Kingsmill Massacre Inquest

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First of all, may I thank Mr Speaker and the Table Office for allowing and facilitating this debate? It is with sadness, but also with determination and commitment, that I bring this matter to the House. I have spoken to the Minister of State, who I am pleased to see in his place; I gave him my speech beforehand and told him some of the things that I am asking for. With that purpose, we try to move forward to address these issues.

The debate refers to an event that took place 48 years ago. The reason it has taken so long is that the inquest happened only about two or three weeks ago. Although I asked for an urgent question on the Monday after that, I am very pleased to have this Adjournment debate.

This date is perhaps a poignant one because we understand that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 has come into effect, which should mean the end of the probing of legacy issues. However, I am aware that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland has said that her remit is to continue investigating former police officers for a further year. I am not sure why that remit continues, because people seeking truth and justice, including about Kingsmill and in other avenues, have been told that the date is passing. That is one of the questions that I have asked the Minister, and perhaps he could respond to it later.

It would appear that the vilification of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is to continue, with funding available, and I find that difficult to understand. My party—and, I believe, all Opposition parties—opposed the 2023 Act in its entirety, including on state bodies. My view was that the Government were seeking to cease any Police Ombudsman cases. I am afraid that that question must be answered, because there is an anomaly and a discrepancy there. Those who loved ones at Kingsmill and elsewhere must have their questions answered.

The Kingsmill massacre lives in the annals of history, along with the Darkley gospel hall attack, as the pinnacle of evil intention. There is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind or the minds of people outside this Chamber who are watching the debate. I want to give some details about what took place, because I think that they will illustrate the evilness of man.

The massacre took place on 5 January 1976, just after 5.30 pm. A red Ford Transit minibus was carrying textile workers home from their work along the rural road to Bessbrook. As the bus cleared the rise of a hill, it was stopped by a man in combat uniform standing on the road and flashing a torch. The workers assumed they were being stopped and searched by the British Army. As the bus stopped, eleven gunmen in combat uniform and with blackened faces emerged from the hedges. A man with a pronounced English accent—perhaps that put the bus driver at ease—began talking. He ordered the workers to get out of the bus and to line up facing it with their hands on the roof. He then asked, “Who is the Catholic in the bus?” Fearing that the gunmen were loyalists who had come to kill their Catholic colleague, his workmates tried to stop him from identifying himself. However, when Hughes stepped forward the gunman told him: “Get down the road and don’t look back.” The lead gunman then said, “Right,” and the others immediately opened fire on the workers. The eleven men were shot—[Interruption.]

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of just how wicked those events were, and for the passion with which he represents his constituents on these issues. I am clear that those were not the actions of soldiers in a war; they were the dishonourable crimes of cowardly terrorists. It is a matter of great regret that they have not expressed contrition or remorse, and that they did not confess to those crimes and suffer the justice that they were owed.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that intervention.

The eleven men were shot at very close range with automatic rifles, which included Armalites. It is clear that 10 men were murdered because they were Protestants —that is what it was about. [Interruption.] A total of 136 rounds were fired in less than a minute. The men were shot at waist height and fell to the ground. Some fell on top of each other, either dead or wounded. When the initial burst of gunfire stopped, the gunmen reloaded their weapons. The order was given to “Finish them off”—in other words, no survivors—and another burst of gunfire was fired into the heaped bodies of the workmen. One of the gunmen also walked among the dying men and shot each of them in the head with a pistol as they lay on the ground. Such horror; such barbarity; such evil.

Ten of the men died at the scene; I will name those 10, if I can. They were John Bryans, 46 years of age; Robert Chambers, 19 years of age; Reginald Chapman, 25 years of age; Walter Chapman, 23 years of age; Robert Freeburn, 50 years of age; Joseph Lemmon, 46 years of age; John McConville, 20 years of age; James McWhirter, 58 years of age; Robert Walker, 46 years of age; and Kenneth Worton, 24 years of age. Alan Black, who was only 32 at the time, was the only one who survived. He had been shot 18 times, and one of the bullets had grazed his head. He said:

“I didn’t even flinch because I knew if I moved there would be another one”—

only that time, it would not have grazed his head, but would have killed him. After carrying out the shooting, the gunmen calmly walked away. Shortly after, a married couple came upon the scene of the killings and began praying beside the victims.

Those are the undisputed facts of the case. However, what the inquiry has found is what was first suggested by the Historical Enquiries Team investigation in 2011: that although the IRA was supposedly on ceasefire at the time, it was in fact the Provisional IRA that carried out the atrocity. The coroner said in his findings:

“The attack was carried out by the IRA operating under the authority of the Army Council which had, in April 1975, given wide authorisation to IRA units”.

It was sanctioned at the highest level by IRA terrorist scumbags.

However, the coroner failed to name the three known IRA terrorist individuals who carried out the killings, who are now deceased themselves. He should have done so; it was common knowledge, but for the purposes of the coroner’s report, they should have been named. I think it is important that that is put on record: he failed to name and shame at least three known individuals, now themselves deceased. Those names were available in various media outlets, including the BBC.

Eleven automatic weapons were used to kill those 10 Protestant workmen. Those weapons were linked to 40 other serious republican terrorist crimes over a 15-year period, including the murder of two paratroopers in 1974 and the killing of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan in 1989. The coroner’s report further found that the organisation of the attack was planned well in advance in the Republic of Ireland. I have spoken to the Minister of State, and he knows that I am going to ask about this: the excuse within the findings, that the gardaí were not asked for information that they held at the time, is completely untenable. It further makes a mockery of the current legal proceedings and the Government’s legacy legislation that this clear evidence of the gardaí’s unwillingness to help with investigations, then and now, is so blatant. What police organisation would say, “You didn’t ask us for the information, so therefore we’ll not give it to you”? Police organisations—in this case, the Garda Síochána— should have worked alongside the Royal Ulster Constabulary and ensured that all the evidence they had was made available, but it clearly was not. There are questions to ask in relation to that.

The other thing that concerns me greatly—this is the second part of the questions that the Kingsmill families are asking—is that the coroner refused to disclose information contained in secret files provided to him by the security forces in closed hearings. The three people who carried out the attack had on-the-run certificates given to them so that they could get away with their past crimes. It grieves me greatly to have to record the heartache and pain that those families feel because some of those people have got off. Why and how could that be the case?

There is another point I want to raise with the Minister, and it is really important to do so simply because there are just so many questions to be asked. The findings omit any discourse on the perpetrators, when it was said in south Armagh at the time that the dogs on the street knew who had carried out this atrocity—the Kingsmill massacre—with the murder of 10 innocent Protestant people. Indeed, it is widely held that the perpetrators carry on-the-run letters. Some elected Members have publicly joked—I can think of one in particular who joked with loaves of Kingsmill bread on the anniversary. The families do not laugh: they carry the pain. Some of the families wonder why the investigation of this massacre has received nothing like the results of other investigations that have resulted in prosecutions.

I make the point to the Minister of State, whom I spoke to beforehand: why is it that this was planned in the Republic of Ireland and was carried out from the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, and those people were able to cross the border with impunity and then the Garda Síochána did not seem to do anything about it. The Minister of State will know my own personal case, and indeed everyone in this House probably knows it. My cousin Kenneth was murdered by the IRA as well—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am glad to respond to today’s debate on a subject that is as ever, as we have seen, very painful and difficult. The Government recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has shown, the victims are people who feel. They are people who grieve and as my hon. Friend—he is my hon. Friend—has vividly illustrated, the scars run deep and the pain that people suffer, even today, is very great and vivid. We certainly recognise that. People want facts and they want justice. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving people voice today. He has done it with great skill, authenticity and passion. It is worth saying if he will allow me—I hope he will forgive me —that he is a strong and courageous man. I know that, and I myself feel that I reflect some of the passion that he does, even though I can never quite feel it.

I lived through the troubles as a boy, and as a young Royal Air Force officer in the ‘90s. Since I was on fast jets I was never posted to Northern Ireland, but I did have to check under my car every time I got in it in the ‘90s. People were shot dead—people who perhaps looked like me because we had short hair and looked military. I have not suffered losses as my hon. Friend has, and any of us who have any reason to consider the troubles and what they meant, must in great humility acknowledge the suffering of those who lost those they loved. Indeed, we have to acknowledge the contribution of those who served to defend us from great evils, about which he has elaborated.

I hope that today I will be able to answer my hon. Friend’s questions, and I am extremely grateful for advance sight of his remarks. I believe I will be able to satisfy him in at least some regard, and if I am not able to, I will be glad to meet him and discuss matters further. I come first to the findings of the inquest. The Kingsmill murders, in which the Provisional IRA shot dead 10 Protestant workmen and left one severely injured, is an appalling example of the pain and suffering inflicted on civilians during the troubles. We must never forget that it was the civilian population who suffered most in terms of lives lost from that period of violence, with close to 1,900 people killed. The victims and families of Kingsmill, including the sole survivor of the attack, Mr Alan Black, have fought for many decades to get information and accountability from those responsible.

The coroner for the inquest delivered clear and detailed findings, including: that Kingsmill was a horrific and overtly sectarian atrocity committed by the IRA under the authority of the Army Council, and the attack had absolutely no justification; that the attack had been planned well in advance, and an attack of such scale required a significant amount of planning; that the attack occurred in the aftermath of, and ostensibly as a response to the Reavey and O’Dowd murders, but the reality is that it had been planned long before they took place.

The coroner also said that the rumours concerning the involvement of Captain Robert Nairac in the Kingsmill attack are entirely false, and I would like to quote from the Judicial Communications Office:

“The Coroner was entirely satisfied that Captain Nairac had no role whatsoever in the Kingsmill atrocity. He said:

‘Captain Robert Nairac was a highly decorated soldier, and his memory is ill-served by those who persist in rumour mongering concerning his involvement in Kingsmill. Moreover, the false accusation serves to distract from the proper attribution of responsibility for those who carried out the attack. Rumours concerning the involvement of Captain Robert Nairac in the Kingsmill attack are entirely false.’”

The coroner also said that the attack was, at least in part, planned in Ireland. The border between Northern Ireland and Ireland was “exploited by terrorists” and allowed for

“planning, training, organisation, weapons storage and retreat at a safe physical and legal distance from the authorities that would be faced with investigating terrorist acts in Northern Ireland”.

Despite these findings I acknowledge, with regret, that there will be some unanswered questions for the families. That is unfortunately often the case in what are complex, sensitive, and decades-old troubles-related cases. One key reason why such questions remain unanswered in this case is what the coroner described as

“the absence of any disclosure or evidence from those who caused the deaths”.

The coroner said that the inquest

“did not receive disclosure from any individual concerned in the attack, nor their organisation, nor their political representatives.”

In fact, numerous calls to assist the inquest were met with silence. As a result, despite the savagery of the attack, the coroner found that there has been

“no acknowledgement by the IRA of the utter wrongness of the atrocity, its impact on those bereaved or the damage caused to the entire community”.

As we look forward to an amazing period of opportunity for Northern Ireland ahead of us, with the Executive restored and performing extremely well, there is a great role to be played as we move towards reconciliation by people who have the opportunity to express contrition and remorse. It is extremely difficult to forgive someone who claims that their actions were necessary and that they were soldiers in a war. They were not; they committed acts of terrorism, as this incident clearly illustrates. I encourage everyone involved to express contrition and remorse, to seek forgiveness and to help Northern Ireland to move on. That is in everyone’s interests, whatever their view on the constitutional question.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and letters of comfort. To address his point about the ombudsman’s work, I will provide clarification on what investigative bodies can still deliver. Section 38 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 specifically prohibits the commencement or continuation of any troubles-related criminal investigation from 1 May 2024, apart from those that will be conducted by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. That remains the case for all investigative bodies, including the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

In the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Commencement No. 2 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024, which we laid yesterday, we included a transitional provision to clarify that in cases where an investigation had been completed prior to yesterday, 1 May, and only final administrative tasks remained outstanding, which may include activities such as report writing, family engagement or publication, they may be retained and completed by their original owner, but no further investigative work may now be done, except by the ICRIR in relation to troubles-era offences, and that includes the ombudsman. The transitional provision applies to any body that had such outstanding final administrative tasks on 1 May 2024, including Operation Kenova, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

The issue for the families is that they are aware that the Garda Síochána had information pertinent to this atrocity—this massacre—of 10 innocents. The question that they are asking and that I am asking as a Member of Parliament, which I hope the Minister of State can respond to, is about evidence not available before that is available now. It could have a determining impact on decisions. I know I also asked on behalf of the families for a public inquiry, but if all the information and evidence that should have been available, but was not, is available now, it could put a different stain or paint a different colour on what happened. It could lead to those who were responsible being held accountable.

[Mr Baker]

I believe I will be able to cover all those points that the hon. Gentleman has raised as I go through my remarks. I hope you will not mind my saying, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are not short of time. It is worth, for the hon. Gentleman and those watching, my giving a proper answer. I hope to do that, and I will certainly take further interventions from him as we go on.

In relation to alleged on-the-run letters in the hands of perpetrators, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) set out the Government’s position on the on-the-runs scheme fully in her statement to the House of Commons on 9 September 2014. That followed detailed consideration of the report by Lady Justice Hallett, which was published in July 2014. In her statement, the then Secretary of State was clear that the on-the-runs scheme was at an end and there was no basis for any reliance on letters received by so-called on-the-runs under the scheme. During legislative passage of the legacy Act, the Government again confirmed that position. I do not know who did or did not receive on-the-run letters. I will come on to that matter in a moment, but it will now be an operational matter for the ICRIR to consider. It is not something on which I can elaborate further.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will, but I will talk about the ICRIR straight away.

[Jim Shannon]

If the responsibility falls on that body, is it in order to ask it to clarify the matter of the on-the-runs letters? That was clearly not done in the coroner’s report, but the families indicate clearly that it did have them.

[Mr Baker]

I would be grateful if families made reference to the ICRIR. Later, I shall publish a link to its website, which speaks about investigations. I have had a good look at the website in preparing for the debate—I will come on to that—and I will send that link to my hon. Friend, so that he can share it with people. Yes, people should certainly make a reference, and I hope that the ICRIR will feel able to satisfy them, but he will know that it is independent of Ministers, so that is not a matter for me, but for the commission.

I believe that Members of the House will share the Government’s disappointment that the inquest could not obtain the co-operation it desired from those implicated in, or with knowledge about, the atrocity, and who may have been able to provide additional information for the families involved. The Government have long recognised that truly effective information recovery requires the co-operation of the various different actors during the troubles. That is exactly why the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery is supported by both a legislative requirement for full disclosure by the state, and by powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. I am pleased that the ICRIR commenced its functions on 1 May, as expected.

Those powers mean that the independent commission will have the tools that it needs to obtain as much information as possible for individuals and families. In fact, the Northern Ireland High Court recently found that the disclosure powers held by the commission were not only compliant with the state’s international obligations, but could improve on current inquests mechanisms. Individuals suspected of holding information that might be pertinent to a review by the commission will now be required to co-operate with the commission or risk a significant sanction. Refusal to comply with a notice of disclosure by the commission is subject to a penalty notice of up to £5,000.

I turn to remarks by Peter Sheridan, the commissioner for investigations. In an article released by PA Media titled, “Chances of prosecutions from new legacy body ‘vanishingly small’”, Mr Sheridan said:

“I have heard across the board about how justice stops on the first of May. Actually, if people read the information, the opposite is true. I, as the commissioner for investigations, have the ability to do criminal justice-style investigations and report to the prosecution service either in England and Wales or here in Northern Ireland where we find evidence available.”

He further said:

“I want to be absolutely honest with victims and survivors on what is a vanishingly small possibility around criminal justice prosecutions. Not that there isn’t still hope, there could be evidence available that is enough to prosecute.

But he also explained:

“If you take Kenova, £40 million, eight years work and no prosecutions. So we have to be honest with people of what’s achievable about cases that are 20, 30, 40, 50 years old.”

That is the situation we face, and that is why we have instituted the commission. It will have the opportunity to engage in culpability investigations.

My hon. Friend and the families are keen for people to be named. Culpability investigations are described on the website. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern regarding the naming of individuals. It is important to note that there should be consideration of many issues, and judgments made, including about the safety of life. Such considerations will remain relevant as the process moves forward.

The ICRIR will seek to establish all the circumstances of the death or other harmful conduct, using its full range of statutory powers, including the ability to compel witnesses. The commission will, at the conclusion of its review, write a final report. It will make findings, on the balance of probabilities, on issues such as who and what was to blame; importantly, it will answer specific questions asked by families, where that is possible. However, the content of reports is an operational matter for the ICRIR. It is independent of Ministers, as is right and proper. I am confident that many people out there would not believe Ministers, so it is important that the ICRIR is independent. I encourage people to look at the website, and I will tweet the link later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to share it with families.

Turning to the Irish Government, one of the coroner’s other key findings—the exploitation of the border in the planning, execution or aftermath of criminal activity, not just in this case but throughout the entirety of the troubles—is well established, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. As he will know well, there are many troubles-related cases in which criminal activity is suspected to have taken place across jurisdictions. For individuals and families who are the victims of such cases, effective information recovery will require the provision of information by the Irish authorities.

One such case is the Omagh bombing. The UK Government continue to press the Irish Government to co-operate fully with the inquiry on that, and, if necessary, to establish similar processes in Ireland, to facilitate the full provision of answers for the families affected. I repeat that invitation to the Irish Government today. They are very welcome to establish processes for co-operation with the commission, to the end that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Where they have information that could help with information discovery and reconciliation, I encourage them to work with the commission.

To date, the Irish Government have declined to commit to co-operating with the commission to facilitate the provision of information to families who request it. The recent Northern Ireland High Court judgment found the commission to be operationally independent from Government and capable of conducting reviews in accordance with the state’s obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. We hope that that will lead to further engagement by the Irish Government with the commission. The approach taken by the Irish Government to co-operating with the Kingsmill inquest—the coroner expressed gratitude for the co-operation of the Irish authorities—should act as a useful template for future co-operation with both the Omagh bombing inquiry and the ICRIR.

I would like to put on record that the relationship between the UK Government and the Irish Government is, today, one of robust friendship. We are friends and partners, not rivals or opponents. We are going forward together in a spirit of constructive co-operation on a wide range of matters. I am proud to have played some part in making that possible. This would be a great time for our two nations to co-operate in detail on issues of the past, to help lay to rest various suspicions or expose wrongdoing, and so make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that positive outlook. I brought this Adjournment debate on behalf of the families who lost 10 loved ones, and the survivor Alan Black. Could the Minister’s answer and the correspondence be conveyed to the Taoiseach down south and the necessary Minister there, with the message that we seek justice for the Kingsmill massacre families, to ensure that after 48 years, their case is answered?

[Mr Baker]

I would be astonished if the Irish Government were not following this debate live. We have friends in the embassy of Ireland and in the Government of Ireland whom we respect, and with whom we wish to continue to develop a friendship and co-operation. The relationship between the UK and Ireland is fundamental. For too long, we failed to look west, but we should have done. As is often said, one of the problems we face is that the Irish never forget the history, and the English never remember. We need to make the effort to remember, and to go forward as friends in a spirit of co-operation. It is precisely because we respect Ireland and its status as an independent nation making its own choices that we can really only plead, encourage and invite it to join us in working with the ICRIR.

The hon. Gentleman made the case on why An Garda Síochána was not forthcoming. I will just say that that will have been heard by the Irish Government, and I think he makes a powerful case for further co-operation. The Garda will have records that may assist in answering the kinds of questions that he raises. It is in their interests to defend their excellent reputation. In the interests of defending themselves, the records should be shared. I certainly wish to offer no criticism.

In closing, I express my sincere hope that the conclusion of the long-running Kingsmill inquest will bring some form of comfort to the families affected. Where questions remain, I urge the families seeking answers to make use of the powers of the new commission. The ICRIR is led by Sir Declan Morgan KC and staffed by dedicated individuals experienced in working on legacy and reconciliation issues, and the Government have full confidence in its ability to deliver for victims and survivors, including those affected by the awful, appalling and unjustifiable actions of the IRA at Kingsmill in January 1976.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that, but funding is, of course, only one part of the solution. The transformation of public services is vital, but achieving that will require innovative strategic thinking as well as some revenue raising, and the Government stand ready to assist the Northern Ireland Executive with formal structures to help them achieve those ends.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. We have a massively skilled workforce in Northern Ireland, as everyone here knows, including the Minister. However, in order to increase investment, we must create more skilled jobs and employ more people in the aerospace sector. What discussions has the Minister had with Cabinet colleagues about securing more jobs in our aerospace community in Northern Ireland? We can do more; we just need a bit more help.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have visited Spirit AeroSystems, as well as other related companies, and there is a terrific pool of talent and skill in Northern Ireland. We work with the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that the same advantages are available to people and businesses in Northern Ireland as across the rest of the UK. I sense that brevity requires that I do not elaborate on DBT’s full offer, but it is certainly there. I will write to him to set out the detail.

Northern Ireland

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I certainly agree about the extraordinary opportunity before Northern Ireland.

The Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are explicit that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a simple majority of its people. The UK Government are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that at present a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the UK. Our position is therefore straightforward: Northern Ireland has a bright and prosperous future within the Union, for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it. That position does not diminish the right of others to pursue through democratic and peaceful means their aspiration for other outcomes.

We all remain committed to building and strengthening the three sets of relationships at the heart of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The restoration of the political institutions at Stormont will enable critical relationships across and between communities in Northern Ireland to be strengthened, with vital work on building reconciliation to be taken forward in the months and years ahead. There are new opportunities to strengthen co-operation in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from outside the EU. This co-operation does not threaten Northern Ireland’s constitutional status, but it can help to build economic prosperity and deliver vital investment in infrastructure. As a UK Government, we also recognise the need to invest in east-west relationships, not only within the United Kingdom, as with the new UK East-West Council, but through the other institutions, such as the British-Irish Council and the intergovernmental conference.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am heartened to hear what the Minister has said about the importance of the east-west connections. Sometimes there is not enough emphasis on those, so I am keen to hear what the Minister will do to ensure that those happen with a much more concrete attitude, as well as what he will do on Ulster Scots and the culture. It is not only east-west in the UK that is important, but east-west to the USA. Those are some of the things I feel we should be doing.

[Mr Baker]

I know we will hear from my hon. Friend many times on these issues, and he has a great deal to contribute. I will see to it, particularly with this new role I have jointly with the Cabinet Office, that the Command Paper is vigorously implemented with all the strength I can muster to get it done at a speed that suits him and me. I will update the House in due course as we make progress. I certainly want the whole House and all the people of Northern Ireland to know what we are doing and when we are doing it, and to see that we are making progress with vigour. I certainly commit to doing that. I have had this joint role with the Windsor framework taskforce for a week, and I have made some progress, but I hope he will understand that I am not ready today to commit to a timeline to all the institutions being up and running. We certainly will proceed with vigour.

Our exit from the EU should not mean that co-operation and friendship are diminished. Rather, it compels us all to work harder to invest in and strengthen all the relationships that are important to the peoples within these islands and across Europe. Our independent status should in no way diminish our friendship. I commend this Humble Address to the House.

United Kingdom Internal Market

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman is right that a job of work will need to be done; I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said that of course it does. I am grateful that we will be doing that further work in a spirit of good will and co-operation through the joint committee with the European Union. If the hon. Gentleman drops an email to my Northern Ireland Office address, I shall be glad to visit the firm with him, bringing officials, and we will see whether we can move further to assist it. I need to find out more about its exact circumstances.

My goodness, that was a long series of interventions. This legislation ensures that we can avoid any unnecessary gold-plating in the implementation of new arrangements through new statutory guidance on section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, setting out how public authorities should have special regard to Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market and customs territory, and the need to maintain the free flow of goods from NI to GB. We will take a power through the regulations to issue such statutory guidance, and public authorities will be required to have regard to it. Those changes to the law will help to ensure that public authorities take every proper effort to prevent new barriers to intra-UK trade. In doing so, they will maintain and strengthen the health of the UK internal market in the long term.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

One issue that greatly vexes those in my party is that farmers in my constituency, and in others, have said that vets now cost even more, as they have to source medicines and devices from an acceptable source. The Command Paper suggests that the issue has not been resolved but will be worked on. Is that a firm demand on the Government, or is it just another working group that will talk about things? My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has been at the fore on this. We need a person on that committee to push things forward. If we have a solution through the committee, we need a timescale for delivery.

[Mr Baker]

We understand that point and we are listening to the hon. Gentleman and others. We are resolute that of course Northern Ireland must have proper access to veterinary medicines, and will be glad to work with him and others. He will appreciate what the priorities are and have been, and we will certainly continue to make pursuing veterinary medicines a high priority. I am personally resolute on the issue and look forward to pursuing it.

The regulations must be seen in the context of the overall package agreed between the Government and the DUP. The passage of these regulations demonstrates the Government’s commitment to taking forward that whole package and to maintaining the participation and trust of the whole community in Northern Ireland’s political processes and the Stormont institutions going forward.

If I may touch on what the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) said earlier, I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the whole Government are completely committed to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions. As I said to one nationalist politician—about a year ago now, if I recall—it is perfectly possible to be a Unionist and support the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions, just as it is possible to be a nationalist or a republican and support the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions. It is the beauty and the triumph of the agreement that we can all support it and move forward.

I am trying to say this as gently as possible: I can understand a degree of discomfort from the hon. Gentleman, because this is a big breakthrough for Unionism. A Unionist Conservative Government have agreed to do Unionist things with the Democratic Unionist Party, and that is something I am very proud of. However, that does not in any way diminish our impartiality, or our commitment to governing or seeing to the government of Northern Ireland in a proper manner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

12. If he will have discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of allocating additional funding for teaching assistants in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

Pay policy in Northern Ireland is devolved, and it is not for the Government to make those decisions. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that such decisions should be made by the Northern Ireland Executive, with Ministers returned there.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister has a deep interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and in the wages of classroom assistants. Only last week, thousands of non-teaching staff went on strike from Northern Ireland schools. The action was called over an escalating row over pay, where thousands of people walked out. Will the Minister commit to investigating that in terms of the Barnett consequentials? Can he ascertain what can be done to support teaching assistants in Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

5. What steps he is taking to help ensure that postal communications between Britain and Northern Ireland are delivered without customs declarations.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

Under the Windsor framework, sending parcels to friends and family in Northern Ireland will be as smooth and easy as it is today, removing any burdensome paperwork, costs or delays. Northern Ireland consumers will be able to order from businesses in the rest of the UK and receive goods in the post as they do now, without customs processes or burdensome costs. This will maintain consumer choice for British goods in Northern Ireland. Businesses sending goods to other businesses will use our new green lane.

[Jim Shannon]

A number of constituents and consumers have contacted me to highlight that many eBay or Amazon providers will no longer ship to Northern Ireland as they state that they cannot afford the enhanced fees, demonstrating that Northern Ireland continues to be treated differently. It is costing small businesses and individuals the ability to shop around. What steps can the Minister take to revisit the framework with our EU counterparts, to ensure free and fair trade throughout the United Kingdom that is clear and easy to follow for all businesses?

[Mr Baker]

Under the protocol as it was, all parcels would have needed to complete full international customs processes. I believe that the suppliers to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will be making their plans under the protocol as it was. Under the Windsor framework, parcels to consumers will not be subject to those burdensome processes. He reminds us all that we need to redouble our efforts to communicate to suppliers the message that they will be able to take advantage of a new green lane and supply to consumers in Northern Ireland. It is a subject close to my heart, and I can see that it is extremely close to his too.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I expect the hon. Gentleman knows that clauses 8 and 9 put in place a vote on account for next year. I will come to that as it is in my notes; if memory serves it covers 65% of the spending, but I will confirm that when I reach that section. That puts in place the spending for next year, but of course we would like the Executive to return to set the Budget for next year. If they do not return, we will have to do the job, and it will be tricky; there is no getting away from that. Without Northern Ireland Executive Ministers in place, it has not been possible to take the difficult political decisions necessary to balance the Budget at this very late stage in the year, and that of course compounds the problem for next year. It is with great sobriety that I stand here and acknowledge that it is going to be very difficult. I for one would be up for the challenge of doing it, but it is not the Government’s position that we as UK Government Ministers do that; we would like the Northern Ireland parties to step up to that duty.

If the Executive are not restored on time, we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland civil service to prepare for next year’s Budget. The Government’s priority for that Budget will be to deliver a fair outcome for all taxpayers and citizens in Northern Ireland. We will work to put Northern Ireland’s finances on a sustainable long-term footing, which means appropriate consideration of a wide range of options including revenue-raising measures, as well as reviewing all spending.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will give way once more but then will give a Bill overview in the hope of making progress.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for giving way and respectfully say to him that I have a suggestion for saving money in the Department of Health. We all know that agency costs for employing nurses are sometimes 25% to 30% higher than the costs within the NHS system; the obvious solution is to employ more nurses in the NHS system in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that in order to make savings we should reinstate nurses who want to work and do away with agency staff whose costs are higher?

[Mr Baker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but I hope he will not mind my saying that today’s Bill is a technical Bill to put on a legal basis the written ministerial statement laid before the House last year, and I am reluctant to get into particular decisions. However, I think every Member of this House will know that agency staff are very expensive and it would be much more preferable to avoid their use.

I do not propose to waste the House’s time by going through every detail of every clause on Second Reading—I will come back to that in Committee—but in summarising the Bill I want first to thank Opposition Members, in particular those on the Front Benches, for the approach that they take to these matters. I know they do not hesitate to hold the Secretary of State and me to account, but equally when necessary measures need to be taken, they are constructive, for which I am grateful because this Bill is about making sure that public services can be provided in Northern Ireland.

The Bill will place the Budget that the Secretary of State outlined to the House in his written ministerial statement on 24 November 2022 on a legal footing. It will also allow Departments and other listed public bodies to continue to deliver public services into the first half of the 2023-24 financial year through a vote on account. I do not propose to repeat the contents of that written ministerial statement, which set out the respective allocations reflected in this Bill; what I will say is that those Budget allocations were developed as a result of extensive and sustained engagement with the Northern Ireland civil service. I want to thank again the Northern Ireland civil service, and indeed our own officials in the Northern Ireland Office, for working with great passion and at great pace to work through this Budget; it was inspirational to see and I am particularly grateful to our senior leadership team for the way it rose to the occasion.

The Secretary of State has met Sir Robert Chote, the chair of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, and has received a range of representations from public groups and individuals. We have prioritised spending in health and education, with an overarching objective of protecting the most vulnerable: this Budget increases education spending by just under £300 million and delivers a £786 million increase in non-covid-related health spending.

The challenges that all Departments now face are due to the repeated failure of previous Northern Ireland Executives to take strategic decisions to reform public services and deliver sustainable finances. When Ministers left office in October, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and several other Departments were set to overspend significantly, with no plan in place to address that. The best solution for Northern Ireland’s health, education and other public services is a functional and effective devolved Government taking much-needed decisions to place those public services on a sustainable footing.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I believe that he is absolutely right.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

In a wee second. First let me say that we have real concerns about what is proposed in the Bill. We have had discussions with the Minister of State and the Conservative party, so they can understand our angst and—perhaps—anger. If the Minister has not understood that, by the end of this debate he will clearly understand it.

[Mr Baker]

I have clearly understood. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) are two of my best friends in this place, and to hear them speak as they just have is personally very painful. I want to reassure them and say on a slightly lighter note that while they accuse us of being a wing of Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin is perfectly content to tell me that we pander too much to the Democratic Unionist party—

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that, at the moment, what the Government are doing is about right, given that we appear to be offending all quarters. When I make my speech, I will answer the hon. Member for Strangford as best I can.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I am proud to be an Ulster Scots speaker. The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is no longer present, but he referred to instances of children in Scotland speaking Scots Gaelic—this probably happened in Northern Ireland with Ulster Scots as well—and how it would be beaten out of them. I went to Ballywalter Primary School—that was not yesterday, by the way; it was a long time ago, back in the ’60s—and certain things stick in the memory when we look back over the history and the years. This is one of those things. Mr Whisker was the principal of the school, and he asked us some questions and we had to fill in the answers. I went home and spoke to my granny Hamilton, who came from Clady, outside Strabane in County Tyrone. I asked her, as you do when you are six or seven years old, “Granny, what are the answers to these things?” She filled them in, in Ulster Scots, because that is how we spoke at that time, and I took them into school the next day. Mr Whisker is now dead and gone, and I never speak ill of anyone, but he marked it and said, “This isn’t English.” I said, “This is Ulster Scots, Mr Whisker”, and he said, “That is not how we do it in this school.” It is the way things were in those days, and this is not a criticism, but I got a clip around the ear, which I took home to my granny or my mum and reappraised the situation. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, the Ulster Scots that I had as a child in Ballywalter in the 1960s was beaten out of me in every way.

I gave my oath in Ulster Scots a few weeks ago, and there is nothing quite like expressing yourself in that beautiful language. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) also gave his oath in Ulster Scots. I have given mine in Ulster Scots on four occasions—2015, 2017, 2019 and four weeks ago. I am very pleased to do that, because it is who I am. I am an Ulster Scot, and I am proud to be an Ulster Scot. That is not a political statement; it is who I am. That is how I see language, and it is contained in every proposal I make on Ulster Scots.

The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) is not present, but he said he was scunnered—that is the word he used. Well, scunnered means fed up. I hope he is not fed up, but the word in Ulster Scots is glaidsome or blithe. I am glaidsome or blithe, but I am certainly not scunnered when it comes to speaking Ulster Scots. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) is also not scunnered in speaking the Irish language, as she did very well. She made an excellent speech, as did others.

I researched the census online, and the number of Ulster Scots speakers has gone up by 50,000 in 10 years—from 140,000 to 190,000. That is 10.4% of the population. I am not saying anything else, but it is a fact that the number of Irish language speakers was up by 1.7%, whereas we were up by a significant number.

I am an advocate for Ulster Scots, and I encourage schools such as Portavogie Primary School and Derryboy Primary School outside Saintfield to teach it. I love to delve into the poetry and history of the language, and the hon. Member for Gordon referred to the arts. It is the poetry, the stories and the flow of the language that I love.

I am for Ulster Scots, but I am not for this Bill unless changes are made. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) knows that I have the highest respect for him. We came into this place together, and we hung about together on our first day. We got our photograph taken on the steps in Westminster Hall, and we had a good chance to talk and engage. I understand that he does what his heart tells him to do. That is the sort of person he is. I hope he will take on board our constructive points as we try to move forward.

The Ulster Scots language and culture is alive in my constituency of Ards and Strangford. I sat on Ards Borough Council a long time ago, having first been elected in 1985. I am not saying I am better than anyone else, because I am not, but along with others I was instrumental in bringing Ulster Scots names to many villages, with the agreement of the people. Greyabbey is Greba, Ballywalter is Whitkirk, Ballyhalbert is Talbotstoun, and Portavogie is St Andrews. Those names were added because people wanted it to happen. It is about moving forward in a constructive, positive way that brings people with us. I would love that to be our central focus.

When I was at Ards Borough Council, which is now Ards and North Down Borough Council, we had a sign saying “Fáilte to the Ards”, which means “Welcome to the Ards”. Those names and welcome signs, introduced way back in the 1990s and 2000s, are a simple expression of our language. Philip Robinson—or Robeinson, as we call him in Ulster Scots—lives on Hard Breid Raa in Greba. He speaks Ulster Scots with a fluency and flow, from a love of the language. He has written a number of books, which we are pleased to see. I make this point because it is important to do so. I have talked about what we did in the villages of Ballywalter and others along the Ards peninsula. I say gently to Newry, Mourne and Down District Council that political signs were put up in Irish in streets in Saintfield in my constituency when the people of those streets did not want them. The point I am making is: you have to bring people along with you. You don’t try to put this down their throats in a way that has the adverse and reverse effect. We have to engage with local communities and do this right.

It was always understood that the Irish language commissioner and the commissioner for Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition would not have the same functions. That was in order to meet the different priorities and needs of the Unionist and nationalist communities, so that each would be provided with a commissioner that was equally meaningful for the respective purposes. It is self-evident that in order for the functions of the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British commissioner, although different, to be of equal value to those of the Irish language commissioner, the functions must be equally robust and enforceable as those pertaining to the Irish language commissioner in order to provide something of equal value to the Unionist community. I want to make it clear that I want to see a language Bill that comes through here that respects other traditions and other languages. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) spoke just before me—I hope I pronounced his constituency correctly—and we have seen the success he has had there; what they have done in Wales is incredible, and it has come about with the co-operation of the people. We need to do this with the co-operation of the people. It is really important that that happens in order to provide something of equal value to the Unionist community.

We are therefore deeply concerned that although the Bill requires a public authority to have regard to the Irish language commissioner no such obligation exists in relation to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, and try to understand where we are coming from, what we are trying to say and why it is important to get this right—I say that to him gently. That is what all my colleagues on our Benches are trying to say, including my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), whom we are to hear from soon. They will all say this over and again.

This arrangement transparently violates the parity of esteem principle by giving the Unionist community something of less value. What sort of Bill brings in something that is of less value for the community that I represent? It is Ulster Scots, but some have different cultures as well and feel that this must be equal. In what other country would this blatant bias be not only accepted, but enforced? This is what happened through the House of Lords and it is where we are with this Bill today. I could mention certain countries, but Members would certainly not like the parallels. I also would not do that because I know that these are not the Government’s intentions. Little wonder we were shocked when in the Lords the Government sought to defend this violation of the principle of parity of esteem on the basis of three things. I will cite them and explain why, with respect, the Government need to get this sorted.

First, in the other place the Government suggested that this approach is required by New Decade, New Approach, but its text does not address the detail of enforcement with respect to either the Irish language commissioner or the Ulster Scots Ulster British commissioner. This does not make it wrong to provide an enforcement mechanism for the Irish language commissioner’s functions through a statutory duty to “have regard”. Indeed, one could argue that the requirement for this is implicit as it would be absurd—DUP Members believe this—to create commissioners and not to require the public authorities they engage with to have regard to them. However, in order to maintain parity of esteem, this provision must plainly also be applied equally to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner’s functions. It is very clear where we are.

Secondly, the Government Front Bencher in another place defended this arrangement by suggesting that, in addition to having different functions, it was appropriate for commissioners to have completely different powers in relation to these functions and that, for example, the bodies addressed by both commissioners should have a duty to have regard to only one of the commissioners, but not the other. I mean, really? Why has that not been understood by the Government? Specifically, as bodies that the commissioners address—to be clear, these are the only bodies that the commissioners address, as the Government confirmed on Report—public authorities are required to have regard to the Irish language commissioner but are not required to have regard to the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner.

Secretary of State, that is a key issue, and that is where we are coming from. Such an arrangement is self-evidently indefensible and insulting to the community that I represent—the people of Ards and Strangford, and indeed those across the Ulster Scots-speaking community in all of Northern Ireland—as is the suggestion that the Unionist community could be bought off with just the image of a commissioner, while the nationalist community is afforded the reality of a commissioner. We have the image, but they have the reality. How can that be?

Thirdly, the Government suggested that we agreed to have two commissioners engaging public authorities, which would be required to have regard only to the Irish language commissioner and not the Ulster Scots and Ulster British commissioner, on the basis of the draft legislation produced around the time of the NDNA. That is, however, incorrect. We agreed to the text of the NDNA, but not the draft legislation before us today. They are two different things. I do not know how this could happen. How can we have these talks and agree something, and then something else comes forward? It is completely wrong for the Government to try to deploy a constitutional sleight of hand against us all by trying to spin something that was not in the agreement as if it was. Even if the Bill were as much a part of the agreement as the agreement itself, simply asserting the text of the Bill would only serve to highlight the difficulty, in the sense that the agreement text and the draft text of the Bill at present are different.

In the absence of any statutory obligation on public authorities to have regard to the Ulster Scots commissioner, and while such an obligation does exist in relation to the Irish language commissioner, although we may have the form of two similarly important commissioners, in reality we have one, and one only. As though that were not enough, while the Government have recognised that the two commissioners’ functions must be different in order to provide something that is supposedly of equal value to each community, the Bill treats Unionists as second-class citizens by giving them the right to complain to their commissioner about failures by public bodies relating to only part of their commissioner’s function, while giving nationalists the opportunity to complain to their commissioner across the full spectrum of his or her functions.

Equal treatment does not start with this kind of Bill. Again, the Minister in another place suggested that we agreed to this bizarre arrangement on the basis that, in addition to agreeing to NDNA, we had also agreed to draft legislation that gives the Ulster Scots commissioner less authority in their functions than that accorded the Irish language commissioner, when we had done no such thing. The Bill before the House today is unequal and certainly does not treat us fairly.

The Unionist community is not stupid. Let us be quite clear: we understand what we see before us, and we have expressed that in this Chamber. I cannot stress enough the critical importance of Government amendments to restore parity of esteem on both these points. If the Bill is not amended to address that—something that we, our party and I, and the Ulster-Scots Agency have called for consistently over the years—it will entrench discrimination, shouting the message loud and clear that, while the nationalist community should be afforded the reality of a commissioner to address their priorities, the Unionist community, to which those of us on the DUP Benches belong, must make do with just the image of a commissioner. We will be tabling amendments to correct these problems and will ask for an urgent meeting with the Minister between now and Committee to discuss the matter.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I would certainly be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman, and I am confident that he knows that I did write to offer meetings shortly after I took up my post.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not surprised that the Minister of State has replied so positively. Yes, I look forward to those meetings, and, obviously, my party will be more than happy to engage with them as well. All I say is just do these things before we get to the point that we are at right now. The Unionist people are tired of being treated as second-class citizens by a Government whom they respect and whom I respect as well. Can that respect not flow both ways? Apologies fly to the nationalists, and yet there is no apology for the massive mistake the Government made in the withdrawal agreement. People in my constituency of Strangford come back from work to a cold home, worried about how they will pay their rent or their mortgage as well as for the petrol to get them to work.

I have read the explanatory notes and estimated that the annual cost of the three new authorities will be some £9 million. In order to prevent these offices from being exploited for political purposes by one community—[Interruption.] I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Speaker. Do you know what my constituents in Strangford want, Mr Speaker? They want the NHS sorted out. They want the waiting lists for cancer organised. They want to know when they are getting their cataract operations and when they are getting their dental treatment. They also want to know why, when they want to go to the dentist in Newtownards, they find that there are no dentists that will take on new customers. One of my constituents had to travel to Dundalk to get their teeth done. My constituents want to know why new builds in the education sector are not taking place. They want to know why the new building for Glastry College in my constituency will not be built when the £9 million would near enough build it. They want to know about the Ballynahinch bypass, which could be built for a lot less than that. I make these points because it is important to put down a marker. When it comes to spending money, my constituents want the money to be spent in a positive fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

What a debate it has been. It has been really excellent—wide-ranging; at times hopeful and optimistic; at times reflective and reassuring; at times, it must be said, fearful and disappointed. But it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to such a debate on such a sensitive subject.

The Bill, as has been said, will implement the draft legislation associated with the New Decade, New Agreement deal, which all parties signed up to. I listened very carefully to the speeches and will return to them in a moment. I really share hon. Members’ hopes that these measures will be implemented in full by a future First Minister and Deputy First Minister, in a dynamic and timely manner, to help take Northern Ireland forward beyond these debates.

Yesterday I engaged with a range of language groups, which I found extremely helpful. I particularly want to thank Conradh na Gaeilge, Foras na Gaeilge, Linda Ervine of the Turas language programme—who has already been mentioned—Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, and the Ulster-Scots Agency.

Before I get into individual contributions, there have been some points of general agreement among all Members: the necessity of carrying forward the agreement that had been reached through NDNA, a lament that this House must pass this legislation and, of course, agreement on the extreme sensitivity of it. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that I, like the Secretary of State and everyone else in the House, share the great sense of loss and sorrow about the explosion in Creeslough. It is an absolute tragedy, and I put on the record the Government’s thanks to the Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service for all they did to help out.

As I hope to elaborate on, this is a conversation about the future, and the future that we are creating for ourselves. If the Front Benchers will allow me, I will begin by responding to what the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said, because like him, I approach this subject with a degree of trepidation and humility. I originally come from Cornwall. The Cornish language has been resuscitated since I left; I do not know any Cornish, but of course I do not have to pursue my Cornish roots, because my parents come from Hampshire. Nevertheless, I can see the great merits of people wishing to pursue their roots, and I know that today will be a great day of celebration for many people—I saw that in particular with Conradh na Gaeilge—because they love the language, its roots and where it takes them. That is a point that I will come back to.

The hon. Member for Arfon made the point that this has been liberating in Wales. As the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, he used the word “unremarkable.” He talked about depoliticisation, and that is my ambition. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) mentioned Linda Ervine. I hope that she will not mind me saying that I was really moved by the efforts that the Turas language programme is making to teach Unionists Irish—Unionists who recognise that they do not have to go back too many generations to find that their ancestors, too, were speaking Irish. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, and I am grateful to him; that means so much. Look at the conversation we have had in the House—so much hurt; layers upon layers of hurt over decades. People have been insulted on both sides. I have listened to Ulster Scots saying that they have been demeaned, and Irish speakers saying that their language has been demeaned. This just cannot go on. We are the authors of our future.

I do not need to repeat the points that have been made about the weaponisation of language; I will just say that someone said to me yesterday, “We are building bridges; politicians are burning them behind us.” That should be a challenge to us all. Of course, the sorts of politicians who weaponise language as advancing nationalism have let the public down. All of us face the challenge of working out what future we are going to write, so I am grateful for the opportunity to begin my return to the Dispatch Box by agreeing with the Opposition Front Bench.

The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) asked me some specific questions, including about human rights and the connected classrooms programme. That programme is an important commitment, and officials continue to explore avenues of progress to deliver that commitment and facilitate the establishment of the programme. I hope to be in a position to update the House on progress shortly.

On the Castlereagh Foundation, I thank the former First Minister Arlene Foster, who chaired the advisory committee, and the rest of the committee. The advice was requested by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and the advisory committee was unable to support the progress of the UK Government commitment to Castlereagh at the time within the powers available to the Secretary of State. That led to the amendment of the legislation.

Turning to our general approach and human rights, the approach we are taking is consistent with the draft legislation published alongside NDNA; it really is for OICE to implement this in practice. Although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may direct OICE, this matter would be transferred to it, and would be for it to take forward.

I thought my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made an extremely well-informed speech. He picked up on the point about the Ulster-Scots Agency. We have received a number of representations about amendments, including from the Ulster-Scots Agency, and if I may, I will on this point turn to the request for amendments from DUP Members.

I have to say that we have listened to people request amendments to go further on the Irish language side, and the DUP has made very strong representations today. What the Government have tried to do, recognising that this really should have been taken through in the Assembly, is to stay absolutely faithful to the draft legislation. I am just slightly conscious that, if we do open the Bill up to amendments, we will hear many calls for reciprocity and a whole series of amendments one way or another.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I have to say that I hear what he says about the need for parity in powers. I absolutely look forward to meeting him and his colleagues, and going through in detail how they think there has been some shortcoming. It is vitally important that we carry people with us, because I think this could be a great moment for moving on and achieving what has been achieved in Wales—depoliticising language. I think that would be a very good thing, and I look forward to meeting him, but I will give way to him briefly if he wishes.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister of State for giving way. The thrust of our request to him—in a very kindly but also very firm manner—is about the fact that the Irish language commissioner has clout, but the Ulster Scots commissioner does not have that clout. It is a visual issue. I made the point earlier that for those who love the Irish language, it is the language that is the main thrust of what they are about, but for Ulster Scots it is about all the other things. It has the history, the art, the stories, the poetry and the music—pipe bands have been mentioned, for instance—and they are just some of those things. When it comes to the discussions we are going to have about those things, I hope we can have equality. Let us have a state of equality. I want to be as equal as anybody else. I do not want to be in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, where some people are more equal than others. Well, I am not, and neither is anyone else on these Benches.

[Mr Baker]

I am most grateful. On step-in powers, can I just say, as I said in an intervention, that the Government would not wish to intervene routinely in devolved matters? The use of the powers here and elsewhere in the Bill would require the most careful consideration. The Government’s decision to include these powers was not taken lightly, but progress must be made to ensure that political stasis in Northern Ireland does not further frustrate this legislation. As some of the people I met said to me, they have waited a very long time for this moment.

I do not wish to take up disproportionate time in this debate—I know Members have many matters to discuss with me in meetings subsequently, before we come to further stages—so I will conclude by saying that this has been an extremely good debate, and I am very grateful to all Members who have participated. If I could say one other thing it is this: let us please use this moment to have a new beginning for Northern Ireland on the issue of language—a new beginning that people from all parts of the communities can celebrate, and one that can help us all write a more positive future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Windrush Day 2021

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I begin by referring to my unremunerated interest as chairman of the advisory board of Conservatives Against Racism For Equality. I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), and I think it is time that we embrace the truth that she spoke: I certainly hope to do so. I do not think anybody could fail to be moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley)—I was particularly taken and moved by what he said—and I hope that both of us live long enough to see the day when skin colour matters no more or less than the colour of our eyes.

I am very glad to have co-sponsored this debate, and I am delighted to speak in it. I want to do three things: celebrate the Windrush generation, put a lament before the Minister, and then make some suggestions about what can be done. I really do celebrate the Windrush generation. About 5% of my constituents are black. They are overwhelmingly people connected to St Vincent and the Grenadines. They make a wonderful contribution to our community. No one who has listened to Wycombe Steel Orchestra could fail to enjoy it and no one could fail to notice the wonderful range of people involved in it—black and white together, enjoying themselves, celebrating their music and contributing to our community. The Windrush generation saved, rebuilt and contributed to our country, and have shared in our prosperity, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West said, all too often they have not been well treated. That brings me to my second point.

When I look back at that time, I do really lament the way that people were treated. The Windrush generation came off the boat, as it was, and can clearly be seen in the footage and photographs to be wearing their very best clothes, putting their best foot forward, and coming—in a spirit of good will, hope and optimism—to contribute to this country. But when I listen to the stories that people tell me, very plainly they were not welcomed as they should have been; very plainly, the United Kingdom was not prepared to welcome people as it should have done. People were not treated as I would wish. I am very sorry about that, but it is not an injustice that I think we can put right today. We can put right, though, the things that people suffer in this age.

I recently met a young woman and was surprised to hear her story, which she has given me permission to mention. She was schooled in Wycombe. She is not very much younger than me—perhaps in her 30s; I flatter myself, having just turned 50. She told me that when she went through school in Wycombe, a teacher actually put her, as a young black girl, in a separate room with Asian children and did not teach them. What unspeakable racism such a thing would be.

I am happy to say that it must surely be unthinkable that such a thing would be tolerated today. If it were to happen, surely children, on speaking to their parents, would find that their parents were today empowered to complain immediately; and all of us would move swiftly to condemn it. Yet the woman who told me this story was not that much younger than me and it happened in my town. Let me be very clear that it is not happening today. If it was, it would be rooted out. I am very proud of all our schools, which are diverse and brilliant, and give children the best possible opportunities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have been sitting here listening to the contributions, including the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) will know, in Northern Ireland we have had 30 years of conflict. That conflict is over. We have an opportunity to build a future where we can have a shared society and a shared history, and there are many good things in Northern Ireland that I believe could be used for the betterment of people in this House and in England. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we can all learn lessons from Northern Ireland, as our society has moved forward constructively?

[Mr Baker]

There certainly are lessons from Northern Ireland, yes. I have occasionally visited Belfast to hear from people there. The hon. Gentleman reminds me that humanity’s capacity to find reasons for hatred is almost unbounded, and it is sorrowful, particularly in Northern Ireland, that people have hated one another on the grounds of theological matters, which should be matters of academic interest and certainly not things over which anyone should hate.

I want to touch on the Windrush Day celebration that we had this year. Somebody on the call complained, actually, that the first item we watched was a film—I think from the ’80s; perhaps the late ’80s—that related to a moment of tension in Wycombe, when some young black men and some young white men had come into conflict over football and an event going on somewhere else. When I watched the film, there were young black men in Wycombe complaining about how they had been treated, and one of the things I noticed was how justified they were. They were clearly intelligent, articulate and well-meaning, and completely dumbfounded and bewildered that anyone had so misconstrued their intentions and misrepresented the actions that had taken place. For example, the film covered an allegation that petrol bombs had been used, when no such thing had happened. It was a fiction, an invention targeted at these men—again, racism. I can see why black people would really resent being treated in such a way. People have long memories; they remember today how others were treated in the past, and they expect us to behave differently and to show some contrition, apology and humility, and I hope that I am doing so.



To turn to the Windrush scandal, I think the scheme is working. I have had a limited number of cases and I therefore cannot go into them, but it worked very well in one particular case that I hold in mind. I think that was perhaps because we were involved and that should not be necessary, but clearly the scheme is being improved. I am conscious that I should probably allow the Minister to describe later how the scheme is being improved, but I note in particular that the minimum award has gone from £250 to £10,000, and the maximum award from £10,000 to £100,000. I welcome those improvements.

However, I just want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister—he is my hon. Friend and a great man—that it is only by engaging with people and really listening to what they say and how they experience things that we can improve matters. For example, on a recent call to raise awareness of the Windrush compensation scheme in my community in Wycombe, I listened with horror and shame to somebody explaining that their mother had had to go through multiple hoops to prove that she was entitled to be here after decades of living comfortably in the United Kingdom, quite rightly, as a British person. Worse, her British-born children with British passports were worrying and anxious about their right to remain in the United Kingdom.

Why should such a thing happen? Inevitably, schemes have rules. What I would say to my hon. Friend the Minister and to officials listening is that I have great faith in him and I have great faith in officials. They are doing the very best they can in the spirit of good will. Yet the experience of the public engaging with the scheme is hurdles and bureaucracy and proof. For it to have provoked—in our age, today—the anxiety in British-born people with British passports for whom this is home, is itself, while inadvertent, shaming. I do not wish to spring this on my hon. Friend. I would not expect him to apologise apropos of nothing without looking into it, but I certainly want to apologise to those people. I will certainly always stand up for people who have felt like that and raise their case with Ministers. However they vote, it is my duty to make sure that—very much a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West—we stand up for people, those of us who are, if I may say so, privileged to be middle class, in full-time employment, white and not facing these difficulties.

Awareness, empathy, contrition and humility—they should be our watchwords. As we go forward, as chairman of Conservatives against Racism for Equality, I really want our whole society to choose, in a radically moderate way, to be much more positively anti-racist; for all of us to be living out a life that says, “I accept the moral equality of every person and the legal equality of people in all our institutions”. That speaks to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West. Of course, everybody is politically equal. From that follows equality before the law and equality of opportunity, and embracing one another, so that we can go forward in hope to live in a world in which our skin colour matters no more or less than our eye colour.

I really do celebrate the Wycombe Windrush generation. The community is a wonderful, gentle loving community and I am very proud that they are in Wycombe. I am very proud of them. I just say to my hon. Friend the Minister—I can see he has listened very carefully; he is a great and good man—that in time, perhaps very swiftly, we might see institutions that make sure that people never again feel undervalued.

Electoral Practices

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is a privilege to lead the first Adjournment debate of this Parliament, on electoral practices, especially with so much time stretching before us—something I have long dreamed of. I am sure that the Minister will not mind my saying that. I am especially grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the debate, because I have sought it for some time.

On 26 September, I intervened in a general debate on the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate after a number of my constituents had contacted me about plans to introduce voter ID, which they believed to be unnecessary. I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree and am pleased with the commitments that the Conservative party made in our manifesto. In my intervention, I talked about the scale of unlawful electoral practice in Wycombe and I promised to apply for this Adjournment debate to elaborate and to ask what the Government will do to combat abuses of our electoral system. I subsequently published an article, on which this speech expands.

My objective is to ensure that free and fair, open and lawful elections take place in the UK without cheating. It is about upholding the principle that every entitled voter should have one vote and cast it freely. It is to ensure the proper functioning of our democracy. There can be no question of disenfranchising anyone, or of constraining legitimate political discourse. However, it is a sad reality that systems of rules are always gamed. It is a sad reality that the rules of general and council elections are being gamed today. Evidently, some are happy to cheat to win.

Since the legitimacy of political power rests on the consent of the public, expressed at the ballot box, action is required. Since I have already had some foolish and vexatious reactions to my article, I wish to make it clear, up front, that the fundamental reason for this debate is to stand with the law-abiding majority across all sections of my diverse constituency, including EU nationals and people of Asian descent, against the corruption perpetrated against them by certain individuals. I seek to advance justice and equality for all.

Furthermore, I am confident that the agents of the main political parties in Wycombe conduct their campaigns with an unimpeachable commitment to the integrity of the democratic process. However, despite their integrity, I am clear that rules are being broken by or on behalf of particular individuals.

I pay tribute at this point to the indefatigable zeal of my agent, Mrs Susan Hynard, who, over some 30 years, has worked harder than anyone I could name, and possibly as hard as anyone in the country, to ensure not only cross-community politics, but that our elections are conducted in a proper, fair and decent manner of which we can all be proud. I am very grateful.

I am sure of the account I give tonight. I could easily identify persons involved under the privileges of the House, but I do not intend tonight to use that privilege unnecessarily. I am aware that by the time evidence has reached me, it is often hearsay. However, what I am going to say is sourced to a high level of confidence, including, in some cases, to the standard required to make referrals to the police. That has been done.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of my constituents and people across the country would be shocked if they knew the extent of corrupt election practices and voter fraud, which happen every time there is an election. In Wycombe, we have reason to believe that an important council seat, which the Conservatives held, was lost as a result of corrupt election practices. We think that the extent of corrupt practice could be material in parliamentary elections.

So what do we find is being done? I know of people who register to vote at different addresses in our town and then cast a vote in the same election more than once. In one instance, we have evidence that a man voted once in person and once by postal vote in the same election. My constituents tell me, astonishingly, that people living outside the area will register to vote using friends’ and families’ addresses in order to support a particular candidate. I can understand that some people would want to vote against me, the Conservative candidate, but I object to people being shipped in to do it. In one case, private data held for legitimate purposes was used to apply for postal votes without the consent of the elector, and those postal votes were then intercepted before the electors had a chance to discover and complete them. That is a premeditated theft of votes, but the victims would not make a formal complaint for fear of retribution. I am disgusted to think that today’s system of postal voting should facilitate something so redolent of the old rotten boroughs.

We also know of landlords who register to vote at properties that they own, but where they do not reside. When we look at the register, we need not be presumptuous about these people and the relations they have with the occupants of the same property, because when we look at the names we often know the people involved. I am well aware that it is not an offence to be registered at two addresses and in specimen cases where people can be shown to have voted twice, we have reported them, but no prosecutions have followed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to be involved in an Adjournment debate, and as this is the first one of the season, I was obviously keen to come along and support the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who wants to uphold the honesty and integrity of the electoral practices. Does he agree that the scheme that allows students in some cases to vote at university and in some cases to vote at home must be reassessed and reviewed? One person, one vote was democracy in the past, and one person, one vote is democracy today.

[Mr Baker]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope he will not mind me teasing him a bit when I say I am delighted that he has intervened in the Adjournment debate and that normal service has therefore been resumed. He is absolutely right, and he knows that I agree with him. One person, one vote cast freely—that is the principle of our democracy. I am slightly reluctant to single out students, although I agree with him that there is a potential problem with students voting in two locations. The crucial point here is to ensure that people vote only once and that they are prosecuted if they vote twice, but our system should prohibit that. Whether we should rule out students and others from registering in two locations is something to which I would be glad to hear the Minister’s response.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland, we have had a number of examples of well-orchestrated, well-detailed and witnessed instances of illegal voting taking place. The Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland has taken many steps to try to change that and to make the process more accountable, but there are still examples across Northern Ireland of things going wrong. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister could perhaps look at some of the practices that we have introduced in Northern Ireland to stop illegal voting, and that this might also help the hon. Gentleman’s efforts to stop it?

[Mr Baker]

I absolutely agree, and I think that the Government should certainly look extremely closely at the precedent established within the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland. Certainly, if it is good enough for Northern Ireland on this subject, I would think that as a starting premise, it is good enough for the rest of the nations of the United Kingdom.

We have found foreign nationals on the electoral roll living legally in the United Kingdom, but who are neither nationals of the UK or the Commonwealth nor citizens of the Republic of Ireland or another EU country. Nevertheless, they are on our register to vote. In one case, we were able to establish a man’s nationality via Companies House. From his correspondence, it was clear that he was on the electoral roll with the intention of voting in this general election, but without any entitlement to do so. I have received accounts of candidates visiting electors’ homes, demanding that postal votes are completed in front of them and then taking them away. I am sorry to say that we cannot assume that voters enjoy secrecy and freedom when marking a ballot paper at home.

Only last week, my agent reported to the police evidence we have received regarding the harvesting of postal votes in favour of a particular candidate. I have testimony of one young woman’s unmarked postal vote being taken from her under duress by a relative and handed to a candidate. We learned about that because she told another candidate that she wanted to cancel the postal vote, so that she could cast it again herself in a different way. What a tragic situation to have descended into. It is an abuse that we must not tolerate.

There are instances of people impersonating others and voting at polling stations in their place. Again, we know of some of these cases being reported to the police without prosecutions following. We have received reports from electors in Wycombe that activists working on behalf of particular candidates have sought to procure votes for as little as £10, a free taxi ride or a free pizza. This simply cannot go on.

As I have previously mentioned in this place, in 2015 my agent and I personally reported one of my own party’s council candidates to the police. We told our candidates that we would hold them to the highest standards and that we would be the first to report them to the police if we received evidence of corrupt practice, because we will not tolerate it. Though it gave us no pleasure, we did what we said we would do. My agent has on other occasions raised specific instances of electoral abuse with both the police and the Electoral Commission. Sadly, prosecutions have not followed. It is a theme that comes up time and again. I am keen to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister, if she can tell me, why prosecutions are not taking place.

In summary, votes are being cast which ought not to be cast, votes which ought to be cast are being cast by those who ought not to be casting them, votes are being cast in particular ways as a result of treating and intimidation and, for various reasons, prosecutions are not forthcoming. That is to say nothing of the truth that votes have significantly different weights in different constituencies, so I say only in passing that constituency sizes must be equalised, as near as we can, if people’s votes are to have political equality.

When individual voter registration was introduced, it was expected that it would remove the abuse of people registering at addresses where they were not entitled to do so, but it seems not to be working. What is to be done? The law is often very clear. One may not, for example, offer a pizza in return for a vote. However, it is not clear that appropriate importance is always attributed to each and every vote and to prosecuting offences. I am clear that when one vote is stolen, or otherwise corrupted away, it is not just a pencil mark on a piece of paper but the inheritance of a tradition of liberty and equality fought for at great cost and handed down over centuries. If we fail to understand the magnitude of the corruption of even a single vote, we are a politically bankrupt nation.

Our current electoral system has not caught up with population growth and the realities of modern life. Our procedures have become somewhat quaint, a point which struck me when I looked at the rules for candidates entering polling stations. They say that we can go there to check for personation. While I know many of my constituents, I do not know a sufficient number that I can go into every polling station and have any chance of spotting personation. The rules seem inadequate for the modern age. However, even as a software engineer who has looked into the matter, I would not support the introduction of electronic voting machines because they, too, are dangerously corruptible.

I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to set out what plans and procedures, perhaps drawing on our manifesto commitments, she intends to put in place to strengthen the integrity of elections and, in particular, to ensure that the electoral roll is an accurate reflection of people’s entitlement to vote. What steps will she take to ensure that people vote only once, that if they vote more than once, they are prosecuted, and that that prosecution carries meaningful penalties? What steps will the Government take to stamp out treating? What steps will the Government take to reduce intimidation, in particular in relation to postal votes, even though that may involve curtailing access to postal votes for the law-abiding majority—people who I believe would be shocked and appalled by the things I have set out? I know from my constituents and others that there are objections to voter ID, with a suggestion that people might be disenfranchised. We must not disenfranchise anyone and the Government must take appropriate steps, but what will the Government do to ensure there is no restriction of the franchise while ensuring that people identify themselves properly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Baker]

Of course. Northern Ireland has relevant experience.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious in allowing interventions.

Northern Ireland already has voter ID, and it is successful. People find that it works. Although there may have been some initial objections or concerns, the scheme works well. The Government have suggested that they will commit themselves to voter ID, which is a good idea. We have done it in Northern Ireland, and it is working.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Before I conclude, I will briefly touch on two practices that are not fair game and that the law needs to address more fully. The first is third-party unregistered campaigners who produce sometimes slanderous campaign material with no imprint and no oversight, and without the approval of legitimate campaigns and their agents. The ability to circulate bold, misleading and slanderous statements on social media, often in private and securely, means messages can circulate quickly and widely. As reported by the Guido Fawkes website, a particularly egregious campaign was run in my constituency in support of the Labour candidate, despite the campaigner not being registered as a third party. Others are independently pursuing that campaigner, and I wish them Godspeed, but what will the Government do on unregistered third-party campaigners?

Secondly, it seems quite unjust that we should tolerate candidates with no obvious platform who stand in an election with no apparent aim beyond increasing the total budget available to oppose a particular candidate, with access to free delivery of literature by Royal Mail, a copy of the electoral roll and other privileges available to legitimate candidates. If this principle of standing candidates simply to expand the budget available to oppose another candidate—possibly the incumbent, as at least one of my colleagues would attest—is allowed, the trajectory towards every candidate running one or more shadow candidates in their support is both obvious and undesirable.

There are other practices that I find extremely distasteful, particularly in relation to the general standard of political campaigning, but I will not go on about them tonight because they should not be objects of the law. I will leave them for another day. I have raised the matters I wish to focus on tonight.

John Stuart Mill, that great beacon of liberal thinkers on political and social theory and, most famously, on liberty, said in 1867:

“Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”

Tonight I am looking on and doing something. I am saying to my hon. Friend the Minister, who I hope and expect agrees with me on all these issues, that in a peaceful society, one governed by the rule of law, the ultimate tool we have to restrain the use of power in our lives and to give consent to it is our vote. Political equality and a free and fair ballot are fundamental prerequisites to living in a free society. That is what is at stake in this debate. A great deal was said in my constituency during the general election campaign about cleaning up politics. A good place to start is ensuring that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said earlier, one entitled person casts one vote freely and in secrecy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

Yes. Once we have left the EU, we will be able to redesign our agriculture policy so that farmers are competitive, productive and profitable, and our environment is protected for future generations. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary eloquently sets out the flaws in the common agricultural policy and how the UK Government can do so much better outside the EU.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister further outline how he intends to secure subsidies for the average UK farm of 160 acres—such farms are classified as small farms—and how does he believe that small farmers will be able to survive post Brexit?

[Mr Baker]

We believe in the importance of small farms and their contribution to the rural community, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will bring forward his policy in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Steve Baker and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

As I said in my original answer, we are protecting total cash payments to farmers throughout this Parliament, and that is the longest guarantee right across the European Union. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s question, and we will continue to support farmers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

With special reference to global exports, will the Minister say what discussions have been held and how the Department has sought to establish trade rights for farming exporters in my constituency, of which there are many?

[Mr Baker]

The UK farming sector enjoys a reputation for quality that has been built on high animal welfare standards, strong environmental protections, and the dedication of farmers and growers across the United Kingdom. Based on that reputation, we hope that we will flourish in the world market.