Belfast/Good Friday Agreement: 25th Anniversary

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

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

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

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

[Simon Hoare]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

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

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

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

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I will move straight on, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

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

“to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

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

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

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

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

[Simon Hoare]

Let me rehearse the arguments. This is nothing to do with bullying, or whatever; it is about demonstrating a sense of fairness to taxpayers, so if people do only 50% of the work, they get only 50% of the pay. That is it.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman gives us his opinion. My opinion is clearly very different: we will not be persuaded, bullied or coerced—whichever way people want to put it—into something. As far as we are concerned, we have an objective that we want to achieve and a mandate from Northern Ireland, and we will deliver on our mandate.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I will make that point very clearly. My hon. Friend is right. That is our plea to the Minister. He and I entered this House together in 2010. We were good friends from the very beginning and we still are, but in the spirit of our good friendship, I suggest that we need some understanding of our point of view, and we are not convinced we have that at the moment.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

May I say very politely to the hon. Gentleman that I have had conversations with the Minister of State about the Bill. My hon. Friend understands the Bill and the issues completely; I share his understanding and think the Bill is fine as it is. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me—my hunch is that he will not—that often when people say that somebody does not understand, what they mean is that that person does not agree with them, and until that person does so, they will continue to allege that that person does not understand?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has a point of view that it will not surprise him and many others to hear I disagree with. When we say the Minister may not understand, we mean that we feel that he has not grasped as we have what the Bill will mean to those of an Ulster Scots persuasion, like me. It is not that we are anti-Irish language. What we want is parity and equality in the Bill. Perhaps the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will appreciate that.

The drive to put a political weaponised language Bill before other needs during this cost of living crisis sends the message to people throughout Ards and North Down—96% of whom have no knowledge of Irish and 12% of whom have Ulster Scots knowledge—that they do not have parity and their needs are not paramount. That is the issue. The Government must carefully consider the messaging, because at the moment it is simply wrong, and if it is wrong, it has to be righted. The Bill is set to go forward regardless of timing, so I will speak to the changes to the Bill that are imperative if it is even to come close to being accepted by the people of the Province.

We all agree that the two commissioners—the Ulster British commissioner and the Irish language commissioner—should be of equal value to their respective communities, and that to secure that goal they should have different functions. Not only have we agreed this; we have insisted on it. In arguing that different commissioners should have different functions, with the objective of their being of equal value to their communities, it is plainly essential that the enforcement powers of both in respect of their different functions should be equally robust in engaging that which they also have in common—exactly the same group of public bodies. There are around 70 of them and the idea is that they follow guidance issued by the two commissioners with respect to their different briefs.

There is a serious problem though. The Bill before us today places a statutory duty on those 70 public bodies to have regard to what the Irish Language commissioner says, but places no such obligation on them to have regard to what the Ulster Scots commissioner says. What is the point of a commissioner whom public bodies can ignore? That is the straight question I put to the Minister of State. In the context of a cost of living crisis, can the Government justify spending money on creating an Ulster Scots commissioner whose representations public bodies can ignore? Why would anyone want the job of a commissioner whom all the public bodies could ignore if they so wish?



What conclusions might people from that community draw about how the Government view the importance, or lack thereof, of the community that the Ulster British commissioner is supposed to serve? They would know that they were less than second class, whereas if they had been denied a commissioner altogether, at least everyone would know that they were being discriminated against, and they would not have to suffer the indignity of being made to look as if they were being treated as equal to the other community, when everybody knows that they are not. Today, the Ulster Scots community is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

This of course is not about friendships; it is about actions and about what is right. What is not right in this Bill is that the Ulster Scots commissioner has not been given parity with the Irish language commissioner, and the issue for us is to have parity. If it is going to be right, let us have it right in every sense of the word. This is not about friendships, or about being bosom buddies again; it is about getting it right.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Gentleman misconstrues what I am saying. My support for the Bill is not based upon the fact that the Minister is an hon. Friend in party political terms. I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Minister does not understand the Bill and that the Government, whom I am proud to support, seem hellbent on appeasing people who are in a politically different place from him. He suggested that the Minister was kowtowing, if one will, to a Sinn Féin agenda.

I have suffered some unfair and untrue brickbats from hon. Members over the time I have chaired the Committee. I say politely to the hon. Member for Strangford that it has to stop. This is New Decade, New Approach, and the Government are trying to move things forward with fairness and equity, respect and support for all of those whom the Government recognise as citizens of the United Kingdom. That is the central mission. That is what underpins New Decade, New Approach. That is the bedrock of the Bill. It has my wholehearted support.

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

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that I was not privy to those discussions, but we are where we are. We must realise that things have clearly moved on. The operation and reform of the protocol is sitting here like an elephant in the Chamber, but it speaks to my point that the workable delivery of devolution should not be used as a plaything for other issues.

That takes me to the point that the hon. Member for North Down made about democracy. We cannot have a functioning democracy in these islands that is effectively based on the Henry Ford model of selling a car. Henry Ford used to say, “You can have any colour as long as it’s black.” We cannot say, “You can have as many elections as you like as long as I turn out as the winner. If I don’t—if the public have spoken and I haven’t been successful—I won’t accept the result. I will tear the edifice down,” in some sort of democratic political toddler’s temper tantrum. That is not how we do it. Democracy only works when all of us who win take up the weight of winning with responsibility and those who lose accept that they have lost and somebody else has won. If people do not abide by that simple equation, that is not democracy, and that should cause us all considerable concern.

My final point, echoing what the hon. Member for North Down said, is that in the system that we have for sorting these things out, the language that is used—“Unionist”, “nationalist” and “other”—may be past its sell-by date. It hard-bakes into the language and the systems a previous age. It does not reflect Northern Ireland as it is today. This is not the time for it, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that at some point in the not-too-distant future, serious, considered, sober thought needs to be given to how these issues are addressed in order to present Northern Ireland to the rest of the world, and to the rest of the United Kingdom, as it is today and not as it was 20 years ago, or 40 or 50 years ago. We need a contemporary review of that in order to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

My cri de coeur is for all parties to understand that devolution, and its delivery of public service and improvement of life for those who live in Northern Ireland, is not something to be taken lightly. It is not a plaything to be kicked around for cheap party political points.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak on any issue in this House, but particularly on issues to do with Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), to his new role and wish him well. He rightly came to see the No. 1 constituency in Northern Ireland, Strangford, before he had seen anywhere else. We are very pleased to have had the opportunity to have him there, and we wish him well in his role.

As always, the debate has been clear, and my party’s reasoning has been clearer. I am not enamoured with the form of government in Northern Ireland, and I do not believe that it can or does work, as has been demonstrated very clearly over the last couple of years. I absolutely believe in the right of this place to govern and legislate. However, as my colleagues have said, this is a matter that should be debated in the appropriate forum and not tagged on to this Bill. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee at Stormont is the mechanism to do that.

It grieves me that decisions were made in this place when they should have been made through the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I want to put that on the record. That leads me to an issue that I feel must be highlighted again: this Bill aims to secure a working Assembly with the best mechanism possible, yet it seems that this House interferes at will when public opinion calls for it. That must come to an end. It is time that this place gave the Northern Ireland Assembly the authority to make decisions.

During covid, despite discussion of an abortion Bill, this Government determined that they would bring in abortion in Northern Ireland in the most open way not just in the UK but in all of Europe. Along with colleagues, I strongly resented that, and I still resent it. We now face this Government acting on the NDNA deal, but only when it comes to the Irish language. With great respect to the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), for me this issue is as clear as a bell. The rest of the important provisions, such as health and education, on which there were goals and aims, have been left to trickle through, yet the Irish language is to be given priority by this place.

As my party’s health spokesperson, it concerns me greatly that across Northern Ireland, in a post-covid world, the waiting time for an urgent hip replacement is upwards of five years, for cataract surgery it is upwards of four years, and breast reconstruction for breast cancer survivors is years down the line, with no date whatsoever. I have talked to some of my constituents back home who are fluent and interested Irish language speakers, and they tell me that they want to see priority given to issues such as health and education, to ensure that they are addressed first. I am not sure that the people of the Province believe that the Government should step in and fund these measures.

There are children out of education. There are many schools in my area that are awaiting refurbishment or rebuilding, and that cannot get the support they need in the form of classroom assistants. There is a big issue, too, with assessment for those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism. We get referrals every day of the week for those things. There is a generation of children who have had the option to learn music stripped from them, as budget slashing has meant a choice between culture or a teacher.

Those are real issues that impact every one of my constituents, whether they are Unionist or nationalist, whether they are in favour of the Irish language or against it. Those are the issues that people tell me clearly that they want to see addressed. I resent that priority has been given to one aspect of the NDNA over the life-changing aspects, and I urge the Minister to allow the Assembly to carry out its duties according to priority and not political machinations.

I understand the need to support the measures before us today, but I must put on the record my concerns about the prioritisation of some of the spending that the Government have looked towards. Clearly, we should be spending more on policing, because we need more police officers on the streets across Northern Ireland. We have a dearth of them at the moment. The training college is turning out as many as it can as quickly as it can, but the places of those who retire are still not being filled. Improvements need to be made in health, education and policing, and that is where I would like to see the focus.

At the same time, I urge the Government to do the right thing and allow the Assembly to prioritise need over wish and people over politics, and to make our own determination on Northern Ireland issues. I believe in devolution; I always have. I want the devolution that we have in Northern Ireland to achieve something. History has shown that direct rule is not beneficial for the people of the Province. I will therefore support the Bill, hoping against hope that Lord Frost will achieve what he sets out to achieve and ensure that Northern Ireland stops being a third country to the UK and is accepted as an integral part of it.

The next step will be asking the Government not to treat the Assembly as a local council with minor responsibilities, but to allow it to take tough decisions in a democratic manner. I believe that is the foundation of the Bill, and that is why I will support it, but I say to the Minister—I hope that he will respond—that there are priorities that need to be addressed first. I think we all realise that, and my constituents tell me that. Health, education, the economy and policing are where spending should be prioritised—not the Irish language.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

Yes, chalk land, just like the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I thank my hon. Friend for that sedentary heckle. It is more chalk land and therefore is predominantly, although not exclusively, arable.

Certainty is important because we are dealing with long-term planning. Do farmers have the confidence to ask lenders for money to buy a new piece of farm equivalent? Do they have the confidence or certainty to plant a certain crop? Some of my local farmers in North Dorset now grow milling grains for the German beer sector. Some of them are growing white poppies, the stalks of which are exported to Hungary for medical purposes—so that medical opium can be extracted to provide painkillers. If someone is going to put their herd or flock into a growth spurt, and if they want to see them calve and lamb, they want certainty that there is some basic underpinning to their sector. That is what the Bill does, which is why it is to be supported.

The huge scope for agritech is important, and I am certain that we will hear that echoed in the debates on the Agriculture Bill—this Bill and the Agriculture Bill are in effect two sides of the same coin. Again, the agritech sector needs certainty. There are productivity benefits and environmental benefits to it, so we must make sure that the sector, which is growing and really taking root in the UK, has the confidence to continue.

My final point is with regard to audit. Various Members have probed the Minister about the performance of the Rural Payments Agency and how, effectively, it will look. Some within the agency will be suffering from Stockholm syndrome, and they need to be freed from that and to be able to take a lighter touch. However, in reference to the point about the audit trail made by the Chairman of the Select Committee—I congratulate him on his recent election—we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The British taxpayer must be certain that the payments made to farmers are fair, needed and transparent. Therefore, let us make sure that there is a clear audit trail on this homegrown UK system, so that not only British farmers have confidence and certainty, but the British taxpayer has certainty that their money is being put to good purpose to support and to encourage agriculture, that vital mainstay of the British economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on his re-election as Chair of the Select Committee. He brings a wealth of experience to that position, and we wish him well in it.

I am very pleased to speak in this Bill Committee, both on direct payments and on the commitment that the Minister has given. As always, I am pleased to see him in his place. He understands agriculture, just as he understands fishing, for which he also has responsibility. We look forward to his co-operation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and particularly with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, who is my party colleague.

The agrifood sector is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland, and of my constituency in particular, whether we are talking about milk, beef, sheep, lamb, poultry or arable crops. Sustainability, to which the Minister referred, is critical to enable the agricultural sector to maintain its high food standards, and to gain through its partnership with the manufacturing companies.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. If you will allow me this brief indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an opportunity for me to thank Members from across the House for electing me to chair the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and to pay tribute and give thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for making it a contest. It is lovely to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes in her place today. I want to commend and put on record my thanks to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). I also want to pay tribute to two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches: the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—a distinguished member of the Committee —and the terrier-like member of the shadow team, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), both of whom have announced in recent days that they will not be seeking re-election to this House at the next general election. No one can doubt their affection for Northern Ireland or their determination to progress these issues.

This Bill comes at a pressing time for two reasons, and the speeches from the Dispatch Boxes on both sides of the House illustrated them clearly. It would be remiss of me not to put on record what I am sure would be the uniform view of the Select Committee—namely, that it is unfortunate that we have to have another piece of emergency Northern Irish legislation. If we are to seek to deal with Northern Ireland and its politics as we deal with any other part of the United Kingdom, we need to try to remove the otherness of how we deliver the politics of Northern Ireland through emergency legislation. That will be of particular pertinence as we move through the progress of the Bill and deal with the amendments, about which I will have a word or two to say.

The thrust of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the raison d’être underpinning the Bill is clear and compelling. It was welcome to hear what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said about the Opposition supporting the Bill because, at the end of the day, politics can intervene in all these debates and issues.

This Bill comes about by dint of necessity and is informed by two pressing issues. The first is clearly the lack of a functioning devolved Assembly serving the people of Northern Ireland. As has been made clear in interventions and from both Front Benches, that 909-day absence should be a badge of shame and despondency for everybody involved, but it should not be an excuse to give up hope. As we know, it took the taking of the life of a young woman—a young journalist with her future in front of her—to kick-start the talks and to provide the imperative to get them back up and running.

The talks usually collapse at the end of week nine, or the start of week 10. I believe we are now in week 10. They cannot be allowed to collapse. If there is one thing that has heartened me over the last few weeks in my conversations with representatives of most of the parties involved in the process, and on both sides of the border, it is a clear and tangible determination to see those talks bear fruit. I do not detect that anybody is merely paying lip service to them or playing nice. People are now absolutely apprised of the political duty to make those talks successful and to get devolution back up on her feet.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern and that of many in this House and outside that, although many thought there would be change after the murder of Lyra McKee, dissident republican organisations were in Londonderry and other parts of Northern Ireland at the weekend showing their colours, strength and numbers? Does he not feel that strong action needs to be taken against those dissident republicans, who it seems have not changed their way?

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The full weight of the law should be brought to bear on anybody, from any side of the debate, who occasions acts of terror, fear, the destabilisation of the economy or the disruption of civilian life in Northern Ireland. I do not care what colour they wear, what stripe they are or what faith motivates what they think they are doing; the full weight of the law will and must be brought to bear on them. I was very encouraged by the meeting I had, alongside members of the Select Committee, with the Garda Commissioner a week or so ago. I am seeing the incoming Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland this week, and I hope to hear from him, as we heard from the commissioner, an absolute determination to ensure cross-border co-operation in pursuing and bringing to justice anybody who occasions such acts, irrespective of who they are, where they are from or what their motivation is, to face the full brunt of the law. The ordinary people—the Mr and Mrs Smith of Northern Ireland—deserve that, and we cannot fight shy of it.

To respond further to the hon. Gentleman, this weekend —I shall be in Belfast for some of the weekend with the PSNI—should be a good opportunity for Unionists to demonstrate their passionate belief in the Union, and to do so in a responsible, peaceful way, acting as a beacon of what it is to be an engaged citizen in Northern Ireland. I hope that is an opportunity—I am fairly confident it will be—that those organising and taking part will take.

That is one of the backdrops against which this legislation has been introduced: the absence of devolution. The second, as highlighted by the shadow spokesman, is the timetabling of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. For those of us who are concerned about that and who have listened to and taken part in discussions with a variety of opinion—which for me ranges from the Justice Minister of the Republic to representatives of the National Farmers Union, with whom I was speaking this afternoon at an NFU summer reception that I sponsored—it is abundantly clear that it is in the interests of Northern Ireland and of the economy, peace and success of the island of Ireland for the UK to leave with a deal.

Some of the language has not, I suggest, given anybody who has an interest in, and affection for, Northern Ireland a vast amount of confidence. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) suggests that we should operate the border as we do between Westminster and Camden, it shows to me a rather woeful understanding of the history and the pressing problems. When the United States of America effectively says to the Taoiseach, “Go ahead and build your wall. I’m building one in Mexico and it’s gonna be great”—that word that the President always uses—that shows a worrying trend on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

9. What steps the Government are taking to stop the use of drones over prisons.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

15. What steps the Government are taking to stop the use of drones over prisons.

Aster Group Housing Association

Debate between Jim Shannon and Simon Hoare

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend is right, and he brings his considerable experience as a lawyer to this debate. I say in passing that I am grateful that a colleague from Dorset—my neighbour—has intervened. Interestingly, a number of colleagues, on seeing “Aster Group Housing” on the Order Paper, have sidled up to me and said, “Yes, we have problems with it. It is the least well performing housing in my constituency.” I mentioned that to representatives from Aster yesterday afternoon, when they came to see me again in Westminster. It was met with an incredulous shrug of the shoulders and, in effect, “We couldn’t care less. We have never heard that before.” They almost said, “We think you’re making it up, Mr Hoare,” so it is interesting to hear what my hon. Friend says. He is right about the duty of care, and, if he will forgive me, I will come on to that in a moment.

As I have said, the lady I am talking about is not vexatious. In an email dated as recently as 23 December last year, Emily Grounds, the housing association’s antisocial behaviour officer, said:

“We are satisfied anti-social behaviour is being perpetrated”

and

“it is our responsibility”—

“our” meaning the housing association—

“to resolve the issues”.

The situation has been going on since April or May of last year. In the words of Councillor Tong, who is the district council member:

“It is clear to all of us here that Aster are playing all the delaying tactics that they can”.

To return briefly to the injunction process, given the backdrop of the level of intimidation, such as the fact that tenants have attempted to drive my constituent off the road, hurled verbal abuse at her and damaged property within the curtilage of her own property, I suggest it is little wonder that she has been fundamentally unwilling—not to be obstructive, but only out of anxiety and fear—to play a part in the injunction process.

The housing association has taken the view—I do not believe that it is so clear cut as to be true—that without the active participation of the private resident next door, it is unable to begin the injunction process. I do not believe that is correct, and the briefing note prepared by the Library certainly does not seem to bear it out either. It is more likely that the housing association is just unwilling and it hopes the issue will go away.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am quite perturbed to hear about the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. What he has outlined happens in many places across the United Kingdom, and I deal with such issues all too often in my own office. I wonder whether the system on the mainland is the same as that in Northern Ireland, where an association’s tenants have a set of rules that they must adhere to, and if they do not do so, they can be reprimanded and eventually evicted.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend—I call him that, because I see him as an hon. Friend—is absolutely right. Further perusal of the corporate propaganda of the association makes it absolutely clear that antisocial behaviour is a breach of the tenancy. It is utterly and totally unambiguous in its assessment of what such behaviour represents, yet even now it refuses—it is either unwilling, or whatever—to take the action that I believe is actually required.

Earlier this year, I wrote a letter, as I am sure we have all done, to make a request or a suggestion that I would say, in the vernacular, is a no-brainer. We could almost write ourselves the answer that we would expect to get, because the request is modest, politely and respectfully put, and the expectation is clear. The request was very simple: given the fact that my constituent is now incurring costs that she cannot sustain, is racking up debts that will have to be serviced in due course and has a home that she feels she is not safe to return to, could the association make some contribution to her additional housing costs while this matter was being resolved?

I hope that the request was not naive—with hindsight, I think that it actually was—because I merely said that I was aware that the housing association had no legal obligation so to do, but given its stated corporate aims and objectives, there was a moral case or moral compulsion for its taking part in that process. That elicited a response that told me what I already understood—it is always nice when that happens, is it not?—which was that, regrettably, it had no legal obligation. In a letter to me, Margaret Wright, the Aster Group regional director for Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, and Wiltshire, wrote that

“regrettably, I cannot agree with you that the association has a moral obligation to do so.”

That is in sharp contradistinction to what it states in its corporate objectives about wishing to be a good neighbour that is engaged in the community and doing good in our rural areas. This is a prima facie case not just of its not doing good, but of its tenant doing singular and significant harm and of its seeming to be unwilling or unable to intervene. That has been the most depressing thing of all: the utter and total Pilate-like washing of hands of any form of moral obligation.

In closing, this case has raised two issues to my mind. I invite the Minister to reply—not necessarily from the Dispatch Box this evening—and to give further thought to this matter. I am happy to meet to discuss the matter, or to enter into communication with him.

It is now clear that for a housing association to evict a tenant it is convinced is committing antisocial behaviour—behaviour that is damaging the house itself or damaging neighbours’ private property and making their life a misery—it is overly onerous that the active engagement of the person who has brought the complaint is needed to seek redress in the courts, if Aster is correct. It surely has to be a gap in the guidance if, in a housing association-tenant relationship, there is no additional duty of care or responsibility for the behaviour of its tenants. Under Aster’s rules, if a tenant commits antisocial behaviour and is in breach of their tenancy agreements, that should be that, but it is not. If my constituent was married to a 6 foot 2, burly weightlifter-type guy who was always around—[Interruption.] Not like me, I say in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). I am more of a Jack Russell variety, rather than the more robust type of guard dog that my constituent would need. Notwithstanding that, I am a doughty champion of my constituent’s cause.

Living alone in an isolated area, my constituent sought the advice of the police. I cannot thank enough Tom Clements and others in the constabulary who have engaged closely with this situation. The police budget, as we know, is always difficult and strained—this is in a sparsely populated area—but they have bent over backwards to do what they can. They have made themselves available to me and I want to put on record this evening my enormous gratitude to them. However, they had to confirm to my constituent that, given the location of the property, they could not guarantee her safety and security if the injunction was granted and the eviction was made, and—the natural corollary of that—if the injunction was not granted and the tenants remained.

We even suggested to the housing association, which is always seeking to add to its stock, whether it might be interested in buying the property at the market rate—not with any huge uplift or overage. That rather commonplace suggestion was also dismissed out of hand.

It may well be that Ministers need to consider the rules and regulations on the eviction of housing association tenants, the vast majority of whom—let me put it on record, so it is not in any way misconstrued—are decent folk, law abiding and helpful members of their community.

The second point I invite the Minister to consider is the duty of a social landlord where their properties are adjacent to private residents. It could easily lead to the devaluation of the property, although that is not the point, of course. A housing association has the ability to place a troubled family or someone with a history of antisocial behaviour. It has placed the tenant there. If antisocial behaviour occurs, it has to have a greater duty of care, and certainly a greater duty of responsibility, to residents. As the principles of the housing White Paper evolve post-consultation, they might provide a hook on which to hang something to gain traction in dealing with this problem. As things stand, however, all I have been able to do, on behalf of one of my district councils, a distressed resident, the police and myself, is put on record our anxiety and upset in respect of a private resident who until the arrival of these tenants had been enjoying her life and the property for which she had worked so hard.

[Jim Shannon]

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might mention that were his constituent to seek to sell her property she would have to notify any potential buyer of the problems she has had, which right away sets her at a financial disadvantage and makes it very difficult for her to do what she wants to do, which is to get out and get ahead.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not thought about that point, but he is absolutely right. If there has been a neighbour dispute, the questionnaire that a seller has to complete for conveyancing purposes does not include a “get out of jail free” card—the question is not, “Was it a tenant?” or “Is the property rented in the private or social sector”; it is, “Have you had a neighbour dispute?” So he raises an important point.

In conclusion, against all the backdrop, the corporate brouhaha of a website and all stated policies, a lady who is trying to make her way and feel safe in her own home has been forced out of it, through fear, anxiety and intimidation. I say, more in sorrow than in anger—although it is quite hard to contain the anger—that the Aster Group has been fundamentally lacking in proactive engagement and sympathy on this issue. It needs to know, and my constituent needs to be assured, that I will not rest until we get the justice she has so far been denied.