity. That necessity could end, and it could end tomorrow. That would lead to better governance, better decision making and transformational approaches to the delivery of public services, getting more bang for the buck and a better uplift for the people of Northern Ireland. Those of us who are committed to public service should be seeking that. I therefore support the Bill, and will support the Government in any votes in Committee or on Third Reading, but it is a sad day when we have to pass such a Bill because of some who are resiling from the positions of trust to which they have been elected.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), my constituency neighbour, but the content of my speech will be slightly different from hers.

I will not delve into the Committee stage, amendments that were tabled but not brought forward, or amendments that were needlessly provocative and stepped far away from the principles that the party that tabled them purport to stand for, but I want to talk about the Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is the second such budget Bill that has been before this House this year.

When we discussed the original Bill, it was just called the budget Bill, rather than No. 1 or No. 2. We were dealing with last year’s financial position and, at that stage, Members from my party introduced the discussion around need. We challenged the Government about their understanding of need, and we were patronised at that time. We were told, without any sense of irony, shame or knowledge of the facts, that in Northern Ireland we are over-funded and get £1.21 for every £1 that is spent in England.

But still we tried to bring the conversation back to assessed need and the similar process that Wales had to go through over five years with the Holtham Commission. However, there was no sense that the position that we were outlining, identified by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in September last year, was a position that recognised that while our Budget may grow by 3.6%, public spending in England was going to grow by 6%, or a recognition that by the end of this financial cycle households in Northern Ireland would each be £2,000 less well-off than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, and therefore there was a budgetary problem. It has taken from January of this year to now for that seed to start germinating.

When there is a recognition in public discourse that this is a punishment budget before us this evening—this has been described as a punishment budget, which has been ignored by those in power—and no decision is taken to change it meaningfully or beneficially for the people of Northern Ireland, it will hurt us economically. We cannot systemically assess Northern Ireland public finances and know that what Northern Ireland gets is less than what it needs and not recognise that that has a material impact on the delivery of public services. Yet that is exactly what we are discussing this evening. The Fiscal Council has now published and what it says is recognised. I remember the back and forth with the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I was grateful that he took on my request to carry out an inquiry on this issue. He has been on a journey and now recognises that when the Fiscal Council says what we need to deliver effective public services with £1.24, we are getting less than what we need. When that is done year on year, there is a compounding negative impact. It means that every year we are starting with less and that this budget simply has a recurring feature of making sure that public services in Northern Ireland are denied the money that they need to be operated effectively.

I know that repetition is not sinful in this place, but it is worth reiterating time and again that, until the Government embrace this discussion meaningfully and properly, Northern Ireland public services will not be able to flourish. Drastic decisions that are being taken and have been taken will continue to be taken.

[Simon Hoare]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is undoubtedly true, but does he also accept—I think the Select Committee has been hearing this during our inquiry—that there is a real sense of frustration among many of the professional practitioners about the absence of the delivery of transformational change: delivering public services in a different way; or getting more bang for the buck, to put it more crudely. A functioning Executive in Stormont would lead to some big, bold and brave decisions. I understand that would be difficult for parties across the piece, but trying to deliver public services in the same old way in the absence of transformational change, given budgetary pressures across the public purse in respect of whichever party in the UK, is an opportunity that is missed and is to the detriment of people across the whole of Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

The best that can be hoped for in this scenario is that a return to devolved Government means that locally elected representatives and Ministers in an Executive can make the choices based on the information put before them. The hon. Gentleman cannot—nor can I—dictate what those choices should be. The choices have been there for previous Executives, yet I may argue that the wrong decisions have been made. But what I am suggesting in the here and now is what we can control. Not only are we continuing to finance less than what we need, but we are continuing to break parity between the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales.

The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who is in his place, will remember the pay award parity issue that abounded whenever he was embarking on the New Decade, New Approach discussions in 2019, culminating in a deal in 2020. The first nursing strike ever in any part of the United Kingdom was based on that pay parity issue alone. And here we are, just three years later, and parity has broken again. Here we are from the last financial year and we recognise that there is not only a £500 million projected overspend this year, but a £575 million public pay pressure. When we add on the overspend from last year, which was £297 million but now seems to be £254 million, the figure, whatever it is, takes us close to a deficit of £1.3 billion.

I agree with the Secretary of State when he said—I am sure with much thought—that Northern Ireland does not need the sticking plaster of a one-off financial package. Let me be very clear that not one person from my party, or anyone sensible from Northern Ireland, has suggested that what we need is a one-off, one-year sticking plaster to fix a problem that is of this Government’s making. We are asking for a pragmatic and mature reflection on how much it costs to deliver Northern Ireland’s public services, and to get on with recalibrating the Barnett formula to ensure that we can do so. That is what we need. That is not yet what we have. The choices will be there for a new Executive.

The second most drastic thing that I think the Government have introduced into the debate is the notional view that we just need to get on and raise revenue. You have heard it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister mentioned it this evening: a £27 billion budget for the forthcoming year. Take household rates, the biggest household contribution to the public finances that individuals make outside of tax and national insurance, with £1.7 billion raised each year. Can we honestly imagine indicating in a cost of living crisis to our public, businesses and wider society that they should double their domestic and non-domestic contributions to household rates? Doubling them would allow us to get close to where we need to be. No problem. By 2025, we will have £2,000 less than every household in England, but add another £2,000 on, please, to stand still. Get real. Transformation? I have an idea: let us raise money by increasing tuition fees.

That brings me back to when I replied to the hon. Member for North Dorset about the choices that an Executive will have. We cannot determine those, but in the past whenever people were saying that there should be an increase in tuition fees it was for a beneficial outcome. Increase tuition fees and we can get rid of the maximum student numbers cap. Increase tuition fees and we will be able to fund more places so that our best and brightest will no longer have to leave Northern Ireland to be educated in England, Scotland and Wales, or anywhere else in the world. Those were positive benefits from an increase in tuition fees, yet it was never politically acceptable. Now what is on offer is just raising the cost to stand still, or to provide public services when we know that what we get is not sufficient to match the need.

Nobody is asking for a sticking plaster. Nobody can say what the choices shall be. I did not intend to speak for as long as I have, and I want to let other people contribute, but here we are again, with the second budget Bill of the year and the same challenges. It is progress at least that on 5 July the Deputy Prime Minister accepted for the first time, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), our party leader, that finances in Northern Ireland need to be predicated on need. That was the first time that we had heard that. Having been dismissed and ignored in January, we had acceptance of it in July. Yet the challenge is there for the rest of the financial year.

The punishment budget that has been outlined and is being advanced this evening will continue to cripple the effective delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. I have heard nothing from the Northern Ireland Office, or from anyone else around Government, to suggest that they are in the space of turning that around within this financial year. We are halfway through it. We want to see political progress, but the idea that we get political progress only for an incoming Executive to falter because they cannot deliver for the people would be the biggest crime of all.

Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I do recognise those aspects. We have published today revised guidance and those relatively small changes are now available on gov.uk. We will certainly be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s views, and those of all relevant parties, on that guidance. In a nutshell, I agree with him that the best way forward is to restore the institutions. I am trying not to hector, but we are all very frustrated. As I have repeatedly said, I recognise that the Democratic Unionist party and Unionism more broadly face a very difficult compromise, but I am committed, as I know the hon. Gentleman is, to saying that devolved government in Northern Ireland is the best way forward.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will, and once I have done so I will try to press on.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Picking up on the point raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) with regard to the role of civil servants, is the Minister able to consider seconding GB civil servants with experience of delivering dynamic change management to both the Northern Ireland civil service and the Northern Ireland Office in order to help deliver those changes? Although we hope it will for a short period of time, all hands are needed to the pump.

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend makes a very sensible suggestion. I am sure it will be considered in due course, but I hope he will not mind me saying that it would be best if that request came from a restored Executive. I know that I sound like a broken record, but that is the present issue.

I will press on. First, I express my sincere thanks to Opposition Members for continuing to ensure that Northern Ireland is served as well as possible and for not making it a political football. I appreciate that most sincerely.

The Bill does three important things. First, it continues the provisions relating to decision making for Northern Ireland civil servants, which Parliament passed in December in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. Those provisions, which clarify the decisions that civil servants in the Northern Ireland Departments can take in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers and an Executive, are due to expire on 5 June. Under this Bill, those powers will continue until an Executive are restored. This will avoid a governance gap arising if an Executive are not in place by 5 June. As before, senior officers will be required to have regard to guidance, now published, set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government. That draft is out there, and we will take representations on it.

The second thing that the Bill does, and this is a little more novel, is give power to the Secretary of State to explore, with Northern Ireland Departments, options for budget sustainability, including further revenue raising, in Northern Ireland. Alongside allowing him to commission advice, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to direct consultations to be held by Northern Ireland Departments on those matters. These powers are time-limited and apply only until an Executive are formed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I support this Bill as a necessity, without any particular enthusiasm, and I echo and endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Minister said in exhorting political parties to get back into Stormont to deliver for people. I also echo the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), about the importance of learning from the process of talks and leadership that got us to the Good Friday agreement. We cannot sit like latter-day Mr Micawbers, waiting for something to turn up; we have to try to make the weather. I suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that if conversations are not already being had with Dublin as one of the two capital co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, they should re-inject some energy, pull people in and find out precisely what the issues are and what, if anything, can be done to address them and rebuild trust, in order to get back to serving the people of Northern Ireland through directly elected politicians.

Over this coronation weekend, I learned from our vicar in Blandford Forum a new Henry Ford quote—it was new to me, although possibly not to anybody else. Henry Ford once said that if he had asked the population at the time what they wanted, they would not have said a motor car; they would have said that they wanted a faster horse. Sometimes, we as politicians have to make the weather, and show leadership and shape the debate, rather than merely echo what the base has to say. That requires the vision, the courage and the bravery that we saw from that political class in the mid-1990s, running through to the Good Friday agreement. I am an optimist, and I believe that that spirit of delivery in public service still exists. It is not beyond the wit of this place and the political parties in Northern Ireland to resurrect it and to see Stormont come back.

I think we all recognise that for too long, bold and brave policy initiatives in Northern Ireland have been slightly less to the fore. There has been a tendency to ask for additional moneys from the Treasury, and the Treasury coughing up and providing it through some avenue or another. Everybody is conscious of the unique history of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, and therefore of the additional needs for public expenditure and intervention that are required, which are different from any other part of the UK. However, as we, hopefully, move forward—we discussed this at the Select Committee this morning, and Sir David Sterling certainly echoed this point—in order to deliver step changes of improvement for those who use public services, a greater reliance on match funding from the Treasury needs to be looked at. That means that local politicians in Northern Ireland deliver new streams of money, either through revenue or expenditure savings, and the Treasury provides new money. To just continually provide new money with no concomitant reform from Belfast does not serve any particular purpose, and arguably raises too many questions in the minds of English voters as to why they are not getting a greater share of the public purse than, for example, those in Northern Ireland, because they too readily and easily forget the difficult history.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will remember that back in January, he and I argued the toss on issues of how Northern Ireland is financed. Since then, I appreciate that he took a letter from me. He understood exactly where I was coming from on the structural improvements required for the funding of Northern Ireland and launched an inquiry in that regard. I appreciate those efforts, but I regret that even today he is talking about coughing up on a regular basis more and more money from the Treasury, when he knows from the Fiscal Council that this is not a separate discussion about reform, though that is necessary and important for the delivery of public services. Northern Ireland is structurally underfunded by this Parliament, and it has been for years, with a compounding impact on the ability to deliver public services. Rather than pitch us against his constituents in England, would it not be better for him to reflect on the structural underfunding, the resolve to get Northern Ireland to a more sustainable place with public finances and the need to use a comparator such as Wales, which went through exactly the same process 15 years ago, culminating in a financial uplift 10 years ago?

[Simon Hoare]

Let me answer that point first. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point, and I am grateful to him for being the genesis for the Committee’s current inquiry, which is proving incredibly useful. He is right to talk about the disparity, and perhaps the phrase “coughing up” might not have been the most elegant I could have used, but he knows me well enough to know that elegance is not one of my greatest strengths. I can almost feel a second letter of “I agree with you” coming from him. He will be pleased to know that the one he sent me some months ago adorns the wall of the downstairs loo, as a rare thing of him agreeing with something that I said in this place in a debate on Northern Ireland.

In all seriousness—this is a point we discussed upstairs in Committee—constituents in England, Wales and Scotland are paying for things that residents of Northern Ireland currently are not paying for. While he is right to point to some of the structural imbalances, it does need to be a two-way street. There should not be an opportunity for the continuance of water and other things being outwith the charging mechanisms while expecting additional resource from Treasury to meet that gap. If he has looked at the reports of the Fiscal Council, he will see clearly the amount of money that could be generated by introducing charges.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

This is an interesting discussion, and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has, on a number of occasions, made sensible points about the challenges of delivering public services with the economy of scale that we have in Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) agree that when we look to a wider economy of scale, perhaps on the island of Ireland, services become considerably more viable? Would he further agree that it opens up the opportunity of using numerous other fiscal levers to take us outside the locked-in cycle of just being dependent on pocket money from UK Governments? Would he further agree that the substantial budget surplus that the Republic is currently identifying and enjoying could help with some of these problems?

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady digs the most elegant of tiger traps, hoping I will jump into it, but I will swerve around it. She makes a point that most people in their heart of hearts would agree with, which is that if a greater bang for the public sector buck can be achieved, which then has a direct benefit for outcomes in health, economic development, education and so on, that should be explored. Part of the reason why so many people in this place were keen to ensure the openness of the border north-south was that huge exchange of people, trade and ideas that takes place on a daily basis. Purely in the need to try to drive as much efficiency for the taxpayer as possible, nothing should be ruled in or out. If, however, her intervention was an elegant way of inviting me to endorse the idea of joint authority, I am afraid I will have to disappoint her, because devolution is the only game in town as far as I am concerned, and the Minister articulated that, too.

I move to my final point, because I know that others wish to speak. Under new section 5A in the Bill, which concerns advice and information, any direction from the Secretary of State falls or lapses at the end of the current period in which there is no Executive. What that could effectively mean—perhaps the Bill is deliberately opaque on this—is that all the work, consultation, information, advice and so on is lost. Does it get passed to Ministers in Stormont as a piece of work that they may or may not wish to consider? We know that the Secretary of State perfectly properly—although that in itself is a debatable point—cannot take decisions based on the advice or consultation. However, if that good work, particularly that undertaken by civil servants—as always, they will be rising to the challenge of trying to deliver not just existing public services, but public service reform—is to be meaningful, I would hope that the advice and information tabled to the Secretary of State would be passported over to the relevant new Minister in the Executive.

It is clear, certainly in the evidence sessions that we have held, in meetings that the Committee has had and on visits to Northern Ireland, that the public are ahead of us on this. They know that there are problems with public service. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made the point to me some while ago that a resurrected Stormont could not solve all the problems, and he is right to make that point, but it can certainly play a part in trying to find solutions to very many of them. The public appetite for public service reform is acute, as people face the cost of living crisis post covid and the economy faces all the challenges as a result of Ukraine and the associated knock-on effects. I would like to hear from the Minister what will happen to that advice.

I join the Minister in praying, exalting, urging—whatever. The people of Northern Ireland deserve so much better than this. They do not deserve interim arrangements. They do not deserve or need temporary sticking plasters. They need fundamental, robust, energised and engaged public service. The appetite is there, and I believe that it is growing across the political parties in Northern Ireland. I hope that we can get Stormont back up and running because, as we all know, devolution really is the only show in town.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

Belfast/Good Friday Agreement: 25th Anniversary

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes. This is probably not the appropriate time or space to do that, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there has been an increase in loyalist paramilitarism. The Government are supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland in clamping down on it; we are well aware of it, and are working with politicians across the piece in Northern Ireland. With the Police Service of Northern Ireland, there is a lot that we can do both to decrease tensions in those communities and to make sure that those who are using criminal activity at the expense of their neighbours in their communities face the appropriate penalties.

Let me return to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. For our part, the UK Government have continually supported and invested in Northern Ireland, its place in the Union and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement framework. We are committed to making it better still, as we have shown through the investment, support and commitment that we have provided as a UK Government to the Northern Ireland institutions through numerous successor agreements. Those agreements prove that the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement 25 years ago was not the end of a journey, but a new beginning. Each of them has helped to pave the way to the Northern Ireland that we see today, whether it be the progress on policing and justice at St Andrews that enabled those matters to be devolved in the Hillsborough Castle agreement; the substantial capital funding that we provided for new shared and integrated schools in Fresh Start and Stormont House; or the investment that we provided in public services in New Decade, New Approach.

It is precisely because of the UK Government’s steadfast commitment both to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and to Northern Ireland’s place in our Union that we have, through listening to and heeding the concerns among the people of Northern Ireland about the protocol, replaced it with the new Windsor framework, which makes fundamental amendments to it. The framework restores the delicate balance struck by the agreement and addresses problems with the protocol by removing the Irish sea border for UK goods, with a new green lane and UK internal market scheme for businesses trading from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, removing costs, paperwork and checks. Just as importantly, it gives the people of Northern Ireland a veto over new laws that apply there, in the form of the Stormont brake.

Northern Ireland has changed beyond recognition over the past 25 years, thanks to the peace and prosperity that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has brought. Upon that foundation, Northern Ireland has built a dynamic and vibrant economy, as can be seen across the whole of the nation. Its world-leading screen and film production industry, which produced “Game of Thrones” and “The Northman” among others, has already contributed £1 billion to the Northern Irish economy. There is a fintech sector, a cyber-security sector and an engineering sector going from strength to strength in the Northern Ireland of today. Those sectors are creating thousands of highly skilled jobs, with Belfast now ranked as one of the top 25 tech cities in the world.

In the years since the agreement was signed, Northern Ireland has also taken positive steps towards greater reconciliation. I pay tribute to the work of community organisations, faith groups and individuals, and to all who have tried to foster that reconciliation, respect and mutual understanding in Northern Ireland in the journey to the agreement and over the past 25 years.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

In the list that he is rightly setting out, will the Secretary of State recognise the particular contribution that very many women in Northern Ireland, across the communities, have made in leading the dialogue, repairing their communities and building relationships of trust?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, I will. Further into my speech, I might well mention just one or two of the remarkable women who have done exactly as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs says.

The fact that Northern Ireland now has a locally accountable police force demonstrates the huge progress that Northern Ireland has made. However, events such as the abhorrent shooting of DCI John Caldwell illustrate a point that hon. Members have already raised in interventions: that the peace that Northern Ireland now enjoys and that we have all worked so hard for cannot and must not be taken for granted. Yesterday, I made the announcement that the Northern Ireland-related terrorism threat level has been increased by MI5 from substantial to severe. Coming ahead of the agreement’s 25th anniversary, that news is particularly disappointing. However, it does not detract from the fact that Northern Ireland remains markedly more peaceful and reconciled than it was in 1998. That is a testament to the people of Northern Ireland, as well as to the PSNI and the security services that do so much to keep us all safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

On this important anniversary, we have heard two wonderfully warm and heartfelt speeches from the Front Benches. It is sometimes not said but, as anybody who knows a shadow Secretary of State or a Secretary of State will know, these jobs always take a toll on people’s lives, and the Northern Ireland jobs certainly do. The passion and commitment to Northern Ireland of the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have shone through this afternoon, as they do in the work of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). This House and the country owe the four of them an enormous debt of thanks and gratitude.

I have often wondered whether it was by chance—by happenstance, if you will—that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was concluded, after so many false starts, attempts, negotiations and tries, at the end of Holy Week and on the cusp of the joy of the Easter story. I actually think not, but I think the timing of the conclusion of those discussions had an impact. The days of Lent 1998, like any day of any Lent, reminded us of the hard graft, of the promises made and broken, of the hopes dashed and then revived.

Although the Good Friday agreement is seen as an early triumph of Sir Tony Blair, and rightly so, the seeds were planted and much of the heavy ploughing was undertaken, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded the House, by Sir John Major’s Government in the relationship he struck with the Taoiseach. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has heard from both former premiers in our inquiry on the Good Friday agreement, and their deep understanding and enduring affection for the people of Northern Ireland, and their commitment to that process, again shone through.

Returning to my Lenten theme, without turning my speech into some sort of homily, the horror of the Passion reminds us of the horror of the troubles and the bloody history that those working on the agreement were striving to bring to a conclusion. The horror of the Passion, represented by the troubles, was replaced with the joy of the Easter story, serving as a monument to the triumph of good over evil and light over darkness, transfiguring Northern Irish society through the agreement itself.

We know that there are many in Northern Ireland who sincerely and proudly profess a faith. I pray that this year’s Easter story, against the backdrop of a non-functioning Stormont, will lead them to move forward with delivery, just as they did in the Lent and Easter of 1998.

We need to remind ourselves that there was nothing inevitable about success. Up until the 59th minute of the 11th hour, it could all have collapsed. As the Secretary of State said, the political bravery, courage and leadership of the parties in Northern Ireland, in the Republic and in this place combined to get the agreement over the line.

It is a worrying learning point from the Committee’s inquiry that former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Tony Blair and John Major all said that they very much doubt that the Good Friday agreement would have come to pass had social media existed in 1998. It is worrying that, as people retreat to their self-built echo chambers on social media, the bravery and leadership of politicians is being curtailed. I think, as does anybody who follows it, that brave political leadership and courage are as vital today as they were back in 1998.

We need to remind ourselves that this is not just an island of Ireland story or commemoration but is relevant to all our islands. The troubles that were unleashed brought mayhem and death that also shattered lives on the mainland, and we should never forget Brighton, Manchester, Warrington and the Baltic Exchange, to name just a few. This is such an important story in our nation’s history.

I am pleased to hear what the Secretary of State said about education. We now have, thank God, several generations who learned about the troubles as history. John Major told a funny story at the end of our session. He had been in a lift in the States, and some young female students were nudging each other. One of them plucked up enough courage to say, “Excuse me, is it you?” Of course, there is only one answer to that question, and Sir John Major said, “Yes, it is.” They said, “Yes, we thought it was. We are learning about you in history.” We must make sure that today’s young understand not just the what of the Good Friday agreement and the hope that it brings, but the why. Why did so many people go to so much trouble to bring a period of bloody history on these islands to a conclusion? We must make sure everyone understands that because, if we do not, people will not understand the price of peace.

Peace is a process, not an event. It is iterative and organic, not set in tablets of stone. As the Stormont House and St Andrews agreements indicate, it is capable of change and adaptation. But let us never forget that the Good Friday agreement is always the foundation stone on which any subsequent agreement and evolution is built. If we forget, we take it for granted. And if we take it for granted, we devalue the massive political and personal contributions made by so many people to get Northern Ireland to where it is today.

Let us look at the strands. I think east-west is going well. We had a shaky, testing time, but Dublin-Westminster relations are improving, and the Committee’s visit to Dublin last week is testament to that. The Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are held in high regard and growing affection by our Irish friends, which can only point to good things for future dialogue between the two premiers, which the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) mentioned. In the absence of the side conversations that often take place at Commission meetings and other EU gatherings, such dialogue is of ever greater importance.

It is unfortunate that north-south relations have atrophied and need to be resurrected. While respecting and recognising the two distinct geopolitical entities that make up the island of Ireland, we all know there is so much that can be done collaboratively, north-south, on the economy, the environment, tourism and energy—the shadow Secretary of State mentioned energy—to name but a few, to make life better for everyone. There is no weakness, no giving ground, if women and men of good will who want to see their communities do well, irrespective of whether they live in Northern Ireland or the Republic, are coming together, in this multilateral, international world in which we live, pulling in the same direction, in a common endeavour. It was always an aspiration, but an aspiration box that was opened as a result of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Let me say a word or two about devolution. It is probably wise to say that, for the Government of Tony Blair—I entirely take the point the shadow Minister made about an ongoing commitment—international events that came shortly thereafter meant there was a bit of a temptation to devolve and forget. The taproots of devolution are deeply sunk, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your and my native Wales, and very deeply sunk in Edinburgh. The devolution plant in a Northern Ireland context is still a very tender specimen. It needs the guarantors—I am not saying that they should come in as a sort of domineering mothership—to be actively engaged in helping the parties to evolve and develop devolution. Direct rule has wisely been taken off the table by the Secretary of State, as has joint authority. Those are not options on the table, which can leave only devolution and Stormont.

I mentioned that this is a process. The ability to collapse the Assembly by veto or fiat needs to be calmly looked at an appropriate time, but I do not think that time is very far down the track. Sinn Féin collapsed it; it was wrong to do so. The DUP has collapsed it; it was wrong to do so, too. “Whataboutery” and two wrongs still do not make a right when it comes to the functioning of devolution. There has never been a good time to collapse the Assembly by veto, but to do so now is most certainly unjustifiable, in a post-covid, Ukraine-affected, cost of living crisis period. We need to see the same level of courage and commitment to wider public service—rather than narrow political service—that we saw in 1998 come to the fore. We need that to be resurrected.

We all understand the pivotal underpinning importance of consent in order to maintain that fine balance. We must continue in that tradition, but we need to reflect, in a grown-up, political way, across the parties, on how we deal with the growing of “the other” across the communities. We need to think about that. The approach of collapsing institutions is not within our UK tradition of public service. We need to see our Northern Irish political leaders recommit to and reaffirm the prospect of hope that the Good Friday agreement delivered. The public are no longer interested in political process; they want outcomes and they deserve them.

We meet to mark, reflect on and, yes, celebrate the Good Friday agreement, notwithstanding the circumstances of the increase in the security warning, the absence of Stormont and the shooting of Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell. We all wish we were doing so with everything functioning and more progress on the process. Some of the keyboard warriors, the scared agitators, those who feel threatened by the Good Friday agreement, and those who demanded the hardest Brexit in a vague hope that it would restore some tension between north and south and some sense of difference, are going to be frustrated. Doubtless they will be asking why all the fuss is being made here and in the coming weeks on the island of Ireland to celebrate this important event. To do so is to fundamentally miss the point, as they always do. The celebrations here today and across the island in the coming weeks mark and cherish what the human spirit, even when scarred by decades of mistrust and hatred, can achieve. They applaud the leadership, courage and vision of those men and women who said, “Enough is enough. No more. We can’t go on like this.” They came together and committed to drain the hearts of bitterness and refresh their souls with hope and determination to create better days ahead.

Let those who need to do so, as we approach the end of the Lenten season of 2023, resurrect that spirit and recommit to do the same. As we prepare to light a new Paschal candle, let us also relight the spirit of courage and determination. Let us reaffirm the progress that has been made and that still needs to be made. Let us never take it for granted. Let us always commemorate, celebrate and rejoice in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), said that I might be called first. I did not expect to be called first, but this is pretty near the beginning, so thank you for that, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First, may I say a big thank you to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions? They have been measured and careful. Mine will be the same, although there are some things that I need to say in relation to where we were at that time, and where we got to as the process moved forward.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) referred to his 25 years of experience. I have a confession to make: I started out in 1985 as a councillor. I did 26 years as a councillor and 12 years as an MLA, and I have done 13 years as an MP. I think it is the start of my 39th year as an elected representative in May. When the hon. Gentleman gets to that point, he will have met his target. Have I matched the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)? I suspect that I may not be anywhere near his achievements—but that is by the way.

[Simon Hoare]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting we should have a debate to commemorate those years of service as well?

[Jim Shannon]

Definitely not. I would not ask the hon. Gentleman to endure that—that would be too much of a challenge.

I say this very gently: I never cease to be amazed by people suggesting that the DUP is or was opposed to the Good Friday agreement. I want put that on the record, because it is important to do so. The reason for that suggestion is undoubtedly the fact that we did not support the Good Friday agreement in 1998. The events of the last 25 years cannot be collapsed into an appreciation of a world frozen in time in 1998. Not one year but 25 years have passed, and if we want to build on the Good Friday agreement to promote peace for the next 25 years, we must never lose sight of that fact.

Although that suggestion no doubt fits the caricatures through which many prefer to operate, the truth is that the DUP was never completely opposed to the Good Friday agreement. The agreement always contained significant elements that we supported, such as power sharing and cross-community consent. I understand exactly how the communities came together and brought that forward: two completely opposing traditions had to find a methodology through which we could agree on a democratic process and move forward.

Before I go into any more detail, I want to put on the record my thanks to all those people who served. The Secretary of State rightly referred to the contribution and service of the police officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the PSNI, and the soldiers of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I declare an interest, since I served in that regiment for three years and served 11 and a half years as a territorial soldier, so I was a part-timer for 14 and a half years. Their sacrifices and contributions were so significant to moving the peace process forward so that we could find a future that we can, hopefully, agree on for our children and our grandchildren. I have three boys, all married, and six grandchildren. I want my legacy to my six grandchildren to be a future where they can get on together, live in harmony and have equal rights with everyone. That is my choice.

The Good Friday agreement always contained significant elements that we supported, and I have referred to power sharing and cross-community consent. The reason the DUP could not support the Good Friday agreement in 1998 was that it involved the release of murderers from prison back into the community, where they could live alongside the families of those they had murdered. I know there are MPs in this House—I am one of them—who represent constituencies where people have been released from prison, causing great angst to people in the community, and those MPs have reflected that in the House. The Home Secretary has responded many times to questions that I and others have asked about that, so hon. Members can understand why we suffered angst over it at the time.

The Good Friday agreement also involved welcoming the political wing of the IRA into government at a time when the IRA had not decommissioned its weapons. Those were two critical issues for us at the time—two things to which the Democratic Unionist party could not and would not reconcile itself—and a large proportion of the population of Northern Ireland shared those concerns.

However, let me make it clear now that that did not mean we did not support the rest of the Good Friday agreement. Nor did it mean that we were unwilling to fight for the rest of the agreement. That commitment resulted in the seminal St Andrews agreement process, which we in the DUP thought—and I think the Government accepted—made the Good Friday agreement process even better, because it addressed the issue of decommissioning, which helped the democratic process to move forward.

The truth is that the Good Friday agreement, amended by the St Andrews agreement, lays a foundation for a stronger and better future. I believe that very strongly and so does our party. It forms the foundation for everything we have done in government since 2007 when, for the first time, we agreed to power sharing—an agreement that opened the door to a period of relative stability in the governance of Northern Ireland until 2017.

I was an MLA at the time, and I was very pleased to support my leader, Dr Paisley. I am glad that the Secretary of State referred to him, by the way, because we need to remember all the architects who made the process move forward, and he was one of them. Perhaps not everybody in our party had the same confidence that we had in 2007, but we went ahead with the process and, as it went forward, those who perhaps were not 100% convinced began to feel that the process was one to pursue and support.

The lesson that we can take from the 10-year period of relative stability from 2007 to 2017 is that it is only possible to make progress when we fashion an environment that both Unionists and nationalists can buy into. That is the whole secret of this process; it is the secret of where we are going and what we need to aim for. The journey from 1998 to 2007 was worth it because it created an arrangement that rose to that challenge.

If we want to secure a positive future from the vantage point of today—we can always look back with great knowledge, because we know what happened—we must recognise that, tragically, the delicate balance of our politics has been destabilised by the EU creating an imperative for the construction of a new arrangement that Unionists cannot buy into. Yet as I look to the future, I am very clear that the greatest threat to peace arises from the threat to the Good Friday agreement. We should be in no doubt that the threat is now acute.

If the United Kingdom is to honour its treaty obligations in the Good Friday agreement, they must be respected in domestic legislation. How, then, are the key commitments in that agreement given expression in UK law? I will refer to three Good Friday agreement commitments that are particularly important for Unionists. I want to put them on the record in a constructive fashion to lay out the scene and make a case.

The first is the principle of consent. That is given effect by the following text in the treaty:

“While a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly…Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and…it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.

That is as clear as can be, and there should not be any issue. That commitment is clear and prohibits any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland that involves a shift away from government by the UK towards more government by the Republic of Ireland, save with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

People say that national opinion polls are not always entirely accurate. Well, there can be a variation of 3% either way. I will quote two polls just to put on the record the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland today. A national opinion poll in The Times in August last year indicated that about 50% of people in Northern Ireland wanted to stay in the United Kingdom and 27% wanted to go with a united Ireland, while the other 23% were non-aligned voters. The Belfast Telegraph did a similar poll on the non-aligned voters, and it found that 53% of those people wanted to stay within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The point that I am making is that the vast majority of people—be they big “U” Unionists or small “u” unionists —want to stay within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We believe that that is very important.

It was understood by the Unionist community that that protection was translated into domestic law—in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—and it was on that basis that we signed up to the Good Friday agreement, including the DUP from 2007. When the protocol was introduced, it effected a significant change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, partly suspending article VI of the Act of Union to protect the integrity of a new legal regime in Northern Ireland, made for and by a polity of which Northern Ireland is not a part and in whose legislature it has no representation. Specifically, the people of Northern Ireland found themselves subject to laws in 300 areas that would be made for them by a legislature representing the Republic of Ireland, in which they had no representation. Unionists went to court to get that struck down on the basis of the consent protection in the Good Friday agreement, as a significant change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, involving a shift in governance for some purposes from the UK towards the Republic of Ireland, had been effected without any attempt to secure prior sanction from the majority of the population. That was a significant change, and one that concerns us.

Government lawyers responded by arguing that the relevant domestic legislation had not given effect to the Good Friday agreement consent provision that prevents any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, save with the consent of the majority of the population. Instead, they argued that the relevant legislation—section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—prevents one specific change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, save with the consent of the majority of the population: the complete departure of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom to join the Republic of Ireland. The Court agreed with the Government lawyers.

The second protection that has now been ignored is the principle of cross-community consent. The relevant cross-community consent provisions in the Good Friday agreement commit the state parties to

“arrangements to ensure key decisions are taken on a cross-community basis”.

That was translated effectively into section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that these protections no longer apply in relation to article 18 votes on the protocol by the Assembly because section 42 has to be read subject to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There have been completely disingenuous attempts to argue that this is acceptable because the agreement only requires cross-community consent for Stormont decisions if they pertain to devolved matters. That makes no sense at all and is terribly disappointing.

The principle that there can be no majority votes in Stormont when one community objects is not an innovation of the Good Friday agreement—it is a basic convention of Stormont politics of the past that goes back way beyond 1998 to 1972. The Parliament of Northern Ireland that operated from 1921 until 1971 did so on a majority basis, which was believed to have been a contributing factor to the outbreak of the troubles from 1969. I would subscribe that some of the ways that politics were done in those days contributed to the problems. When the UK Government intervened to terminate the Parliament of Northern Ireland in 1972, they sought to replace it with a power-sharing arrangement, and from 31 March 1972, it has been a principle of Northern Ireland governance that governance through Stormont must operate on the basis of non-majoritarianism.

The Good Friday agreement is not significant for limiting the application of that convention, to say that henceforth, from 1998, it is okay for majority decisions to be made from Stormont so long as they are not on devolved matters. Instead, its significance arises from its affirmation of the central importance of the convention that decisions from Stormont must be made on a cross-community basis if either community requires it.

The political problems flowing from the Supreme Court judgment are huge, and I want to put them on record. I welcome the fact that we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the agreement, but our reasons for being objective at that time were the two conditions that we sought relating to our concern over the release of prisoners and the holding of arms, as decommissioning had not taken place. One can only begin to appreciate the difficulty when one has regard for the nature of the majority decision that is proposed by article 18 of the protocol. The provision on cross-community consent is not invoked all the time; many votes at Stormont are on a majority basis. The point of the cross-community provision is that if ever either community feels that a measure brought before Stormont constitutes an existential threat to it, that community can be protected by invoking its right to use the cross-community consent mechanism. Mindful of that, we must ask, does the removal of the cross-community consent of article 18 matter that much?

The article 18 vote, which could happen any time from 1 November 2024, will not just be controversial but will be more controversial that any majority vote of the Parliament of Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1971. It brings a constitutional change not within Northern Ireland but between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, effecting a transfer of governance from the UK towards the Republic of Ireland, as laws that were once made by the UK are made in a context that does not involve the United Kingdom but does involve the Republic of Ireland. The proposal is that next year, rather than moving forward, we will unfortunately move back not simply to the early 1970s, which would be bad enough, but to an even more difficult time that has not yet been experienced. That would be catastrophic and cannot be allowed to happen.

The third protection of the Good Friday agreement that is of particular importance for Unionists is the commitment by the state parties to uphold the right of the people of Northern Ireland to

“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

That right has to be understood from the point when it was embraced in 1998-99, when the people of Northern Ireland had the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations by standing for election to make all the laws to which they were subject. The protocol and the Windsor framework terminate this because they create a situation in which the people of Northern Ireland can no longer pursue democratically national and political aspirations in relation to 300 areas of law to which we are subject. So far, 640 laws have been imposed in relation to which our Good Friday agreement right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations has been taken away. These are now made for us by a polity of which we are not a member and in whose legislature we have no representation.

It is very striking that as we approach the 25th anniversary of the agreement, with the desire of many to celebrate— and it is right to celebrate it—the greatest attacks on the agreement are taking place right now. Some of the parties that were fully supportive of it seem to be pointing their fingers and asking questions. Going forward, these matters cannot be papered over. We must remember that progress in Northern Ireland has only ever occurred when it has been possible to fashion a framework that both Unionists and nationalists can buy into. I say it again: that was the secret of the process in 1998. That was the secret of the process in 2007, and it is the secret of the process today in 2023. It was the secret behind the 10 years of stability between 2007 and 2017, and its demise—especially since 2021—is entirely the result of ignoring the reality.

I finish with this: the UK Government now have a choice. I for one hope that they will learn the lessons of the 2007 to 2017 period, and will ensure going forward that the Good Friday agreement, amended by the St Andrews agreement, is upheld and not ignored. If they do not, then for many in Northern Ireland and for myself, I fear for the future of Northern Ireland.