Emma Pengelly
South Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“This week, I will travel to France to pay my respects to all those who fought and the many who fell at the Battle of the Somme as we mark its 110th anniversary. <BR /> <BR />From across Northern Ireland, generations have served their country.”
“One of the men who fought was James Sandford, my great-grandfather. He fought, he survived, he went on to fight again, and he was seriously injured in another battle. I am deeply proud of him, and I am proud of all those who stepped forward with such honour in the face of the horror of that war.”
“When I stand there this week, looking at the gravestones of so many who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom, I will also remember — we must always remember — the responsibility that we carry forward. Remembrance is not only about honouring the past; it is about shaping the future.”
“Last night, people in north Belfast witnessed horrific scenes that have absolutely sickened and appalled people across Northern Ireland. It was a shocking and barbaric act of violence that has left a victim fighting the consequences of a truly savage attack.”
“Every person has the right to walk their streets, live in their community and feel safe in their own neighbourhood. This type of brutality has no place in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />This morning, I spoke with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have also been in contact with the Prime Minister, because the PSNI has confirmed that the 30-year-old male who has been arrested is believed to be of Somalian heritage.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,234 lines we hold for Emma Pengelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 45.
“I appeal to the Labour Party: there are a number of outstanding commitments. The Labour Party voted for and supported the Windsor framework and 'Safeguarding the Union'. It undertook to fulfil the promises, acknowledging that the then Government, who had done the deal, were in their dying days. That was the basis for restoration. The Labour Government must step up and deliver what was promised, what they voted for and what they said that they would do. Where are we with implementation and delivery today? What is the Government's position on eradicating routine checks in the UK's internal market system, which they promised to do? That is what Labour voted for. <BR /> <BR />We face, on Friday, the general product safety regulation coming into force. That will have a real impact.”
“<BR /> <BR />If the EU has broken the mould, as it keeps telling us that it has, with the Windsor framework, it can continue to break the mould, but it will do so only if we send the clear message, "We need to strive for better. We need to strive for something that will work". If, for the next four years, we have to look at constantly trying to fight against issues as they keep popping up, that is a crazy system. Yes, we need that reactivity in the short term. We need a reaction from the UK Government and the EU to deal with issues as they emerge, but better still would be a system that does not result in those issues continuously coming up unexpectedly and unpredictably. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the outstanding commitments in the 'Safeguarding the Union' agreement and policy.”
“There are numerous relationships between trading partners that do not look or feel like the European Union situation. We always seem to get away from this fundamental point: at the moment, EU goods can flow freely into Great Britain because Great Britain is not exercising a protectionist system. The reason why GB goods cannot flow freely into the European Union is that the European Union — it is globally notorious for it — operates a protectionist system. Those are political choices. It is the political choice of the European Union, if it wishes, to lift customs from Northern Ireland. To do checks or not is a political choice.”
“It is not beyond the wit of man and woman to have two sovereign places working together side by side as good neighbours that can trade with each other, both wanting high standards of food products and manufactured goods for their people on the basis of an assessment of risk, proportionality and mutual recognition of high standards. That is what ought to have happened, but it did not. Northern Ireland is paying the price of a botched Brexit.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. <BR /> <BR />Of course, it goes back to the fundamental issue of Brexit. The UK voluntarily joined a club, and that club was the European Union. Under the terms of joining voluntarily, of course, you could leave at any time, yet, my goodness, the wails of outrage when the people of the United Kingdom democratically decided to leave. The mature thing to do and what you would have expected from sovereign Governments and international bodies was to accept the result — the outcome of a democratic vote — and try, mutually, to work together for the best possible deal.”
“We are tracking goods from one area into another area with exactly the same standards; it is absolutely ridiculous. It is totally disproportionate, it is not based on risk, and it is bureaucracy gone mad.”
“I thank the Member for his contribution. The Ulster Unionist Party was, of course, talking to the same people about the mutual enforcement concept at the same time as we were. That is an issue on which we made representations to the UK Government. You will have seen many contributions by our Members in the House of Lords and the House of Commons on that issue as well because, of course, there are many different ways to do the same thing. We must not forget that, at this moment, the UK is fully aligned with and signed up to the same standards as the EU.”
“They continue to flow because of articles 5 to 10. <BR /> <BR />I have already heard Members asking today, "What is the alternative?". The alternative is a logical system based on an assessment of risk, proportionality and looking at issues such as mutual enforcement and a mutual recognition of standards.”
“There were still problems with it, but it represented real progress and built on the progress of the Windsor framework. That is why we are where we are. <BR /> <BR />There have been improvements. I speak to businesses all the time, as, I know, many of you do too, but there have also been many unexpected problems. We might as well rename the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee the "Whack-a-mole Committee" because, frankly, it deals with issues as they pop up left, right and centre. Unexpected and unpredicted, they suddenly come from nowhere. The UK Government did not see it, and the EU did not see it. I appeal to everyone to understand that, because the origin of the provisions are in a deeply flawed protocol document botched by Boris Johnson and his Government, those issues will continue to flow.”
“The DUP, as leaders of unionism, had to take a hard decision. We care about the people of Northern Ireland. We care about health, we care about education and we care about the economy. We want the Northern Ireland economy to do well. That meant that we had to get best deal that we could, which is why we did not accept the Windsor framework. We recognised the progress that had been made, but we fought on for the best deal that we could get. The 'Safeguarding the Union' paper represented steps forward, but, again, it was not perfect. We said that clearly at the time. I so rarely get the opportunity to speak about it, but, my goodness, I have had to sit and listen, time and time again, to people telling us what we said about 'Safeguarding the Union'. We said that it was progress — it was progress — but there was more to be done.”
“Thousands and thousands of goods were removed from being impacted by the protocol. The provision on the internal movement of goods for supermarkets, restaurants, takeaways and cafes meant that they were all able to access supplies from GB. For the first time, it gave the UK a unilateral veto on amended and new EU legislation. That was something that we had asked for during the protocol negotiations and had highlighted as a concern to Theresa May and Boris Johnson, but it was achieved by Rishi Sunak. The Windsor framework addressed a number of issues, but there was more to be done. That is why we did not go back into the Executive: it did not resolve everything, and we made that clear at the time. <BR /> <BR />It was an improvement but, unfortunately for unionism, we had to take a hard decision.”
“While we were involved in live negotiations to try to get the worst parts of the protocol changed, you were running to the European Union and running down the road to Dublin, asking them to rigorously implement something that would have caused huge harm to Northern Ireland. That is shameful, and it led directly to the point where we had no choice but to step forward, stand up and force people back around the table. Did we want to do it? No. Were we reluctant to do it? Absolutely, but we had to force people back to the negotiating table, and what was produced from that process? The Windsor framework. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that the DUP took the abuse. We were attacked for our actions, but it is undeniable that the Windsor framework is a significant move forward.”
“Rigorous implementation of the protocol would have ended those grace periods. It would have brought in everything in it. It would have caused huge disruption for every supermarket, corner shop, takeaway, restaurant and small business, and that had to be dealt with. We therefore went to the UK Government and to the EU, and we tried to renegotiate to fix the damage done by that terrible protocol. <BR /> <BR />While we were trying to do that, there was a restoration of the Assembly. We were going through COVID. Every time that we made a little bit of progress, what happened? We were undermined. I am absolutely unashamed to say clearly that we were undermined by some of those who are sitting here from the SDLP, the Alliance Party and Sinn Féin.”
“That is unacceptable. <BR /> <BR />Others, once again, pontificated about how the negotiations were over, because, of course, the protocol was only a certain point in all of this. We were told, once again, that there would be no changes to the protocol. We were told to forget all about it and that the negotiation was over. We were told that by so many of you who are sitting in the House today. Once again, you said, "Don't waste any time on that". We could see the danger in it, however. We could see the many, many issues. Even getting access to human medicines had not been resolved. Literally thousands of products were going to be stopped coming into Northern Ireland, and the only reason that citizens throughout Northern Ireland did not notice it was because of the grace periods.”
“<BR /> <BR />I appeal once again for that Parliament to have a rethink, and that is why I agree absolutely with the many Members who have spoken from this side of the House today who said, "Wouldn't it be so good for us to send the message to the UK Government and to the EU that the provisions set down in articles 5 to 10 are causing real difficulties for businesses, creating limited choice for consumers and causing issues with supplies and for suppliers?". There is no way of getting around that, and, while there are always promises and more promises of a possible benefit down the line from so-called dual market access, we have confirmation that that has not yet been realised, if it ever will be. We have caused real practical issues for our economy and for our businesses on the promise of something that has simply not materialised.”
“I can criticise the European Union, criticise the Irish Government for their interventions and criticise others, as I will in due course, for rigorous implementation, but I also criticise my sovereign Parliament for not caring about the constitutional implications. When we got to court, why was the challenge defeated? It was defeated because the sovereign Parliament had voted for the protocol.”
“We publicly and legally challenged its provisions. Our opposition could not have been more clear. We could see the damage that it would cause, even if others, including many in this place today, refused to see it. <BR /> <BR />That is the reality. It was not just the harm done by the then Prime Minister but that done by an impatient House of Commons, which was eager to just get it done with and vote it all through. Yes, our UK Parliament voted for it, and we cannot get away from that fact. It is something that, day in and day out, grieves me, because that is where this is based.”
“This, frankly, is a rigged vote. The message being sent from the Chamber today is of a vote that has not gone through the normal procedures that underpin these very institutions. The protections promised in early October 2019 by Boris Johnson were of a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That promise disappeared after his little chat with Leo Varadkar, which fundamentally changed what was on the table. The DUP immediately pointed that out, highlighted it and opposed it. We have opposed the provisions from the very start, and, over the years, we have worked tirelessly to undo the incredible harm caused by the protocol agreement. The DUP has fought against the damaging protocol at every stage. We opposed it to the Prime Minister, voted against it in the House of Commons and voted against it in the House of Lords.”
“The values of that agreement, we were told by those who wrote it and put it together, were consensus and inclusion, but the agreement is about consensus and inclusion only if it is a matter that is important to you but not if it is a matter that is important to unionism. It is absolutely appalling.”
“I hesitate to get into the detail of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but I am sure that the Member is fully aware that all key decisions — indeed, all decisions — of the House are subject to a petition of concern, and, ergo, a cross-community vote could have been triggered in relation to that vote, as is the case with every single vote. I am afraid that, if the Member from the SDLP does not recall that, I suggest that he goes back and reads again the Northern Ireland Act 1998, because this is the only key vote in the House since 1998 and since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement that will not be subject to the ability to trigger a cross-community vote.”
“I reiterate that this is the first and only key decision that the House will vote on that absolutely tears asunder the key values and principles that other parties in this Chamber championed around the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.”
“— for doing what we could do to fight for the people of Northern Ireland and to get the best deal and the best Brexit outcome. As I said, we warned Boris Johnson about that, and he did not heed the warnings. <BR /> <BR />I think that everyone in the Chamber can tell that I am no fan of Boris Johnson, but the protocol also brought us this vote. It meant, and does mean, that, for the very first time since 1998 and for the very first time since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, a key decision and a key vote in the House that will affect everyone in Northern Ireland will not require cross-community support in the Assembly. The reality is that that is a fundamental change, and the only reason why any of you across the Chamber are not howling about that is that it is not in your interests to do so on this particular issue.”
“That is a shame on him. It is not a shame on us —”
“I thank the Member for her contribution. I should point out that the Conservative Party is not a sister party of the DUP, but the Lib Dems is a sister party of the Alliance Party and Labour is a sister party of the SDLP. At various times over the past number of years, you have cosied up to many different people who have then gone on to take part in votes and issues and make decisions that you disagree with, and ditto with what is happening with the Labour Government at the moment. That is the reality. <BR /> <BR />The truth is that we were doing our best for the people of Northern Ireland by making our point at every opportunity to the Prime Minister. We invited the Prime Minister to our party conference because it was a great opportunity to make the points directly to him. Did he listen? No. Did he listen to the warnings? No.”
“The protocol created a hard border down the Irish Sea and shattered our UK internal market. We warned Boris Johnson about that, but he would not heed the warnings. I am absolutely sick of the revisionism, the scoffing and people saying, "Why did the DUP negotiate with Boris Johnson?". Well, it was because he was the Prime Minister. He was the person leading the negotiations with the EU. He was the person with the ability to put on the table what needed to be done. He was the person who was going to sign his name on the bottom of that document and that agreement. That is why we did our best. That is why we endeavoured to ensure a good Brexit.”
“Then came Boris, and boom — the backstop is reopened. Great news, or it should have been. Boris blew it. <BR /> <BR />The UK Government, the negotiators and the Prime Minister's team were, it appears, woefully unprepared, and that is what we are dealing with today, what we are trying to deal with week by week and why the Committee looks at all these unexpected, unforeseen, unpredicted issues that are causing real issues for businesses in every constituency. That is what we are dealing with today because of that original backstop leading to the protocol — that original agreement that was made. <BR /> <BR />What we are dealing with today leads directly from Boris's botched Brexit deal, and it is not working. A wee wander through the garden with Leo Varadkar, and Boris signed up to the protocol and caused immeasurable damage.”
“People said, "Oh no, the backstop will never come in. Something else will be negotiated", but, of course, the backstop deal meant that nothing to replace it could be put in place unilaterally. The replacement of the backstop had to be agreed by the EU in the terms of that agreement. It was always going to be the outcome. <BR /> <BR />Wall-to-wall, all declared that the negotiation was completed. As we raised concerns about the backstop provisions, we were told that it was not going to change. There were wails from Remainers on all sides of the House of Commons, from party leaders in Northern Ireland — the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Féin — to the Lib Dems, Labour, the Back-Benchers of the Conservative Party and from worthy academics to practically all the media commentators saying that the backstop was not going to change.”
“It was a botched Brexit that started with key mistakes, such as timetabling agreements for negotiations that created pinch points to pressure the UK to early concessions that removed important negotiation flexibilities by Theresa May and her team. <BR /> <BR />At every stage, we have heard the same thing, time and time again, which is, "This is the best deal that you are going to get". When Theresa May came up with her backstop, the very same thing was said, but we said that the backstop was never a backup. Yet, too many did not want to see that. The backstop deal that would have kept Northern Ireland formally and officially in the EU customs union was always going to be the final outcome. It was never going to be the backup. A blind man on a galloping horse could have seen that, yet there was collective gaslighting going on.”
“No matter what people across the Chamber think about Brexit, that was a democratic vote. I can tell you this: if it came to a vote on the reunification of Ireland and the vote passed but was ignored, the very same people who fight against the democratic outcome of the Brexit referendum would be howling if there was even a suggestion of that vote being ignored. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, when the referendum happened, the DUP, rightly, regardless of the view on Brexit — there was a range of views on Brexit in unionism and in the DUP — took a position, which is and was that the result of the democratic referendum should be implemented. We also made clear that it ought to be implemented in a way that produced a good Brexit deal. That did not happen.”
“We are still dealing with that in 2024 because of the botched nature of those discussions and because the very integrity of our internal market — our single market in this United Kingdom — was placed on the table, negotiated away and damaged. <BR /> <BR />From the ineptitude of Theresa May and her team to the blundering of blustering Boris, it has been a catalogue of mistakes, errors and own goals. It was a botched Brexit. Let us be very clear: this situation was not the inevitable result of Brexit; it is the result of a botched Brexit. They were warned. We warned them. I was there in Parliament raising my voice time and time again against what was proposed. There were many different ways to bring about the result of a democratic referendum across this United Kingdom.”
“I am going to make a little bit more progress before I give way. Make no mistake: the mishandling of Brexit and the subsequent protocol was an unparalleled act of constitutional self-harm by the UK Government. No Government should ever have signed up to such terms. That agreement damaged the very fabric of our constitutional settlement and shattered the integrity of the UK internal market. <BR /> <BR />The strength of an internal market matters. The integrity of an internal market is protected for the good reasons of fairness and strength and to create optimal internal trading and internal relationships. That is precisely why the integrity of the EU single market would never have been on the table during the Brexit negotiations. The integrity of the UK's single market should not have been on the table, yet it was.”
“<BR /> <BR />The tale of the matter is both long and sad. It is not possible to talk to the matter without some consideration of how we got here. There have been disappointments and let-downs. There have been theatrics and dramatics. There has been buffoonery and blustering — of course, more about Boris later — and the continual dismissing and demeaning of serious concerns, which I have seen repeated here today. We cannot and ought not to sneer at each other across the Chamber when we raise real constitutional and ideological concerns that we genuinely feel. That has been the hallmark of the past eight years, and the lessons of the past eight years must be learned. They cannot be repeated. Issues must be addressed, and promises must be kept.”
“We are debating a motion on articles 5 to 10. We have heard some exploration of that already. The reality is that those provisions are causing serious issues. The DUP's commitment is clear across all three of those issues: ideological issues, constitutional issues and those that relate to the practical trade implications. By building on the progress to date, the DUP will continue to fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. That means removing EU law that applies and any internal barriers that such laws create. The DUP will continue to argue the case for full primacy of the United Kingdom internal market and to reject the undermining of its integrity. That is why we have no hesitation in voting against the application of those articles and therefore triggering the review.”
“I am glad to have the opportunity to speak from the Back Bench in this important debate. We are discussing a matter of fundamental import. It is a serious matter, and it has an impact, particularly on many thousands of businesses, throughout Northern Ireland. It affects trade and our economy but also the very democratic and constitutional underpinnings of Northern Ireland and our sovereign United Kingdom. Across the Chamber, people will have different perspectives. For some, it will present ideological and constitutional issues, but, for all others, we ought to listen to the real and practical trade and economic issues that face businesses in each and every one of our constituencies in relation to articles 5 to 10. <BR /> <BR />It is important to remember that the vote does not and will not revoke the protocol.”
“That work is continuing against our action plan, and good progress is being made. We hope to be in a position to update the Committee on progress against all the action plan points very shortly.”
“We will move to make better reference to that in the Programme for Government, but, of course, we will work with our colleagues, particularly in the Department for Communities, to ensure that all our communities can benefit.”
“Yes. There has been a commitment to bringing forward those social inclusion strategies. They will be tailored to those particular groups and are loosely based on each of the section 75 groups. The Department for Communities takes the lead on that, and I know that a significant amount of work is already under way. From our point of view in the Executive Office, we deal with a number of groups that have been and continue to be marginalised, not least victims and survivors, for example, and, in that area, we have dedicated funding through our Victims and Survivors Service. <BR /> <BR />We also approach that work through a number of different commissioner-type roles, such as the Older People's Commissioner, which promotes issues associated with older people.”
“The way that we roll the projects out, in terms of both the revenue and, importantly, the capital investment, must be done in a way that benefits all communities and must be designed in a way that takes into account a number of those key characteristics.”
“Work is under way. A number of our equality areas of work, such as equality strategies for older people and people with disabilities and strategies on gender, have moved to the Department for Communities. That Department takes a lead on bringing forward most of our social inclusion strategies now, but, of course, at the heart of the Programme for Government will be the principle that we want everyone in Northern Ireland to be able to succeed regardless of their characteristics, where they live or where they come from. It will be key that the implementation of that is entirely mainstreamed.”
“Of course, key to that will be the Executive prioritising any additional flexibility in the Budget towards meeting the targets on those nine key priorities.”
“As outlined earlier, a key part of that will be our well-being framework and our well-being indicators. A significant number of indicators will be updated live in real time to show progress against the priorities. Some of those will report quarterly. It depends on how the baseline is measured, but there will be a range of indicators. Those will be open to the public, and people can pop on at any time, look at what is happening and see the direction of travel and whether we are turning the curve against some of the key ones. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the Committees will have a key role in looking at the targets against the particular priorities led by a Department. However, it is important to say that we do not want this to fracture into silos. They are Executive priorities and therefore will require an all-Executive approach.”
“It will be a new approach, but we believe that it is required, because, frankly, if we keep doing what we have always done, we will keep getting the results that we have always got. We want to genuinely make a real difference to delivery.”
“We play a key role, because, as outlined during the consultation process, we made clear that the draft Programme for Government priorities were not the totality of what government would do. In each Department and, indeed, with cross-departmental work, a huge range of additional activities will take place. What is in the nine priorities in the draft Programme for Government represents a smaller number of key things that will be driven by the Executive in collaboration with the Ministers. Indeed, we are creating an internal delivery unit approach, which is an approach that has been proven to work elsewhere. The unit will give particular and focused attention to change and to achieving the targets that we hope to achieve under each of those priorities.”
“I indicated in my response to that debate that a significant amount of the work had already commenced. The PSNI, for example, was also looking at what it could do. We have been working with community organisations on the ground. Some of the areas were within our Urban Villages areas under Together: Building a United Community. We are looking to see what more we can do to reach out. We are conscious that many of the young people who were caught up in those events are what we describe as "hard to reach". Those young people are not participants in many of the projects on the ground, but that does not mean that we cannot and should not try our best to ensure that we can engage with them. That probably requires a different approach, but we are very much looking at that to try to take it on and change the outcomes for the better in those areas.”
“The Member was present last week — I think it was last week — when I responded to the debate on that very important issue. I outlined a number of strands of work that were taking place, led not just by the Executive Office but by a number of Departments and agencies. After the debate, we had a discussion in the Department about pulling many of those strands together into a comprehensive review with the aim of identifying the very things that were talked about in the debate. We hope to give an update on that in due course, but the work has commenced.”
“There are particular issues on that, and it is right that we have that dedicated strategy, but tackling domestic violence is an issue that goes right across.”
“Absolutely. There are a number of elements, not least from the Minister of Justice's perspective, when it comes to speeding up justice, and the Education Minister's perspective on the really important preventative work that can happen in schools and the youth club sector. Of course, every Minister has a role to play. That is why I was particularly pleased that our strategy and the associated action plan were endorsed by the entire Executive and that it is an Executive programme. Of course, the Executive agreed to ring-fence that initial £3 million. I was also particularly pleased that our launch of that strategy coincided with the Department of Justice and the Department of Health's joint domestic and sexual abuse strategy. We know that domestic violence is not just a female issue.”
“I was pleased that we were able to produce not just our strategy on ending violence against women and girls but the associated action plan. We have £3 million over the course of the remainder of this year and next year from the challenge fund and the change fund. That is not the totality of our aspirations, and it will not solve all issues, but we believe that it is a valuable start to working together to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls.”
“I thank the Member for her important question, particularly on this day. Today marks White Ribbon Day, known as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the start of a period known as 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence. <BR /> <BR />From the outset, the First Minister and I made tackling violence against women and girls a key priority. The rates of violence against and murders of women and girls in Northern Ireland are far too high. We recognise that it will require us to work collaboratively with agencies, the PSNI, schools, families and communities. The best way to do so will be through prevention. That will not be a short-term issue. It will not be done tomorrow or next week, as, I know, the Member is well aware.”
“We wanted to emphasise to the Health Minister that he is not alone in that fight and that we will work hard with him and do everything that we can. That remains my commitment.”