Northern Ireland

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to motion No. 4 on Northern Ireland. It says in the dossier “Minister to move”, but we have an upgrade, as the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, observes from a sedentary position. I call not merely any Minister, but the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, no less.

Northern Ireland: Restoring Devolution

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will continue with the exchanges on the urgent question in a moment. Nominations closed at 5 o’clock this afternoon for candidates for the post of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. One nomination has been received. A ballot will therefore not be held. I congratulate, and I hope the House will join me in congratulating, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) on his re-election as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. The assiduity and public-spiritedness of the hon. Gentleman are renowned throughout the House. Thank you.

Four nominations were received for the post of Chair of the Treasury Committee, and a ballot will be held between 10 am and 1.30 pm on 23 October in Committee Room 15.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The people of Northern Ireland clearly want to see Stormont back up and running because they are seeing their health, their education and their welfare suffer. By making this extension, the Secretary of State has provided a window that could possibly see this House overcome the hurdle that seems insurmountable for the parties in Northern Ireland, and that is to legislate for the Irish Language Act, thereby taking it out of the debate between the principal parties in Northern Ireland and removing the hurdle that is the roadblock—I am sorry for mixing my metaphors—to getting Stormont back up and running.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

There are three statements to follow, so we do need to expedite progress. Gavin Newlands can lead us in that mission.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Stormont and, more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland have now been without a functioning Executive for over 1,000 days. The Government’s report on Executive formation stated:

“The UK Government, working closely with the Irish Government…will now intensify our efforts to put forward compromise solutions to the parties.”

There are no formal talks between the parties at the moment. I fully accept that the Government cannot bind the hands of the parties involved, but if there are no current talks, what exactly did the Government mean by intensifying their efforts, and when will fresh party talks take place?

The Government’s reckless Brexit policy and their agreement with the DUP have severely undermined the delicate balance of relationships that built and sustained the Good Friday agreement. Given the breakdown in the Government’s relationship with the DUP, does the Secretary of State envisage that this will have an impact on efforts to restore the Assembly and the Executive?

The Government have confirmed that the imposition of direct rule is being considered. This is deeply disappointing. It is clear that devolved decisions are best made by the elected politicians of Northern Ireland. I urge them to get back round the table and to get back to work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Looking at the number of colleagues wanting to participate, I think we should be able to move on by 5.40 pm, if people ask questions rather than give great speeches.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has outlined a number of areas where action will be taken as a result of the Act, but on health, education, crime, policing, investment and all the rest of it, still the Government sit on their hands and allow no government for Northern Ireland. Is he now realising that, with Brexit coming, we must have powers in the hands of Ministers, whether in the Assembly or here? He cannot go on abdicating that decision. Today in Belfast, Assembly Members met, but Sinn Féin boycotted it. Given that the Prime Minister said on Saturday that “a simple majority” should apply in Northern Ireland as well, fully compatible with the Good Friday agreement, can the Secretary of State apply that principle to the formation of the Executive, because four parties out of five would set it up tomorrow?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

The original author of the handbook on succinct questions, Sir John Redwood.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The DUP is understandably very unhappy about the customs and single market arrangements in the agreement, so will the Government table a free trade agreement and get on with it, because that would help?

Wrightbus (Ballymena)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make bus-buying recommendations, but I say again that the technology of Wrightbus and the energy at Wrightbus mean that there is a good future for it if we can get a successful buyer.

[Mr Speaker]

Whether that is because the right hon. Gentleman does not judge himself to be a particular authority on bus-buying or because he regards reference to the matter as beneath the dignity of his undoubtedly high office—whichever it is—he has made his choice.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

My friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I were in discussions over the summer about how we could promote the manufacturing sector in buses and low-emission buses. That is his commitment to his constituency. What specific conversations has the Secretary of State had with the company, or perhaps with the family, about removing the block on the sale of the land and possibly even taking it into a trust so that manufacturing can continue there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all his work as a Transport Minister. The civil service in Northern Ireland is working very hard, Invest NI is working very hard and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working very hard, as is the local MP, and they will continue to do that over the coming days and weeks.

[Mr Speaker]

We daily learn more and more about the daring and distinguished exploits of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). I have regularly informed the House and those observing our proceedings that, when serving as Under-Secretary of State for buses, he was given to traveling to work by bus, to the obvious delight of his fellow passengers. What I did not know was that he was also in the business of driving buses. Is there any limit to the talents of the hon. Gentleman?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

In addition to the tragic loss of 1,200 jobs, this announcement puts at risk more than 1,700 jobs in the supply chain. It has come to our attention that £2 million was paid out to shareholders, and only £1.7 million could save this company. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to recover that money and save these jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Points of order would ordinarily arise at the end of the statement. [Interruption.] Yes, there is a statement to come. The hon. Lady is ahead of herself, which is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons. If she can contain her impatience for a matter of minutes, we will hear the product of her lucubrations before very long.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 3(2)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I understand what the Secretary of State has said about the business managers. However, he cannot get away that easily from the business statement that was made in this House on Thursday. The first and second priorities on that list, as handed out to Members, were to do with the victims of historical institutional abuse, as the second priority was victims’ payments in relation to that matter. The matters to which the Secretary of State intends to speak this evening were fifth and sixth on the list that we were given. Why has he—as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has indicated—set aside these very important issues that we were promised from that Dispatch Box would be dealt with expeditiously when we came back in September?

[Mr Speaker]

Let me thank the Secretary of State for his very gracious personal remarks, which mean a great deal to me.

[Julian Smith]

The victims of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland have shown incredible courage and dignity through their engagement with the Hart inquiry and throughout their campaign for redress. I know that colleagues, as has been shown in the interventions I have just taken, will join me today in restating our collective determination to see progress made in delivering redress to those victims as soon as possible.

On 23 August, I had the honour of meeting representatives from the victims’ and survivors’ groups. These people’s lives have been blighted by unforgivable, horrendous acts, yet they have continued to engage patiently and respectfully with politicians and the legislative process. We can ask no more of victims. We can ask no more of the Hart inquiry. The inquiry has been undertaken. Officials have prepared the policy. The lawyers have prepared the draft law, and I have asked that this be included in the Queen’s Speech as a matter of urgent priority.

Northern Ireland

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In the name of expediting business, I appeal for extreme brevity.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I echo entirely the concerns of the shadow Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend’s commitment to Northern Ireland is not in question, but the impression coming out of some sections of the Government is that Northern Ireland could easily now be collateral damage, so may I ask him a specific question? He referred to the Attorney General’s legal advice on Prorogation, which he will have seen. Did it make specific reference to the unique and pressing needs of Northern Ireland and how they might be attenuated as the Prime Minister set out his strategy, and if not, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

A single sentence, I think. Owen Paterson.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

Everyone in the House supports the Belfast agreement, and everyone in the House would like to see the institutions up and running again, but we cannot bludgeon one party into co-operating, and in the meantime outcomes are deteriorating for our fellow citizens. The Bengoa report was published in October 2016. While he is looking at this, will the Secretary of State also consider what powers he could take to benefit every citizen in Northern Ireland?

[Julian Smith]

I know from visiting hospitals and schools that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. For too long, public servants have been having to make decisions that should have been made by politicians. I must be frank with the House. The powers that I have—the powers that are available for decision making—are extremely limited, and that is why it is a priority for us to get Stormont up and running.

[Mr Speaker]

Lady Hermon: a single sentence, I think.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Of course, Mr Speaker.

The Secretary of State—whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment, while also thanking his predecessor—will know from the very angry and concerned representations that I have already made to his office that I am extremely worried and annoyed that a statutory instrument which governs key appointments to a range of bodies in Northern Ireland—including appointments of QCs—has been put in jeopardy by Prorogation. I need a commitment, a guarantee, from the Secretary of State today that that statutory instrument will be debated in the House on Monday, or on Tuesday, but certainly before Prorogation. It affects people’s lives in Northern Ireland, and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to protect those lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I remind colleagues that a single-sentence question is imperative.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Given the unique challenges that Prorogation or Dissolution present to the Northern Ireland Office, why was the Secretary of State not consulted by the Prime Minister or Dominic Cummings before the Prorogation plan was agreed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

We have to focus on getting a deal for Northern Ireland. That is my priority in supporting the Prime Minister, and that is his priority. Let us get Stormont up and running. That will solve many of the issues that we are concerned about today.

[Mr Speaker]

My apologies to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). If I had seen him earlier, I would have called him earlier, but it is a pleasure to call him now.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. It is a privilege to serve in office and I wish him all success with his role. He highlighted in his written statement yesterday the need to intensify negotiations with the parties. That is the way to avoid legislation being needed. Perhaps he could set out what form he expects that to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman’s point of order appertains to the matters of which we have just treated, I will take it if it is brief.

[Tony Lloyd]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State was very candid in his admission that he was not consulted about Prorogation. Important decisions have to be made about Northern Ireland’s governance over this period. Can we have a clear statement, perhaps from the Prime Minister, that there will be time, either before Prorogation or at a convenient time for this House, to give the Secretary of State the power to do the things that Northern Ireland needs?

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Secretary of State wish to respond?

[Julian Smith]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

He does not wish to respond. Okay. The point of order has been heard. It is not a matter for adjudication by the Chair, but I want to say to the Secretary of State that the concern that has been expressed on this matter on both sides of the House, including by a number of former Northern Ireland Secretaries, will have registered very firmly with the right hon. Gentleman, and more must be heard about this matter ere long. We need to be absolutely crystal clear on that point. Nothing can get in the way of the provision of proper information to the House on this matter, as the Chair of the Select Committee and many others have emphasised. No one should think that that can be averted. It cannot be, and it will not be.

[Ian Paisley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Several Members have taken to naming a senior public official of civil service rank from time to time—not only during this urgent question, but in debates. Perhaps you can correct me, but I was under the impression that to name a public servant in that way is out of order, wrong and should be avoided. Is that the case? What are the rules regarding naming and trying to shame public officials in this way?

[Mr Speaker]

Courteous reference is the guiding principle. The notion that no public servant can be referred to is not correct. It is an interesting concept on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but there is no track record on that matter.

We come now to the statement by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in respect of which there is, again, a premium upon brevity.

Pensions for Severely Disabled Victims (Northern Ireland)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Well, one does not want to upset the leader of the Democratic Unionist party—I call Mr Nigel Dodds.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker—I appreciate that very much. I welcome very warmly what the Minister and the shadow Minister have said in the House today and the consensus that there is on this issue. I pay tribute to the many victims, including Michelle Williamson, who lost both her parents in the Shankhill bombing in October 1993, when nine innocent people were murdered on the Shankhill Road. The bomber who injured himself in planting that bomb would be eligible if this action was not taken to disqualify terrorist perpetrators.

Will the Minister join me in thanking all those victims and victims’ organisations that have worked together to bring about a pension for victims and to make sure that the eligibility criteria are right and proper? Would he also care to comment on the Victims’ Commissioner’s position? While there is a consensus here, she appears out of step with many victims’ groups and victims. Does that call into question her position? In a letter in today’s press in Northern Ireland, many victims’ groups have called into question her position on this issue.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, the deputy leader and knight of Lagan Valley, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

One reason we are discussing this issue is that 21 years ago in the Belfast agreement, signed on Good Friday 1998, sadly not enough was done to deal with the legacy of our troubled past. Will the Minister assure us that whatever happens—we hope for a restoration of devolved government as soon as possible—the Government will proceed with implementing the legacy proposals, subject to whatever changes arise from the consultation, so that we can get on with dealing with these issues and so that victims can have access to proper investigations of the murders that occurred during the troubles?

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 1, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 2 to 18.

[Hilary Benn]

I support Lords amendment 1, which very sensibly provides for when the reports required under the Bill should be made to the House and provides an opportunity for the House to debate them. In other words, it provides a context in which we can discuss what is contained in those reports by requiring them to be made and requiring a motion to be presented to the House.

Given that other matters, which we debated at some length last week, have been added to the Bill since it was originally published—and have widened the scope of the Bill considerably beyond the original purpose solely relating to elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly—it seems to me even more important that we have the provisions in Lords amendment 1 in the Bill. But there is a problem that my amendment seeks to fix if the House is not sitting—for example, because it has been prorogued —on the dates by which the reports have to be made, and the crucial dates are 4 September and 9 October. My amendment simply seeks to make provision for the House to be recalled in those circumstances to allow the opportunity for us to consider the reports and debate the motions that arise from the Bill if Lords amendment 1 is accepted by the House.

I should say at this stage that probably not every Member of the House is entirely familiar with the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797, but the most important thing to recall is that section 1 is still on the statute book. It has been used, most recently in section 68(10) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and in section 28(1) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004—indeed, the Civil Contingencies Act makes specific reference to the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797.

In other words, this amendment does not—I emphasise this—seek to establish a new constitutional principle. It simply seeks to use previous practice to make sure that Parliament is sitting when it needs to be sitting to debate these matters. As I hope the amendment makes clear, it would do so by requiring that Parliament be recalled on a specified day within the period in which compliance with subsection (2B) of Lords amendment 1 is required. In other words, the Minister would have to lay the report and the motion in neutral terms would have to be moved within the period of five calendar days, beginning with the end of the day on which the report was made. If my amendment is carried, we would be sitting in order to ensure that we had the chance both to consider the report and, crucially, to debate the motion that has been presented. That is the single purpose of my amendment. It would be rather odd—would it not?—for the House to legislate to provide for these reports and motions on specified dates, only to find itself not being here to consider the reports and to debate the motions because of some other action, namely the fact that we might not be sitting.

My final point is this: everyone in the House is well aware that Brexit has significant implications for the country as a whole, but it will have particular implications for Northern Ireland, which the Exiting the European Union Committee has reported on and many Members on both sides of the House have spoken of. I suppose that this amendment has a secondary effect: to ensure that the House would be sitting at a crucial time for our country, as I believe the country would expect us to be. I do not think that we could accept circumstances, if I may coin the phrase, in which we were sent missing in action, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are other colleagues who wish to speak. It would be a considerable discourtesy for anybody to speak for longer than five minutes, given that others also wish to contribute.

[Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)]

The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill is all about making sure that democracy works for the people of our country whom it serves. That is why I very much support it. However, it goes wider than that in practice. This country finds itself in a time of crisis—we all know that. Many people listening to this debate will be wondering why we are even having a summer recess and going away on holiday when there are so many unresolved issues in relation to Brexit. The simple act of passing the amendment to make sure that we do indeed sit as normal during September and October is, therefore, common sense and the House should get behind it. In no way does it try to curtail decisions that a Government or a Parliament might want to make—quite the reverse: it seeks to ensure that our parliamentary democracy can simply function as normal.

We should all reflect on the fact that this debate is even necessary in our country. What has Britain come to when we have to table amendments to ensure that Parliament can still operate? To those who say that shutting down Parliament is somehow a viable approach, I simply say: you do not win a debate by closing down the main Chamber in which the views of the people of this country are aired, and you do not unite a country by muzzling the people whom those communities have democratically elected to come here to represent them.

There are other practical reasons why we should support this common-sense amendment. We all know that this is a time of global political and economic instability. Are we really saying that this House would not be there to debate issues that might arise, just in case it had its say on the hugely important issue of Brexit or spoke with one voice about the Government’s proposed course of action? It is entirely untenable—indeed, it is dangerous and extremely short-sighted—to shut down this Parliament at a time of so much uncertainty.

I will finish by saying that the amendment has to pass. If it does not, I fear that we will inadvertently cross the Rubicon for our parliamentary democracy. That would mean that if a Government ran up against an issue and were worried that the elected House of MPs might decide to stand up against them, they would just close it down. That is not in Britain’s DNA. The rest of the world looks on and admires our democracy because it is such a fundamental part of how this country has developed. For that reason alone, we should get behind this amendment, which is about protecting the right of ordinary people up and down this country to have their MP come here and do their job of representing them, for good or for bad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I am a relatively new Member, but I thought that the determination of what was or was not in scope was for you, Sir, not for us.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am exercising some latitude from the Chair. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is a very committed parliamentarian and she is opining on these matters, and I am very content that she should do so. I am equally content to take the opportunity to assert that there is nothing disorderly whatsoever about these proceedings. I have exercised my judgment and responsibility in the way that I think fit in order to facilitate the House. There is nothing—I repeat: nothing—unconstitutional or improper about that, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. Gentleman concluded his oration?

[Tom Brake]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

He has. We are deeply grateful to him.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and, indeed, with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who both expressed their concern that the House is legislating on Northern Ireland matters. As we have set up a devolved Assembly and Executive, many of the matters with which we are concerned today now are, or should be, the province of that Assembly and that Executive, but good governance cannot exist in the condition of paralysis. Indeed, what we have seen with the passage of this Bill is that this House—very properly, because it is our duty—is paying some attention to the vacuum that exists in the Northern Ireland context, not only in wanting to see an Executive set up but in looking in the meantime at areas where there are concerns about, for example, the law as it currently exists. It is an imperfect way of doing it, but it is not an illegitimate one now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Although the right hon. Gentleman references that there is no devolved Assembly currently in Northern Ireland, what we do know is the will of that Northern Ireland Assembly. Up until this point, the Northern Ireland Assembly has never voted, across all the parties, to liberalise abortion laws in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should not require more than another couple of minutes.

[Mr Vaizey]

Mr Speaker is exactly right. Having just dealt with the points about abortion and equal marriage in about 30 seconds, let me use the final 30 seconds of my remarks on amendment (a).

I am sure that my friends in the DUP will welcome the fact that we are amending this legislation to ensure that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) mentioned, in the fast-moving environment of Northern Irish politics, where we stand as friends to good governance in Northern Ireland, we want to ensure that this House is ready and able to sit to debate these matters. That is why it is vital that we support this amendment. Those who say that this Bill has been hijacked by Brexit have, in fact, missed the point of the amendment, which is to ensure that we continue to debate these important matters in the months ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say many things in this House, but I have not said the words that have been attributed to me from the Labour Front Bench and that should be withdrawn.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not recall what the position was, but if a Front Bencher, like any Member, has erred, it is incumbent on that Member to make the appropriate correction.

[Tony Lloyd]

Mr Speaker, I will check the record, and where appropriate I will apologise to the hon. Member for North Antrim. However, he certainly cast aspersions about cheap politics in his remarks. Let me make some progress because we have very little time.

The remedy for all these things lies in the hands of the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. When that Assembly decides to meet and the Executive are reformed, they can take the power to abrogate the bulk of what lies on the face of the Bill. This House has made that very clear commitment to the system of devolution and to the people of Northern Ireland.

I commend the words of the noble Lord Duncan, the Minister in the other House, who has talked about the need to make progress on the question of historical institutional abuse, saying:

“There is urgency… I will commit, in the absence of a sitting Assembly, to the Government introducing primary legislation on historical institutional abuse before the end of the year”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2019; Vol. 798, c. 138.]

That is a very welcome commitment by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government.

I will confine my last few remarks to Lords amendment 1 and the manuscript amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). This is a massively important constitutional issue. In a parliamentary democracy, no Parliament can abrogate both the right to sit and to take action, particularly against the constitutional challenge that a no-deal Brexit would pose and especially in the light of the fact that there will be a Prime Minister who will have a mandate not from the public in general but from a very narrow base within one political party. It is simply unconscionable that this House would not sit.

I say very firmly to my friends in this House from Northern Ireland that they have to recognise that there is nowhere in this United Kingdom of ours that will be more affected by a no-deal Brexit than Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister will respond to my next point, which is that if we are moving to no deal as we get towards October, the Government will have to introduce direct rule in the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly to effect the legislation to allow for that no-deal Brexit to take place. In that sense, this House must be in a position to meet to transform the law to protect the people of Northern Ireland against the possibility of that no-deal Brexit. This is not grafted on to Northern Ireland legislation; it is absolutely fundamental to the future of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will be supporting the manuscript amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and any consequential amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

This amendment attempts to bind the UK Parliament for a UK-wide issue. That breaches a pretty important precedent: that we try, at least, to work on a cross-community consensual basis when it comes to Northern Ireland because the sensitivities and the risks are so great, so significant, that it would be irresponsible and dangerous to play political games in such a charged arena.

Furthermore, in this case the Bill stands a decent chance of never becoming law, if the Stormont Assembly restarts before Royal Assent; I am delighted to report that the talks were ongoing yesterday and I believe that they are continuing today. I am sure that everybody here wishes them every success. If the Stormont Assembly restarts before Royal Assent, not only is the amendment dangerously partisan—weaponising a Northern Ireland Bill for Brexit in a way that we usually, rightly, try to avoid—but it could easily put us through all that grief for no good reason at all if it fails to become law. The change would set a constitutional precedent that could last for centuries whether we intend it to or not. We should not do it like this—not in this Bill, and not in this way.

I have directly opposed the specifics of the amendment; I now come to a broader point about the politics behind it, which should inform all of us as we decide how we will vote in a minute. I am sure that we are all democrats here: first, last and always. Even though I and many others originally voted remain in the EU referendum three years ago, I have since become, like many others, a strong and doughty backer of the democratic decision to leave. Many of us would far prefer to leave with a sensible deal, but if that is not possible and it comes down to a choice between no deal and no Brexit, then, reluctantly but firmly, I choose no deal. [Interruption.] I do not have time to give way; I am down to my last 90 seconds.

Many colleagues on both sides of the House, including a couple of signatories to the amendment, now feel the same way. We have been going at this for three years. The country sent us all a very clear message at the polls in May that they want this done. We have reached a narrowing funnel where our choices are getting fewer and fewer, and we are running out of road. The time, and voters’ tolerance for our failing to address that central issue, is running out. For many of us, the problem with the amendment is not about more or less democracy; it is that it is pretending to be democratic but in reality it is trying to prevent the democratic referendum decision from ever happening at all.

I have a challenge for the backers of this amendment; it will be hugely reassuring to moderate, former remainer Brexiteers such as myself. If it finally comes down, this autumn, to the stark and simple choice between no deal and no Brexit, which will you choose? Will you promise to honour the democratic decision or will you not? If you cannot make that commitment and that pledge, I am afraid that voters will conclude that this is a stitch-up—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must come to order.

[John Penrose]

Voters will conclude that this is a clever piece of procedure that pretends to care about democracy, but in reality is trying to prevent a decision that has already been taken from ever happening at all.

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think convention says that a Bill that has got this far in both Houses is rightfully the property of Parliament rather than the Executive. Both Houses have spoken very clearly about the constitutional nature of this Bill, and you have ruled that it is completely in order. However, there are rumours—perhaps fallacious—that the Government are thinking of pulling the Bill. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that that would be unconscionable and unacceptable, and that you would not be supportive of any such move?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that it would be quite extraordinary, but I have no expectation of it, and I am fortified, reinforced and encouraged in my view by the clear sedentary head-shaking of no less a figure than the Patronage Secretary, aided and abetted by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). They are both signalling that the Government have no intention of abandoning the Bill, and the Chief Whip, having shaken his head, is now in a position, if he so wishes, to nod his assent to the proposition that I have just made.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I, on his behalf, confirm that?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) is satisfied. I thank the occupants of the Treasury Bench.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bill that we have just debated contains clauses inviting the Government to make progress towards the implementation of a “severely injured” pension for victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There has been considerable distress in Northern Ireland because of concerns about the criteria, and a report has suggested that terrorists who went out to murder and maim and ended up injuring themselves may be eligible for such a pension. Unfortunately, we have not had an opportunity to debate those issues today owing to the nature of the proceedings. While I welcome the comments of Lord Duncan in the other place, may I ask whether there will be any opportunities—perhaps next week—for these matters to be aired, debated and hopefully answered in this House? I should be very much obliged.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, to which the answer is yes: there could well be such opportunities. The hon. Lady would not expect me to commit myself now—on the hoof, if you will—in respect of the form that such an opportunity might take, but we have four sitting days next week before we rise for the summer recess. This is a matter of the utmost importance, and, indeed, considerable sensitivity. In the short time during which I have come to know the hon. Lady, I have come to be aware of how dexterous she is in the use of parliamentary time, and if she wishes to take her opportunities, I think that she will not be disappointed.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It concerns the decision that the House has now taken to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland by repealing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This means that the abortion law in Northern Ireland will be more liberal than in England and Wales. Women will no longer be subject to criminal sanction in Northern Ireland, but, of course, the law has not been repealed for women in England and Wales, who remain subject to the criminal law. If, for example, they buy abortion tablets on the internet, they can still face prosecution. I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether the Government have given any indication that they will make a statement to the House next week to ensure that women in England and Wales are treated as fairly now as we hope they will be in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Speaker]

I have not yet received any such indication, but, as I indicated in response to the previous point of order, there is time for these matters to be aired. There could be a Government statement, but in the absence thereof, there are other ways in which to secure parliamentary time. I think I would command the assent of the House if I said of the hon. Lady that the word “indefatigable” could have been invented to describe her campaigning zeal. I am very confident that if she wishes to raise the matter in the Chamber next week, she will be able to do so.

If there are no further points of order—and I thank colleagues for their interest, attention and patience—we will now come to the Back-Bench motion on the Bishop of Truro’s report on the persecution of Christians overseas. We are already having to start this debate later than any of us would have liked. The occupant of the Chair who succeeds me will do his best to protect the time for it, and it would be appreciated if colleagues who wish to conduct conversations on other matters would leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that those who wish to get on with this important debate can do so unimpeded and with appropriate attention.

Political Process in Northern Ireland

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a matter of the utmost importance and I want to accommodate everybody, but I gently point out to the House that there are several hours of debate on subsequent business to follow, so economy is of the essence.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned the brave and fantastic work of the PSNI and the prison service, and the risks that their members run. May I remind her that there are also British Army battalions based in Northern Ireland, and that we need to ensure that they are being looked after as well? She also mentioned the five points. If there is agreement on only four of those points, surely we cannot hold out forever and a day to get a guaranteed agreement on all five of them. There must be a backstop. There must be a situation in which those in the negotiations know that if they do not sort this out, there will be direct rule.

Investigation of Veterans

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) to ask his urgent question, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that, under the House’s long-standing resolution on matters sub judice, they must not make reference to individual cases currently before the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. There has been a great deal of media speculation over the last week about what the Ministry of Defence and the Northern Ireland Office want to do, yet no information has been given to the House. I sought this UQ to try to achieve some clarity—we will see how we get on, Sir.

The Secretary of State for Defence gave a very confident and front-footed speech at the Royal United Services Institute yesterday. I was in the audience and it was an excellent speech. She mentioned her intention to try to provide legal protection particularly for veterans who had served in the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have seen articles in The Times and elsewhere to that effect, but thus far I am afraid we have had no specific details. If press reports are accurate, the MOD is aiming at something along the lines of a statute of limitations, taking force perhaps 10 years after a conflict has ended, after which no prosecution would be possible unless exceptional or compelling evidence were to come forward.

If that is the case, the Defence Secretary would be honouring the Conservative party’s 2017 manifesto—that would make a nice change—which reads:

“We will protect our brave armed forces personnel from persistent legal claims, which distress those who risk their lives for us, cost the taxpayer millions and undermine the armed forces”.

That is plain as a pikestaff, and if she is to do it, well and good, but we would like more details.

I will explain one reason why this is so pressing, in terms of the persecution of Iraq veterans. The MOD set up the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which spent years looking into these cases, but unfortunately it became a racket. Several law firms—particularly the ironically named Public Interest Lawyers, led by an appalling man called Phil Shiner—trawled Iraq to encourage people to come forward and make false allegations. Basically, they made some of it up. That all came out in a court case when the trial collapsed after they admitted that they had fabricated evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—a fellow member of the Defence Committee—then conducted a Sub-Committee inquiry into IHAT, which proved so shocking that the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), shut the team down. I am sure that the whole House would agree that we must never do that again.

Turning to Northern Ireland, the Minister—I have a great deal of time for him, but perhaps slightly less time for his Department—rightly said that the NIO, under the Stormont House agreement, agreed with the parties in Northern Ireland to establish so-called legacy institutions to look into the past. The NIO’s interpretation of that means that it will set up some form of commission that will go back 50 years to 1968-69 and re-examine every fatality since—some 3,500 cases. Any serviceman or member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, George Cross, who fired a fatal shot will therefore be reinvestigated. However, the alleged terrorists will not because, under the Good Friday agreement, Tony Blair gave them so-called letters of comfort, which mean that they are immune from prosecution. No alleged terrorist who was given one of those letters has been successfully prosecuted. The nearest we came was with the alleged Hyde Park bomber, but when he produced his letter of comfort in court, the judge abandoned the trial and declared an abuse of process. The entire process will be utterly one-sided, because service personnel and members of the RUC GC will be liable to prosecution, while those with letters of comfort get off scot-free.

After the appalling, tragic events in Londonderry, we all want the Northern Ireland Executive re-established—of course we do—but that cannot come at the price of some rancid, backstairs deal between the NIO and Sinn Féin-IRA that sells Corporal Johnny Atkins down the river. Up with that, I believe, this House will not put. We have a moral duty to defend those who defended us, and we abrogate that duty if, for reasons of political convenience, we allow the scapegoating of our veterans to pander to terrorists.

I want to ask the Minister six very specific questions—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The challenge for the right hon. Gentleman is to do so before he reaches six minutes. He is brilliant, but he is no more addicted to brevity than I am.

[Mr Francois]

We are both addicts, Mr Speaker.

First, while I know that the Ministry of Defence is not the Minister’s Department, will he give us some indication of when the MOD will provide the House with more details of its proposals? Secondly, when will the NIO publish the response to the consultation on legacy issues to which the Minister referred? Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that a Bill will be required to set up the legacy institutions—or, as I call them, IHAT mark II? Fourthly, what discussions have taken place between NIO Ministers and civil servants, and Sinn Féin-IRA, and is there any truth in the rumours that they have demanded the continued investigation of British veterans as the price of re-entering the Executive? Fifthly, when will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland come to the House to make an oral statement to update us so that Members can question her in detail about the NIO’s proposals?

Sixthly, and lastly, what would the Minister say to former Royal Marine David Griffin, aged 78, whom I met on Monday? He is being reinvestigated for a shooting in 1972 for which he was investigated, and completely cleared, at the time? If he wants to discuss the matter with Mr Griffin in person, would he be kind enough to go down to the Royal Hospital Chelsea, because that is where he now lives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is hovering—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise that I arrived slightly late, but I wondered—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am in a generous mood, so in recognition of the right hon. Gentleman’s military background and former leadership of his party, I think the House should indulge him.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and I apologise that I came in when the Minister was already on his feet. I served in Northern Ireland and in what was then Rhodesia. I received a general service medal for one campaign, and a separate campaign medal for the other—as has been said, they were both operations. We were sent to Northern Ireland, and I lost friends, particularly Robert Nairac—I am sorry I was not here when he was mentioned. I do not know how I can honestly, and with a clean heart, say that my Government represent the best interests of ex-servicemen and women who have served their country. I simply state to the Minister this simple principle: when natural justice collides with the law, we change the law.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is stretching the point. Points of order come later. Does the point of order relate to these—

[Mr Sheerman]

Am I right thinking, Mr Speaker, that you take points of order after statements?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, but we have not had the statements yet. If the point of order appertained to these exchanges, then possibly—but no. Reference was made to the hon. Gentleman’s service earlier and I say for the benefit of those who are attending our proceedings in the House but are not Members that the confetti showered upon the hon. Gentleman on account of his long service was recognition of the fact that he was elected first to the House on 3 May 1979 and, 40 years and 13 days later, the hon. Gentleman is still here. He has been in the House without interruption for that 40-year period, upon which we all congratulate him.