Tag: Chris Heaton-Harris

The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 18 January 2024.

Today’s strike will be disruptive for people across Northern Ireland. I understand the serious concerns that people across Northern Ireland have about the impact this action will have on vital public services.

While public sector pay is devolved, the UK Government has offered a fair and generous package worth over £3bn which would address public sector pay and provides more than £1bn to stabilise public services. This will require Ministers being back to work in Stormont so that decisions on governing can be taken in the round.

I am deeply disappointed that the significant funding offer from the UK Government to address such issues has not been taken up. This package has been on the table since before Christmas and will remain there, available on day one for an incoming Northern Ireland Executive.

It is regrettable that the NI Parties were unable to come together yesterday to elect a Speaker and restore the executive. The people of Northern Ireland deserve local political leadership from representatives they have elected to govern on their behalf.

The UK Government has made a significant offer that would help address the challenges facing public sector pay and Northern Ireland’s finances. It is time for the NI Parties to take decisions on how they will best serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 15 January 2024.

Today I have met  representatives of the main Northern Ireland political parties to discuss why it is important an Executive is restored before the clock ticks past 18th of January.

As you know, at that point, a duty falls upon me to call an election and I will need to decide on various other important matters that require primary legislation in Westminster.

In my meetings today I emphasised it is now 23 months that the people of Northern Ireland have been without the locally-elected politicians they voted for, taking the decisions needed to tackle the issues faced by people and businesses across Northern Ireland.

And I outlined the generous financial package offered to the parties before Christmas, worth over £3 billion, that is currently available from day one of a reformed Executive.

A financial package which provides solutions to many issues raised by the parties, including money that would enable a restored Executive to give public sector workers a pay award.

I also emphasised that the Windsor Framework talks with the DUP had effectively concluded. I’m pleased to say that we were able to make some further progress last week, and today I have urged all the parties to take the next step and form an executive. It is hard to see any barriers whatsoever to stop this from happening as soon as possible.

The people of Northern Ireland deserve to have the people they voted for, working for them.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen strikes across Northern Ireland’s public sector over pay and I know more are planned for Thursday.

The industrial action taken by the unions will disrupt the lives of many people across Northern Ireland.

Public sector pay in Northern Ireland is devolved.This is properly a matter for locally-elected politicians who are best placed – and I quote others here – “to tackle the unprecedented challenges confronting citizens…public services, particularly the immediate matter of public sector pay today” in Northern Ireland.

If an Executive has not been reformed by Friday, then, as I say, I will have various decisions to make and I will set out my next steps in due course.

To end, I do believe that all the conditions necessary are now in place for the political representatives of Northern Ireland to govern on behalf of the people who elected them.

It is time for talking and debate to finish. It is time for Stormont to get back to work.

The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris at Hillsborough Castle in Northern Ireland on 20 December 2023.

Over the last number of days my team and I have been meeting the main parties in Northern Ireland to discuss how we can financially support a restored executive.

On behalf of the United Kingdom Government, last week I presented a significant package which sets the executive up for success.

We asked the parties for their views and we have listened.

Following a lot of discussions over the weekend and over the last few days this morning I brought forward a new plan that reasonably and generously responds to the parties concerns and provides Northern Ireland Ministers with an offer for a restored executive worth in excess of £3bn.

This package provides solutions to many of the issues the parties have raised.

The parties have asked for a new formula for deciding how much Northern Ireland receives from the UK Government. We have agreed to establish such a model reflecting the different levels of need in Northern Ireland. That would see funding uplifted through the Barnett Formula by 24% from 2024-2025.

The parties have asked for assistance with public sector pay; this package includes £584m to address this.

The parties asked for money to stabilise Northern Ireland’s public services. We have made available more than £1bn for them to do this.

The parties have raised concerns about their existing debt. Now I’ve been clear that we will be prepared to take steps to address those concerns of the Northern Ireland Executive if the Northern Ireland Executive publishes and implements a plan to deliver sustainable public finances and services.

On top of that, the UK Government has committed more than £30m to immediately start tackling health waiting lists and indeed following the PSNI data breach we have granted an initial reserve claim of £15m which would not need to be repaid.

And, we have offered to create an enhanced investment zone in Northern Ireland worth over £150m.

It is disappointing that there will not be a new executive up and running to take up this offer and deliver it for the people of Northern Ireland before Christmas. However, this package is on the table and will remain there, available on day one of an incoming Northern Ireland Executive to take up.

This is a generous package but like any government, an incoming executive will have to make decisions on its priorities going forward. That will need to include, as part of this offer, increasing the revenue the executive raises through its own powers.

The UK Government has also held extensive talks with the Democratic Unionist Party on the Windsor Framework over the last eight months. I’d like to thank the DUP and its leadership for the way they’ve engaged constructively in those talks. In particular, the Government has sought to address the specific concerns raised by the DUP prior to and during these negotiations.

From our perspective, those talks on all the issues of substance have reached a conclusion.

We stand ready to introduce a package of measures that have been worked on together should the DUP reach a decision to proceed.

I have always believed that Northern Ireland is best governed by locally elected and accountable MLAs. They can use the financial package and put in place the policies that will transform public services for the better of everyone across the whole of Northern Ireland and there is before us a great opportunity for the parties to return to governing on behalf of the people who elected them.

The financial package that is now before the parties would set Northern Ireland on a sustainable footing with a bright future ahead.

So to end, these financial talks have concluded and there is a financial package worth an excess of £3bn on the table should the executive be restored. From our perspective the Windsor Framework talks on all issues of substance have effectively concluded but we’re always, always happy to answer concerns and any questions on these.

The UK Government also stands ready to deliver on the outcomes of the Windsor Framework talks when the institutions are restored.

It is now time for decisions to be made.

The speech made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at the Newforge Sports Centre in Belfast on 11 September 2023.

The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 4 September 2023.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. As you know, Mr Speaker, I was keen to do a statement on the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s data breach on 8 August, so I am pleased to have this opportunity. I am also happy to provide an update to the House on this matter. However, since writing this answer, and as the right hon. Gentleman will know, news of the PSNI’s Chief Constable’s resignation has broken over the past few minutes. I thank Simon Byrne for his years of public service. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the appointment of a new Chief Constable is a matter for the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and I will continue to liaise with the senior management team of PSNI while the process of appointing a successor gets under way. The PSNI continues to have my and the Government’s full support in responding to the data breach, and we are focused on providing appropriate and proportionate data and expertise.

The breach, where the personal information of more than 10,000 officers and staff was accidentally published in what appears to be a human error involving a number of spreadsheet fields, happened on 8 August. Not realising that the relevant document contained a hidden table, the initials and surnames of every rank and grade, the location where an individual was based—but not their home address—and their duty type were published online for approximately three hours. The data breach is deeply concerning and significant. Recent events in Northern Ireland, including the terrible attack on Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell, show that there is still a small minority in Northern Ireland who wish to cause harm to PSNI officers and staff in Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to thank all those individuals who work to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe. They have my many thanks, and we all owe them our gratitude.

I recognise, too, that there is significant concern about the consequences of this data breach. Many PSNI officers and staff have raised concerns about themselves and their families, and they have my support and understanding as they go about their important work, keeping communities safe in these worrying and most testing of circumstances. To them, I again say thank you.

In response to these concerns, the PSNI and wider security partners are taking appropriate action and are working around the clock to investigate the incident, provide reassurance and mitigate any risk to the safety and security of officers and staff. As of 30 August, 3,954 self-referrals have been made to the PSNI’s emergency threat management group. That is part of the welfare and support services that have been made available to PSNI officers.

The House will understand that the PSNI is devolved and has operational independence. That has been the case since April 2010 with the creation of the Department of Justice. However, as the House would expect, the Government have remained in close contact with the PSNI since this breach and other data breaches came to light. My officials and I have been receiving regular updates and the Government’s focus has been on providing specialist support and expertise to the PSNI in its handling of this issue. Officials in the Cabinet Office have chaired—[Interruption.] I will finish in a second, Mr Speaker. Officials in the Cabinet Office have chaired regular meetings, and I will update the House further, hopefully during this urgent question.

Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise the plight of police officers and staff in Northern Ireland. The industrial-scale breach in data last month was yet another self-inflicted blow to the morale of the police service, as well as to confidence in policing across Northern Ireland. For the rank and file, and for the staff working in our police stations, for their personal details to be released into the public domain and to find their way into the hands of dissident republicans is unforgivable.

The current terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is “severe.” Just a few months ago, Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell was barbarically attacked by gunmen in front of his young son after coaching an under-15s football team near Omagh. Now, each one of his colleagues must come to terms with the fact that they and their families have potentially been placed in harm’s way by the release of this data.

It goes further than that. Last week’s ruling by Mr Justice Scoffield found that the PSNI’s senior command unlawfully disciplined two of its own officers in order to appease Sinn Féin. These actions are hugely damaging to community relations, to community confidence and to confidence in the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Fair and even-handed policing is just as foundational to progress in Northern Ireland as is fully functioning political institutions operating on a cross-community consensus basis. We therefore need to hear from the Government that they will ensure that the necessary resources are available to the police—notwithstanding budgetary constraints—so that police officers, their families and police staff are properly protected against terrorist attack.

Furthermore, the Democratic Unionist party welcomes the decision by the chief constable to announce his resignation. We believe that is the right thing to do in all the circumstances. Now we want to see confidence rebuilt in our police service, and we will work with the PSNI—it has our full support—to achieve and deliver effective and efficient policing for everyone in Northern Ireland in a way that commands cross-community support.

Chris Heaton-Harris

I thank the right hon. Gentleman again for the urgent question and for the various questions he has posed. Officials in the Cabinet Office have chaired regular operational meetings—initially daily—bringing together the PSNI, Government Departments and our world-class security services to ensure that all their collective skills, including cyber-expertise, have been brought to bear in supporting the PSNI on the breach.

You will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that given your ruling on sub judice and for security reasons, I cannot comment on specific details of the response, but six individuals have been arrested by detectives investigating the breach and the criminality connected to it. Five have been released on bail to allow for further police inquiries and one has been charged with possessing documents or records likely to be useful to terrorists, and another item.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned money. The response to such a significant breach will obviously come with a cost. The UK Government are clear that security is paramount, and the focus remains on support and expertise at this point. With Northern Ireland’s policing being devolved, it is for the Department of Justice to set its budget and ensure it can fulfil its duties and responsibilities, but it still remains a fundamental responsibility of the Executive—in their absence, Northern Ireland Departments—to run a balanced and sustainable budget. Where additional funding is required, the correct process, which includes a whole host of different things, must be followed. However, I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

This whole episode is agonising. I want to put on record my support and sympathy for all those brave men and women of the PSNI who fear for their security and that of their families as a result. I urge the Secretary of State to do everything possible with the PSNI to ensure that documents of this sensitivity are subject to sufficient protection so that a mistake of this sort can never ever be made again.

Chris Heaton-Harris

I think that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) referred to it in his question as a “self-inflicted” wound, and it surely was. To be frank, checks and balances should have been in place. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and we will do what we can to assist the PSNI and the Department of Justice, as she would expect. We keep abreast of these matters, as I hope I detailed in my answers, but this is a really significant breach. As one police officer put it to me, “When I joined the police service, I used to think when I went to work that maybe people knew what I did for a living, but now that has completely flipped—I feel that they absolutely know what I do for a living.” That has changed the psychology around the whole piece. I know that a lot more assurances need to be given for us to get to the place that my right hon. Friend wishes to get to.

The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2023.

I am delighted to speak to this Bill following its year-long passage through the other place. I pay tribute to Lord Caine for his expert stewardship of the Bill in that place, as well as to all the Opposition spokespeople for their patience and engagement on the Bill.

Hon. and right hon. Members will know all too well that the legacy of the troubles remains one of the outstanding issues since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was reached in 1998. As a Government, we have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can do to best deliver for those affected by the troubles over a quarter of a century after that agreement and well over 50 years since the troubles began. I recognise, and I know the House recognises, that this is a hugely difficult task. That is reflected in the many valiant attempts made to address this issue since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement all those years ago. It is also incumbent on us to ensure that any process for dealing with the past focuses on measures that can deliver positive outcomes for as many of those directly affected by the troubles as possible, as well as for society in Northern Ireland as a whole. We maintain that the Bill before us is the best way of doing that.

The Bill contains finely balanced political and moral choices that are uncomfortable for many, but we should be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in Northern Ireland, in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small. The Bill seeks to deliver an approach that focuses on what can practically be achieved to deliver better outcomes for all those who suffered, including those who served, and it aims to help society look forward together to a more shared future.

The Bill left the House of Commons over a year ago. In that time, my ministerial colleagues and I have held more than 100 meetings with victims groups, veterans groups, Northern Ireland political parties, the Opposition, the Irish Government, academics, US interlocutors and Members of both Houses, in an effort to make meaningful changes to improve the Bill. As a result of that extensive engagement, the Government have brought forward a significant package of amendments that provide greater assurance regarding compliance with our international obligations; enhance the independence of the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will call that by its catchy nickname, ICRIR, from here on—provide a much greater focus on the interests of victims and families; and strengthen provisions related to the process of granting immunity from prosecution to those who engage meaningfully with the commission, while keeping open the possibility of prosecution for those who fail to do so.

Let me run through the Government’s Lord amendments thematically, as well as our responses to Lords amendments 20 and 44. First there is conditional immunity and incentives to co-operate with the ICRIR. As I said from the outset, the aim of the Bill is to provide more information to more people than is possible under current mechanisms, and we will do that by creating an effective information recovery process. The commission will conduct reviews with the primary purpose of providing answers to those who want them, and will grant immunity from prosecution only if individuals provide an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

I know that is challenging for many, but conditional immunity is a crucial aspect of the information recovery process. The Government believe it is the best mechanism by which we can generate the greatest volume of information in the quickest possible time, to pass on to families and victims who have been waiting for so long. That is why the Government cannot accept Lords amendment 44, which seeks to remove clause 18 and conditional immunity from the Bill.

As many Members of the House will know, there is a significant precedent regarding limited immunities and amnesties in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, following periods of violence. That includes, following the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, an amnesty for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, and limited immunity for individuals who share information about the location of victims’ remains. If we look back further, the newly created Irish state legislated three times between 1923 and 1924 for amnesties, dispensing with civil and criminal liability for violence for UK state forces, republicans and Free State forces.

Through Government amendments, we are making the conditional immunity process more robust. That includes amendments to clause 18 in my name, which were agreed in the other place but fell when the clause was removed from the Bill. The commission is already required to consider all relevant information that it holds when forming a view on the truth of a person’s account, as part of their application for immunity, including information obtained through a related review. Through Lords amendment 49, we are strengthening that provision by placing the commission under a positive duty, requiring it to take “reasonable steps” to secure information relevant to that assessment.

The Government are further strengthening the immunity provisions by introducing circumstances under which immunity may be revoked, or may not be granted. I have restored Lords amendment 60, which makes it clear that where a person applying for immunity is subject to an ongoing prosecution, immunity may not be granted if there is a risk that it might prejudice that ongoing prosecution. Through Lords amendment 63 we are creating a new criminal offence for those who wilfully or recklessly choose to mislead the commission when providing information. Individuals who are granted immunity will automatically lose it if they are convicted of such an offence.

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House how many ongoing IRA trials are taking place vis-à-vis how many ongoing trials against members of the security services are taking place?

Chris Heaton-Harris

I do not have those figures with me, but I will get them from my officials and give them to the hon. Gentleman when, with the leave of the House, I reply to the debate later.

Building on what I was just outlining, Lords amendment 62 ensures that a grant of immunity must be revoked if an individual is subsequently convicted of terrorism offences or offences connected to terrorism committed after the immunity has been granted. That includes offences relating to fundraising, involvement in terrorist fundraising arrangements and the encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications. The offender will also be precluded from obtaining immunity for offences within the scope of the revoked grant.

We are also disapplying the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 for future convictions. That means that individuals who choose not to engage fully with the commission and are not granted immunity, but who are subsequently convicted of an offence, will not be able to apply for early release and will be liable to serve a full sentence. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for raising that issue before the Bill left the Commons this time last year. Alongside that, having listened to suggestions in the debates in this House, we are increasing the financial penalty for non-compliance with the commission from up to £1,000 to up to £5,000, which is in line with the asks during this Bill’s passage.

Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

The Secretary of State said that it has taken a year for the Bill to go through the House of Lords—I and others campaigned for four years for the Bill even to be introduced in the first place. I fear that some of the Government’s own amendments introduced in the other place have had the effect of swinging the pendulum too far—I admit it is a delicate balance—against our veterans who served in Operation Banner in Northern Ireland. Specifically, the Bill now gives the independent commission extremely wide and latitudinal powers to decide whether a veteran should still be investigated, even despite the Bill’s so-called double-jeopardy provisions. The decision still ultimately lies with the commission. It also has great latitude in deciding whether a veteran has complied with an investigation, which would then allow them immunity. They would not get it if the commission ruled they had not complied. Can the Secretary of State absolutely assure me in his heart of hearts that we are not institutionalising the mechanism for a republican lawyer fest, which would be totally contrary to the whole point of bringing in the Bill in the first place?

Chris Heaton-Harris

I am a great believer in short and honest answers to such questions, and the answer is yes.

I now turn to the conduct of reviews by the commission and, in particular, Lords amendment 20, which establishes minimum standards for reviews conducted by the ICRIR to ensure that conduct is investigated to criminal justice standards, along the lines of Operation Kenova.

Mr Francois

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

The right hon. Gentleman really does have to be pithier than he was in his last intervention. By their very nature, interventions should be short.

Mr Francois

I thank the Secretary of State for that clear answer, but could he just with a couple of sentences pithily explain why he is so confident that he is right?

Chris Heaton-Harris

I will turn to elements of this later in my speech, but I referred earlier to the importance of the conditional immunity clause. I think what my right hon. Friend will hear in the course of this debate is how many people think the pendulum has swung in this delicate balance, as he has put it, too far in the opposite direction to the way he believes it has swung.

Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)

The Secretary of State will be aware that it was back in April 2017 that the then Defence Committee first recommended drawing a line with a statute of limitations coupled with a truth recovery process. We recognised that the process had to be for everyone or for no one. Does he accept that there is a risk of having overcomplicated the process, and is any remedy likely to be available if, in putting this into practice, it is found that service personnel are not being sufficiently protected for ongoing prosecutions?

Chris Heaton-Harris

There is obviously no statute of limitations. The Bill has moved on and, as I said, I would like to think it has been improved a great deal. But it will be an independent body that allows for these things to happen. That is vital both in dealing with the issues of the past, as my right hon. Friend outlined, and in helping all victims perhaps to get some information about the circumstances by which they lost loved ones or others.

Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)

We recently held the memorial concert for the Deal marine musicians who were murdered by the IRA bomb in Deal in 1989. No one has ever been brought to justice for that. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the process will apply across the whole of the United Kingdom? What information can we hope might come forward that has not already done so in more than 30 years?

Chris Heaton-Harris

In answer to my hon. Friend’s first question, I confirm the geographical jurisdiction. On her second question, it rather depends on the evidence that might be held by individuals or organisations. I know that the case she raised has been subject to a number of past investigations, and there is limited information in the public domain.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

The Secretary of State mentioned the issue of all the victims. The justice that many victims want is quite clear to me and to others on the Opposition side of the Chamber. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has said that even if there was only a candle of light of a possibility for justice some day, we would all want to see that—I want to see that for all the people I know. The Secretary of State will remember how, last time we spoke on this, I named every one of those people who we really feel justice is not there for. Whenever he talks about justice for all, I do not see it, and my people do not see it. Where is it?

Chris Heaton-Harris

It is contained within the Bill and within the independence of the commission, which will be able to conduct criminal investigations when the families ask it to do so. I have met numerous families in my time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and there is a complete range of views as to what people want when it comes to seeking information about what happened to their loved ones. I know, as I mentioned at the top of my speech, that the Bill will not satisfy everybody. However, lots of time has passed—the hon. Gentleman will know that better than most—and there is now a dwindling opportunity for investigations leading to criminal prosecutions. People do need to have information, if it can possibly be found.

Jim Shannon

Fifty-one years ago, my cousin Kenneth Smyth was murdered—[Interruption.] Kenneth Smyth was murdered. His friend Daniel McCormick, a Roman Catholic, was also murdered. Fifty-one years later, there is no justice for my family and no justice for Daniel McCormick’s family. And there is no justice for the four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered in Ballydugan, or for the young lad Stuart Montgomery, also murdered. Our pain is still here; our pain is still raw. Our people grieve; my constituents grieve. The Secretary of State says that they will have justice, but we cannot see justice.

The people who killed my cousin—three of them—ran across the border and got sanctuary in the Republic of Ireland. Two of them are dead and one is still living. There was no justice. Nine people were involved in the murder of those four UDR men, and one of them is dead today—it was in the paper this week—Colum Marks, an IRA commander. He is in hell, burning—the best place for him. Where is the justice for my family and for my constituents? I do not see it. The Secretary of State says we are going to have it. No, we are not. I do not see it at all.

Chris Heaton-Harris

First, I completely recognise the emotion with which the hon. Gentleman has expressed his views. He knows that I have met a huge number of people who have reflected with passion on the people they have lost. I cannot put myself in the hon. Gentleman’s shoes—I would not try to—and nor can I right the wrongs of something that happened 51 years ago. The hon. Gentleman’s family have gone without justice or much information for 51 years. He knows that, unlike him, there are families across the piece, some of whom are his constituents, who have not had any information about the circumstances in which they lost loved ones during the course of the troubles.

This Bill is definitely not perfect. But after 51 years, should people choose to use the powers of the independent commission in this legislation, they might just able to get some information that allows them to remember their loved ones in the appropriate way. My heart goes out to the hon. Gentleman. I know that this is an imperfect Bill for him, but it might just work for some others. This piece of legislation is a difficult balancing act.

I was talking about Lords amendment 20, which raises a number of important issues that have been addressed by Government amendments tabled in the other place and for Commons consideration. We cannot accept any amendment that seeks to make every review a criminal investigation. The legislation rightly ensures that the independent commission, via the commissioner for investigations, has the flexibility to determine if and when it is appropriate to utilise police powers during the course of its review.

A one-size-fits-all approach requiring criminal investigation in all cases would remove such flexibility and significantly increase the likely time to complete reviews, further delaying the provision of information for many families. I point to a case raised with me in oral questions only a few weeks ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), should anyone not believe that such investigation is useful. Further, in cases where the investigative duty under article 2 or 3 of the convention applies, a criminal investigation may not be sufficient means of discharging that duty. That is because there may have been failings by the state that contributed to a death, but which were not themselves criminal in nature.

Lords amendment 20 also seeks to introduce a reference to compliance with the European convention on human rights. As a public authority, for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the ICRIR and its commissioners are required to be compatible with convention rights within the meaning of the Act when exercising their functions under the Bill. Government Lords amendments 19 and 22 expressly confirm that the commissioner for investigations must comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act when exercising operational control over the conduct of reviews and others functions,.

Lords amendment 20 references gathering as much information as possible and exploring all evidential opportunities. The commissioner for investigations is required to ensure not only that a review is carried out when a valid request is received, but that each review looks into all the circumstances of the death or incident -in question, including but not limited to criminal activity. Furthermore, as I set out, Lords amendment 49 will place the commission under a positive duty to take reasonable steps to secure information for that assessment.

To strengthen further our commitment around the conducting of reviews, I have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 20, which seek to clarify that the duties of the commissioner for investigations when looking into the circumstances of a death or serious injury apply regardless of whether a criminal investigation forms part of the review. They also place a duty on the chief commissioner to provide, where possible, answers to questions posed as part of a request for a review.

Mr Francois

Sinn Féin has always argued that, because in the early years of the troubles fatal shootings by armed forces personnel were investigated by the Royal Military Police, and only after a few years was that transferred to the RUC, those investigations were not article 2 compliant. As the Government have deliberately strengthened the role of article 2, via their own amendments, does that mean in practice that every single fatality prior to 1972 is likely to be reinvestigated in order to be article 2 compliant?

Chris Heaton-Harris

No.

Turning now to the role of victims and families—

Mr Francois

Sorry, does the Minister want to explain that?

Chris Heaton-Harris

I will happily explain a bit later, when I have finished what I am saying.

Turning now to the role of victims and families, through our extensive engagement with stakeholders we have sought to make the Bill more victims-centred. To achieve that, I am placing the commission, when exercising its functions, under a duty to have regard to the general interests of persons affected by troubles-related deaths and serious injury. The Bill will also make it clear that in exercising its functions, the commission’s principal objective is to promote reconciliation. That is a crucial overarching principle that will embed the need to promote reconciliation in everything the ICRIR does when carrying out its work.

The commission will also be placed under a new duty to offer victims and their families the opportunity to submit personal impact statements, setting out how they have been affected by a troubles-related death or serious injury. The statements must be published if the person making the statement so wishes, subject to limited exceptions that ensure no individuals are put at risk and that the Government’s duty to keep people safe and secure is upheld. We tabled the amendment as a direct result of engagement with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland, who maintained it was crucial that victims had a voice in this process. We agree.

The Government fully recognise the need for the commission to have credibility, expertise and legitimacy so that effective investigations can be carried out and information provided to families as soon as possible. On 11 May, I announced the intended appointment of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, as chief commissioner-designate, having obtained input from the Lord Chief Justices of Northern Ireland, and England and Wales, and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, all of whom I would like to thank publicly. To allay further concerns around the integrity and independence of the immunity process, the Government’s Lords amendments place a duty on the commission to produce guidance that is related to determining a request for immunity. That will replace the power that previously rested with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

There are also amendments relating to oral history and memorialisation. We are, I am afraid, never going to agree in Northern Ireland on a common narrative about the past, but we can aim to put in place structures to help all in society, including future generations, have a better understanding of the past, with the overarching aim of enabling people to move forwards. Therefore, our memorialisation strategy will seek to build consensus around inclusive new initiatives to commemorate those lost in the troubles and seek to ensure that lessons of the past are not forgotten. I fully understand concerns raised regarding the need to prevent the glorification of terrorism in relation to the memorialisation strategy and other measures in part 4. As a result, we have added an overarching requirement to clause 48 so that designated persons must have regard to the need to ensure that the way in which the troubles-related work programme is carried out promotes reconciliation, anti-sectarianism and non-recurrence.

We also amended the Bill to broaden the requirement to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister with a duty to consult organisations that are experienced in reconciliation and anti-sectarianism, and to consult relevant Northern Ireland Departments before deciding on a response to each recommendation in the memorialisation strategy. We added an additional requirement in clause 50 that the Secretary of State must consult organisations that have an expertise in reconciliation and anti-sectarianism before designating persons for the purposes of this part of the Bill.

There are also Government amendments relating to interim custody orders. We have made the amendments in response to concerns raised by Members of both Houses over the 2020 Supreme Court ruling concerning the validity of the interim custody orders made under the troubles-era internment legislation. To be clear, it has always been the Government’s understanding that interim custody orders made by Ministers of the Crown under powers conferred on the Secretary of State were perfectly valid. In order to restore clarity around the legal position and to make sure that no one is inappropriately advantaged by a different interpretation of the law on a technicality, the Government tabled amendments that retrospectively validate all interim custody orders made under article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, as well as paragraph 11 of section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. That has the effect of confirming that a person’s detention under an ICO was not unlawful simply because it had been authorised by a junior Minister rather than by the Secretary of State personally.

Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

The Secretary of State has made an important point about the R v. Adams case and the disregarding of the Carltona principle by the Supreme Court in 2020, and he is right to affirm the Government’s view that the signing of warrants by a Minister of the Crown was always a lawful act, but why has this taken three years, and why did the amendments originate from the Back Benches rather than the Government? Is the Secretary of State right to describe them as Government amendments? For a great many people in Northern Ireland who thought that this was a welcome step during Bill’s passage, it came rather late.

Chris Heaton-Harris

Well, perhaps it is a case of better late than never. These are Government amendments, but I am the first to admit that amazingly good ideas sometimes emerge from the Back Benches of both Houses of Parliament.

The amendments could also prohibit certain types of legal proceedings—including civil cases, applications for compensation as a result of miscarriages of justice and appeals against conviction, which rely on the 2020 ruling—from being brought or continued. To align with the other prohibitions in the Bill, the continuation of pending claims and appeals in scope would be prohibited immediately from commencement. There is a specific exemption in the Bill for certain types of ongoing criminal appeals, where leave to appeal has already been granted or where there has been a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission by the time of the Bill’s commencement. The exception would not allow for the payment of compensation flowing from the reversal of such convictions, and I want to make it clear that the amendment would not lead to the reinstatement of convictions that had already been reversed.

There are other amendments relating to criminal justice outcomes. The Government’s primary focus has always been on establishing one effective legacy body seeking to provide better outcomes for families. We also want to ensure that organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the judiciary are able to concentrate their capabilities on more present-day issues.

It remains our view that the independent commission, when established, should be the sole body responsible for troubles-related cases, but we are also mindful of the concerns raised about the ending of the ongoing processes, especially given the current legislative timetable and the expected timeframe for the commission’s becoming fully operational. Our amendments would therefore ensure that ongoing criminal investigations, ombudsman investigations, the consideration of prosecution decisions, coronial inquests, and the publication of reports will continue until 1 May 2024, when the commission will become fully operational. We hope that the additional time provided will allow such cases to conclude their work, while ensuring a smooth transition between the ending of the current mechanisms and the commission’s taking on full responsibility for outstanding legacy cases.

Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)

Does the Secretary of State recognise the huge concern felt by families who do not think it is practical to expect all inquests to be completed by next spring? Some have not even begun, and it is feared that a two-tier approach will emerge. Owing to a number of factors, some cases scheduled by the former Lord Chief Justice will have started and may well finish, while others have not even had a chance to start. Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State has said, people do not believe that the new process will have the rigour of an inquest.

Chris Heaton-Harris

Our amendment provides until 1 May 2024 for inquests to conclude. Since the Bill’s introduction, expeditious case management of inquests in order to reach “an advanced stage” has resulted in the overloading of a system that was already struggling under incredible pressure, causing delay and frustration. We hope that the amendment will ensure that resources will now be focused on completing those inquests that have a realistic prospect of conclusion in the next year. The Government expect troubles-related cases that do not conclude via the coronial process by 1 May 2024 to be transferred to the fully operational ICRIR, led by Sir Declan Morgan as chief commissioner-designate, through the use of provisions already contained in the Bill, and I believe that those provisions will allow him to maintain the relevant level of investigation.

Ian Paisley

The Secretary of State is very kind and generous to give way. Before he concludes, would he care to mention any response to the Irish Government threat that they intend to take His Majesty’s Government to court on these matters? How does he view that threat, and what has been the response back to the Irish Government, given their own dire record of dealing with legacy?

Chris Heaton-Harris

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There have been a number of quite forthright conversations between the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste and myself on this matter. Obviously anything could be tested in legal action as we move forward, but I believe that the Bill is article 2-compliant. I do not see that as negative, because there are five elements to article 2 compliance—independence, capability of leading to the identification and punishment of perpetrators, prompt and reasonably expeditious, involvement of next of kin, and a degree of public scrutiny, which I think are all included in this. So I think we are in a strong place to resist any such potential charges, and I would like to think that means that we can happily move on together.

Mr Francois

I have been waiting patiently for the Secretary of State to answer the question that I asked him earlier about the interrelationship between article 2 and pre-1972 investigations. I am sure he meant to answer the question before he sat down. He has very few bits of paper left. Could he now please give a direct answer to my question about the interrelationship between the two?

Chris Heaton-Harris

I think my hon. Friend will remember that I gave him a direct answer and he wanted something that was a bit longer. I have just given him something that is a bit longer that identified why there is article 2 compliance, and we believe—[Interruption.] I did directly, which I think is the best way of dealing with this.

Mr Francois

It does not answer my question.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

Order.

Chris Heaton-Harris

The ICRIR has always, as a public body, needed to comply with all its duties under the Human Rights Act. We have made it clearer, on the face of the Bill, that the commissioner for investigations must comply with those duties when carrying out their reviews. It is a very straightforward—it generally is a straightforward—answer to a straightforward question, and I hope that my hon. Friend, when he reads Hansard, will see that his questions have been answered threefold in what I have said.

Mr Francois

No they have not.

Chris Heaton-Harris

There you go; we beg to differ.

Finally, through these amendments the term “the relevant day” has been removed from the Bill, so a consequential amendment (a) to Lords amendment 119 in my name simply seeks to remove the power to define the relevant date.

I am very confident that the Government’s legacy Bill provides the framework that will enable the independent commission, established by the Bill, to deliver effective legacy mechanisms for families and victims, whilst complying with our international obligations. When the Bill becomes law the delivery of those mechanisms will be led by Sir Declan Morgan KC, currently chief commissioner-designate of the independent commission. Sir Declan is also an individual of the highest calibre, with a track record of delivery on legacy issues, and I know that he will approach the task with the rigour, integrity and professionalism required.

The challenge before us is immensely difficult, but it is also clear. If we are to place the legacy of the troubles in the rear-view mirror and to help all in society to move forward in a spirit of reconciliation, we must try to do things differently.

The speech made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at Queen’s University in Belfast on 18 April 2023.

Tánaiste, Mr Commissioner, Your Excellencies, Most Distinguished Guests, and of course Chancellor Clinton, thank you for having me here today.

The truly historic 25th anniversary of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement is an enormous achievement, and something that should be deservedly marked, recognised and indeed celebrated – and I am grateful to Vice Chancellor Greer and his team for bringing us all together.

We heard yesterday that the Agreement was the product of the vision, bravery, leadership and imagination of many, many people, far more people than I could name in these remarks. But it is right today that we recognise those whose efforts brought peace to this nation after decades of conflict.

The success of the peace process will forever and justly be one of the proudest and most significant achievements of Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern, John Major, Albert Reynolds. I will be forever struck by the foresight and leadership of Lord Trimble in pushing forward with the Agreement in the face of significant scepticism – and indeed, outright opposition at times – from parts of his own party and across Unionism.

Real leaders know when to say yes, and Lord Trimble and the Progressive Unionist Party’s David Ervine led not only their own Parties but Unionism and Loyalism in saying yes to peace.

John and Pat Hume dedicated their lives to fighting for civil rights and reconciliation. Their passion for peaceful and democratic means of achieving change, and their clear-eyed view of the impact of violence on vulnerable communities created a legacy that lives on to this day.

Martin McGuinness will, along with Gerry Adams, be remembered for the courage and leadership he showed in persuading the Republican movement of peace. His partnership with Dr Ian Paisley and his gracious engagement with Her Late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, were powerful symbols of how far Northern Ireland had come.

I had the privilege of getting to know both John Hume and Rev Ian Paisley when I was elected to the European Parliament in 1999 and where they both served. It is not often that a new kid on the block in politics gets to sit in Parliament with a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

And we must remember the critical role that women played in getting us here. The late Mo Mowlam brought a humanity and a courage to her role that unlocked key elements of the Agreement. Her decision to engage with loyalist prisoners in 1998, against advice, was key to securing the support of loyalist communities for peace. Within the Irish Government, Liz O’Donnell played a critical role in the Department of Foreign Affairs.

And women like Monica McWilliams, Pearl Sagar and May Blood brought powerful leadership and perspective to the process. They focused minds on what was really at stake and worked tirelessly to ensure that the voices of women were heard in the peace talks.

I also want to pay tribute to the US’ contribution, particularly to the personal commitment of President and Secretary Clinton. If you spend a few moments in their company, you can palpably feel their love for this place.

And to the heroic work of Senator Mitchell, his speech yesterday was one of the best I have ever heard and I have heard a few in my time. I am quite sure it will go down in history. That contribution of the US endures today as was demonstrated last week from President Biden’s visit, just as the contribution made by our friends in Canada, South Africa and Finland in particular to the issue of decommissioning still endures to this day.

I was thinking yesterday when Senator Mitchell talked about the birth of his child and then the 61 other babies that were born on that day, that it is undoubtedly the case that the efforts of all of these people to get peace mean that there are men and women alive today, possibly here today, who otherwise might not be.

But we must also never forget that beyond lives saved, something special comes with peace. Pre the Agreement, small, ordinary acts that so many of us take for granted that would then have been difficult or a cause for concern, something your mother would have worried about, the freedom to stay in town after work for a pint with a friend, or to head out for a meal with your family.

The freedom to walk down the street without the fear of becoming caught up in some sort of disturbance. The freedom for young people to grow up and live happy, successful lives here in Northern Ireland and not be forced to leave their home in order to know stability or security. It is a testament to the success of the Agreement that so many here now can exercise these freedoms.

Now, 25 years on, the Government remains wholly committed to protecting and upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and I know this is a commitment that is shared by the Tánaiste and the Irish Government. I like and enjoy working with Micheál very much and the friendship and cooperation between the UK and Irish Government is vital to protecting and upholding the Agreement. I am determined in my capacity as Secretary of State to deepen and strengthen that vital relationship.

The Agreement’s success can also be demonstrated by Northern Ireland emerging as a thriving centre of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Its screen and film production industry has hosted some of the world’s most talented actors. Queen’s and Ulster University boast world-leading, Research & Development activity, enabling Northern Ireland to capitalise on the technologies and sectors of tomorrow. And Northern Ireland has a burgeoning and justified reputation for its FinTech and Cyber Security sectors. Together with over £600m of UK Government investment in City and Growth deals, Northern Ireland is increasingly a byword for an economy on the cutting edge of technology, connectivity and innovation.

But we must not sit back thinking the job is done. The abhorrent shooting of DCI John Caldwell, the disturbances over the Easter weekend and the ongoing paramilitary activity in too many communities illustrate that a tiny minority seek to drag Northern Ireland back to its darkest days. But I know for every person who wants to drag Northern Ireland down, there are thousands determined to lift it up. To those who pursue violence I say only this: you will never succeed, it is hopeless. Not because I say so or, because the Government says so, but because the wonderful, strong and proud people of Northern Ireland say so.

They reject your violence which has no place in the society or in the peace so many have strived so hard to create. To safeguard peace, we must be willing to confront the challenges as well as the successes.

The Agreement explicitly recognised the importance of acknowledging and addressing the suffering of the victims of violence. A workable way forward on this highly complex and sensitive issue has eluded successive UK Governments, Irish Governments, and NI Executives for 25 years, despite valiant attempts by many. Satisfactorily addressing the past is an absolutely key element in realising Northern Ireland’s potential in a prosperous, peaceful, and shared future – and I am determined to do so in a way that provides better outcomes for those most affected by the Troubles.

As we consider the challenges that still face us, I confess I have also been struck by a narrative that has become louder in recent years. A narrative that the Agreement struck in 1998 did not achieve great things for Unionism. That it was somehow all about ‘wins’ for Nationalism. That narrative is wrong, and all of us who support the Agreement must be vocal in countering it.

Today, the principle of consent is so often taken for granted. But it was an important and hard won guarantee that settled for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Before 1998, the Constitution of Ireland asserted that Northern Ireland formed part of Irish national territory, and that the Irish Government had a right to exercise jurisdiction over that territory.

25 years ago, a minority but a significant one – considered it legitimate to use force to bring about a united Ireland, contrary to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. The acceptance of this principle of consent, a fundamental part of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, changed all of that.

Northern Ireland’s integral part in the United Kingdom is settled by the Agreement. That status can’t be changed by the evil deeds of terrorists, nor can it be changed by the words or wishes of politicians. The only thing that can change it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland.

The Irish constitution was changed at that time to reflect this. Just as important for the Union, the Agreement created the conditions and built the foundations for Northern Ireland to be a thriving, dynamic and successful society within the United Kingdom. The simple reality is that people tend to change the status quo only when the status quo is not working or people simply stop making the case for it. Devolved power-sharing institutions created a status quo that those of us who value Northern Ireland’s place in the Union can robustly – and successfully – promote and celebrate.

So let no one tell you that power-sharing is in any way at odds with Unionism. Instead it is the surest way by which Northern Ireland’s place in the Union can be secured. The people of Northern Ireland are rightly demanding better, more responsive public services, greater economic prosperity and a brighter future for their children. The single biggest threat to Northern Ireland’s place in the Union is a failure to deliver on these priorities.

I make no apologies for being proud of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and for wanting it to continue. Others who share that view should put the Union first, restore the devolved institutions and get on with the job of delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. Like David Trimble and David Ervine before in 1998, and Dr Paisley in 2006, real leadership is about knowing when to say yes and having the courage to do so.

I also know that the question of the Agreement’s potential evolution is being discussed and debated both here at this conference and more widely across Northern Ireland as people rightly want to see devolution in their elected institutions up and running, and want to make it work. I believe that successfully achieving local governance in this place has always depended on achieving the consensus I talked about earlier and certainly if there were voices from London or Dublin trying to impose something, it would certainly fail.

So the Government will continue to listen intently to the conversation on how we can best achieve the effective and enduring operation of the institutions. Because we want to see the institutions working well for the whole of Northern Ireland. Their success is Northern Ireland’s success, and Northern Ireland’s success is the Union’s success.

Distinguished Guests, Northern Ireland has made remarkable progress in the 25 years since the Agreement’s signing. If these 25 years have been about peace, then the next 25 must be about delivering a more prosperous, more reconciled future for everyone in Northern Ireland. We must look forward to what is possible, just as we must reflect to remind and educate ourselves about exactly what is at stake.

The Government stands ready to support Northern Ireland to fully deliver on the ambition of the Agreement and I look forward to working with everyone here, everyone everywhere, in making that an achievement we can all be proud of.

The speech made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in London on 27 March 2023.

Good afternoon everyone, thank you to the FCDO and the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs for arranging this afternoon’s conference.

It is an honour to have the opportunity to be with you this afternoon, to mark this historic 25th anniversary of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, reflect on the transformation in Northern Ireland since its signing and to look ahead to the coming 25 years.

The signing of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement on 10 April 1998 brought an end to 30 years of armed conflict, securing the peace that Northern Ireland’s people enjoy in their everyday lives today and helping to move towards a more reconciled society.

The peace it has brought is undoubtedly an enormous achievement. But no less remarkable is what has been built upon that peaceful foundation. It has had a transformative effect on Northern Ireland’s economy and enabled the building of a more vibrant society.

The UK Government remains steadfast in its commitment to protecting and upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions. We are sincerely determined to build on the progress we have made this past 25 years.

Of course, this progress was delivered through collaboration, with a common determination to make life better for everyone in Northern Ireland. No one party, government, individual or organisation owned the journey to the Agreement, nor the journey of Northern Ireland since.

Instead, it was the collective endeavour of many, including the Northern Ireland parties, the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition as well as the Irish and US governments, that resulted in the Agreement.

For our part, the UK Government is committed to delivering real progress for the whole community in Northern Ireland, since the Agreement was signed.

I know that the Irish Government is also just as committed to the Agreement as we are. To this day, the partnership and friendship between our countries has been vital in protecting the foundation of peace and prosperity the Agreement brings.

My firm commitment as Secretary of State is to support and champion that precious relationship, through which we have achieved so much with our closest neighbour.

I also wish to acknowledge the contribution that the United States, Finland, South Africa and Canada have made to the Agreement and to supporting disarmament and reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

In recent weeks we have proven our commitment to the Agreement through listening to and heeding the concerns among the people of Northern Ireland with the Protocol, replacing it with a radical, legally binding new Windsor Framework. A Framework that restores the delicate balance struck by the Agreement.

And it remains my sincere hope that we will soon see the Strand One institutions established by the Agreement in operation again in its 25th anniversary year, demonstrating the benefits of a local Executive and Assembly and of Northern Ireland’s place within the Union.

It is not just peace that the Agreement has given Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has built upon that peaceful foundation, to deliver increasing prosperity for its people.

Northern Ireland boasts a world-leading screen and film production industry, Game of Thrones, The Northman, that has already contributed over £1 billion to the NI Economy.

The fintech, cyber security and engineering sectors are going from strength-to-strength in the Northern Ireland of today. The Northern Ireland cyber security sector alone employs 2,300 people and contributes £161m per year to the local economy.

It is also a testament to Northern Ireland’s increasing global reach that over one third of cyber security firms in Northern Ireland are headquartered in the US.

However, there remains more to be done to fully deliver on the promise of the Agreement, by providing for a better future for everyone and further spreading and deepening economic prosperity in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland’s journey towards greater prosperity and reconciliation continues to this day. The 25th anniversary of this remarkable achievement affords us an opportunity to restate our commitment to upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and to building upon its peaceful foundation to create a brighter future for Northern Ireland.

I look forward to working with you all to achieve it in the years to come.

The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 22 February 2023.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

More than a year has passed since the then First Minister of Northern Ireland resigned. Twelve months and one Assembly election later, people in Northern Ireland still do not have the strong devolved Government that they deserve. In the absence of those institutions, this Government have stepped in to protect the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. We have set a budget, delivered vital energy support funding and legislated to provide clarity on the decision-making powers of Northern Ireland civil servants to enable them to maintain public service provision. However, on each of those occasions, I have stood at this Despatch Box and expressed my deep disappointment that we still await the return of a functioning Assembly and Executive. I wish to restate that profound disappointment once again.

The restoration of the Executive, in line with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, remains my top priority. I will continue to do everything I can to make that happen and to help the Northern Ireland parties to work together to do so equally. It was on that basis that we legislated last autumn to extend the Executive formation period through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. Since that period ended in January 2023, I have again been under a statutory duty to call an Assembly election, which would have to be held within 12 weeks—on or before 13 April.

I have spent time engaging with Northern Ireland political and community leaders, assessing the options available to me. I have also spoken to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), and I appreciate his advice and guidance. It remains my view that a further Assembly election at this time would be unwelcome and expensive and, crucially, it would bring us no closer to our objective of delivering fully functioning devolved institutions.

At this critical juncture, the best approach to facilitating the return of those institutions is built on flexibility, to allow time and space for negotiations on the Northern Ireland protocol between the UK and EU to continue, and to promote collaboration by the parties in Northern Ireland to form a Government, not to compete in an unwelcome election. On that note, I will briefly summarise the overall intention of the Bill.

Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

In order to concentrate the minds of those who hold the future of devolution in their hands, could I invite my right hon. Friend to confirm that joint authority and direct rule are not on his direct agenda, but that making sure that devolution works is front and centre?

Chris Heaton-Harris

I can confirm those points 100%.

This is a short Bill, and I propose to time my remarks accordingly. I will merely outline the Bill at this stage and save my discussion of the mechanics of its two clauses for Committee, which I hope will commence shortly. Having said that, I hope the House will permit me to pause and express my gratitude to Opposition Members and, indeed, everyone involved for their continued cross-party approach to delivering key legislation in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Hove, for engaging thoughtfully with me on a number of occasions ahead of the Bill’s introduction.

The Bill will provide for a one-year retrospective extension to the Executive formation period from 19 January 2023, which means that, if the parties are unable to form an Executive on or before 18 January 2024, I will again fall under a duty to call for an Assembly election to take place within 12 weeks. However, as I said earlier, I believe flexibility is the order of the day if we are to play our part in encouraging and facilitating the return of the institutions.

Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

The Chair of the Select Committee prompts me to reflect that I am one of the handful of people here who had an active part in the last period of direct rule, in about 2004 or 2005. It was just about the most inadequate procedure imaginable, which is a high bar to clear in this place. Ultimately, without a functioning Assembly, and without direct rule or joint authority, the people who lose out are not the politicians, but the people who rely on public services.

Chris Heaton-Harris

The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that the people of Northern Ireland end up suffering from not having functioning institutions working for them.

The Bill provides me, as Secretary of State, with the important ability to call an early election, provided that offices have not been filled. Taken together, these provisions represent a delicate balance. Eventually, if the political impasse in Northern Ireland continues, people in Northern Ireland will rightly expect to return to the polls to have their say. However, the prospect of forcing an election when it would be unwelcome or unhelpful runs contrary to our goal of providing the time and space we need for our negotiations with the European Union on the protocol to continue to develop, and for an Executive to form.

Members with a keen eye for detail will no doubt have noticed that, unless an early election is called, the extension provided for by the Bill will run past the date on which the decision-making provisions contained in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 lapse, namely, 5 June 2023. During the Act’s passage late last year, we were clear that the current governance arrangements were not a sustainable long-term solution. I am therefore keeping those arrangements under review, in the continued absence of fully functioning devolved institutions, but I sincerely hope that an Executive are in place before those arrangements expire.

In the meantime, the provisions of the 2022 Act and its accompanying guidance provide Northern Ireland civil servants with the clarity they need on how and when they should be taking decisions. The decisions they have been taking under the 2022 Act are being published to ensure complete transparency. I am truly grateful for the work of Northern Ireland civil servants in making use of those provisions to maintain public services in Northern Ireland, but, as I have said many times, the right people to take those decisions are locally elected politicians, who should be doing their jobs in an Executive. The current arrangement is not and can never be a substitute for fully functioning devolved institutions.

I know everyone in this House has been deeply moved by the courage shown by a very young man, Dáithí Mac Gabhann. He and his whole family have fought for the implementation of organ donation changes. I recently met Dáithí and his family, and I met them again this morning. I am incredibly moved by his story and by his family’s dedication to seeing this important change to the law on organ donations in Northern Ireland implemented as quickly as possible.

I am a bit of a stickler for how we do things in this place, and I would never want to go against “Erskine May,” but Dáithí and his family are with us in the Gallery today. I am sure hon. Members will wish to join me in welcoming him and commending the whole family for their valiant efforts. They should not need to be here today to see this change, as the Assembly could and should have convened to take this across the finish line.

As I said in my letter to the Northern Ireland parties, they continue to have it within their power to recall the Assembly and deal with secondary legislation such as the regulations in this case. That would only require Members of the Legislative Assembly to work together to elect a Speaker—not necessarily to nominate a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister—but I was disappointed that the opportunity to do that was not taken during the Assembly recall last Tuesday. However, I recognise this issue is exceptional both in its sheer importance and in the cross-party support it commands, both in Northern Ireland and in this House. On that basis, the Government spent a lot of time with the lawyers. We have been able to table important amendments to this Bill to facilitate those changes, to be taken forward in the Assembly in the continued absence of a Speaker.

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

It is commendable that Dáithí and his family are here, and it is wonderful that the Government are doing the right thing. This law will now be in place faster than if the Northern Ireland Assembly were sitting, which is one of the peculiarities of the politics in which we live. We should not make political points on this. It is right and proper that it has been done for children across the United Kingdom who need organ donations, for which I thank the Secretary of State .

Chris Heaton-Harris

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He is right that this is not a matter of politics. I know it is the family’s wish that the Bill is operational by the spring and that is what we will be able to achieve.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this Bill, and I thank Dáithí’s family, who are in the Gallery. The Bill will make organ donation an opt-out law in Northern Ireland, just as it is on the UK mainland. That is what we want: equal laws across the whole United Kingdom. As a result of the good work and commitment of the Secretary of State and the Government, we will now have an equal law. We all support an opt out on organ transplants.

Chris Heaton-Harris

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words.

Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)

I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for taking this action. I commend him and all the politicians who got us here, but does he agree that the real thanks and praise should go to Dáithí and his family for their fantastic campaign? It has been an extraordinary campaign, and they all deserve great praise.

Chris Heaton-Harris

Indeed. When I spoke to Dáithí earlier, I asked him whether he fancied his chances of being elected to this House and trying to put us all straight. A bit of common sense would probably go a long way in our dealings, and he and his family have displayed it in huge quantities.

Dáithí also met Mr Speaker and is now the proud owner of a Speaker teddy bear. I could make so many jokes, but I would never be called again if I went down that route. I know that he and his father Máirtín enjoyed meeting Mr Speaker. This change goes to show what can be done in politics when everybody comes together.

I will save my remarks on the technical details of the amendments for Committee, which I hope will commence shortly.

I have spoken a decent amount about the Bill’s dates and timelines, so I will conclude my remarks by noting an anniversary of which hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House are keenly aware—the upcoming 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Members throughout the House will doubtless join me in celebrating the progress that Northern Ireland has made since that historic agreement, which has served as an example of peacebuilding across the world. Looking back on the signing of the agreement, and the great strides that Northern Ireland has made since then, gives me a great deal of optimism, but I am also struck by the huge importance of delivering the functioning devolved institutions that the people of Northern Ireland endorsed by voting for it.

This Government will always seek to implement, maintain and protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and, as I said in my opening remarks, the restoration of the Executive therefore remains my top priority. The Bill will help to bring that about by avoiding an unwelcome election and providing space for the parties to work together to end the current impasse, but, of course, the Bill alone will not be enough to achieve that. We now need all Northern Ireland’s locally elected leaders to work together once again to make the most of the opportunity that it presents. I hope that they will take their cue from those who went before them and secured the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and display the co-operation, courage and leadership that are needed to deliver functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am a vice-chair, will meet for a session in Stormont in early March—led by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is not in the Chamber—bringing together people across the jurisdictions and across all parties, as happened before 1998. Those informal ties are very important, but it is also important that parliamentarians on all sides understand where we have come from and, crucially, look forward to where we are going. Will the Secretary of State endorse that aim, and encourage Members in all parts of the House to become more involved in cross-jurisdictional organisations so that we can understand each other and get ourselves out of the current impasse?

Chris Heaton-Harris

Yes, 100%. The fact that people have not been able to meet face to face and build those relationships over a period is probably one of the hangovers of covid. The hon. Lady is entirely correct, although there is a different group of people I would rather see sitting in Stormont at this time, and I very much hope that that will be the case in the not too distant future.

Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

The Secretary of State is right to say that Northern Ireland will succeed when our local politicians work together. We have done so in the past, and we have overcome much greater difficulties than this in the past. However, this issue is not about us; it is about what has been imposed upon us. Does the Secretary of State recognise that while all of us in Northern Ireland, collectively, will serve our people, it has been the case for too long in London that the personalities may change but the playbook does not? Too many consider Northern Ireland politics to be but a game, although for us—for all of us, across communities—it is too important to be treated as a political game. I say that in the aspiration and hope that the Secretary of State recognises that what we have had for the past few years is not good enough, and that the determination to crack the protocol and the impositions that are plaguing all communities in Northern Ireland will resolve those issues.

Chris Heaton-Harris

I hope the hon. Gentleman does not mind if I gently push back. I have yet to meet anyone in Government who thinks that the politics of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland, are anything to do with a game. This Government take their responsibilities for every part of the Union, including and especially Northern Ireland, unbelievably seriously, and I hope we will be able to demonstrate that, with the hon. Gentleman, in the coming days and weeks.

Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)

I can give, on a personal level, the assurance that those of us who have been involved with Northern Ireland politics take it seriously. Some of us actually resigned from the Northern Ireland Office and sacrificed our ministerial careers because we cared passionately about Northern Ireland, and it is certainly not a game from the viewpoint of many of the Ministers who have served there—and most certainly not a game from the viewpoint of this Minister who resigned on principle.

Chris Heaton-Harris

The former Secretary of State has, in his own words, described the seriousness with which everyone takes Northern Ireland and its politics, and especially its people—and those people in Northern Ireland want their locally elected representatives to go back to work. So do I, and so, I believe, does everyone in the House, notwithstanding the tiny bit of work that we have to do with our European Union partners. This Bill will lay the groundwork for that to happen, and I therefore commend it to the House.