Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

In my approach to the Humble Address, I hope it is in order, by way of introduction, to comment on the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper. It has been a very wide-ranging debate, so I assume that that is appropriate.

I acknowledge those within my party who have worked hard to improve the unacceptable situation that we found ourselves in. I welcome provisions including, among other things, the monitoring committee, the East-West Council, the new provisions on rest-of-world products, and the UK Government’s commitment to stand by Northern Ireland in the absence of a resolution on veterinary medicines. The DUP has unfortunately had to take steps, for which it is often criticised, to address the far-reaching implications of the protocol. We have often been blamed for many of the problems that have flowed from that unforgivable move on the part of our Government back when the iniquitous protocol was implemented. I welcome the improvements but, as has been said, there remains much work to be done. I, along with colleagues on the DUP Bench, am all too aware of the work that lies ahead.

I, too, take this opportunity to raise issues of which the Secretary of State will be very aware, including horse movements from GB to Northern Ireland and vice-versa, rare breeds and plants, and so on. All those issues have been raised with me in my role as agriculture spokesperson. I look forward to the engagement that has been promised and to getting results on those issues.

Part of the answer lies in the text of the Humble Address, which tells us that the economic provisions provided by article 6 of the Acts of Union are of “foundational importance”. That is absolutely correct. In the 21st century, being part of the same country means being part of the same internal market, which means that goods can flow freely within it without encountering border control posts, demanding customs, and SPS paperwork and checks that increase costs and can make the difference between whether a domestic economic venture is viable or has to fall by the wayside. Having the right to border-free access within the internal market of the country of which we are a part is certainly, from the vantage point of today, a basic right of economic citizenship.

The really odd thing about today is that although we are gathered here to affirm that article 6 and the rights that it confers are not only important but are, in the words of the Humble Address, of “foundational importance”, on 8 February 2023, paragraph 68 of the Supreme Court judgment ruled that they are in part suspended. We cannot withdraw, even temporarily, anything that is foundational without inviting the structure that it supports to topple, or ensuring that it does so. Part of the partial suspension of the economics provisions under article 6 results in Northern Ireland being cut off from the rest of the UK through a customs border that has to be crossed, whether it is approached through the red lane or the internal market system.

The alternative border experience for customs that constitutes the UK internal market system is actually defined by the Commission delegated regulation EU 2023/1128, which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) referred to earlier. The formal EU description of that regulation is:

“amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 to provide for simplified customs formalities for trusted traders and for sending parcels into Northern Ireland from another part of the United Kingdom”.

The provisions thus simplify customs formalities, but do not remove them. Rather than removing those movements from the remit of the EU customs code, they have the effect of amending how the EU customs code deals with them.

It is quite extraordinary that the UK Government agree that movements of goods within the United Kingdom should be subject to a border imposed by 27 other states that regulate movements from one part of our country to another through their customs code, regardless of how demanding or undemanding that code is.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. Many goods ordered online and delivered from a GB company make their way into Northern Ireland after being shipped into Dublin at night, so the members of the public who order them have to pay customs to the Republic of Ireland for goods that are to be used within the United Kingdom. That is another area that has not yet been addressed and needs serious consideration.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that valid point. The Minister will, in his new role, be extremely busy in dealing with the many remaining issues.

Some might say, “Well, if the EU sought to change the customs code to increase the demands on trusted traders, we could refuse to accept the change.” That goes to the heart of the matter. If we were prepared to refuse such a change from the EU under those circumstances, why would we accept them under the current circumstances, through arrangements that involve the partial disenfranchisement of 1.9 million UK citizens who can no longer stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject and, under the brake, must instead make do with the right to stand for election to try to stop laws already made for us by a foreign Parliament?

The truth, as was pointed out in the other place, is that the Windsor framework is an invalid treaty. There are rules about what makes a treaty valid or invalid, and one of the most basic is respect for the territorial integrity of states, which involves states renouncing claims to make the laws of other states. The Windsor framework involves 27 states refusing to recognise the territorial integrity of the UK, seeking to divide our country in two, and then claiming the right to make some of the laws for part of our country. In that context, the UK Government should declare the treaty void, and, acting on the determination set out in this Humble Address, declare that article 6 is of foundational importance, and look for the earliest opportunity for Parliament to un-suspend—and thus fully restore— article 6, so that the people of Northern Ireland are not alienated, however temporarily, from any aspect of this provision, which is, as the Humble Address rightly acknowledges, of “foundational importance”.

Many in Northern Ireland have welcomed the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its ability to deal with health, education and infrastructure. I, for one, will raise many of those issues with our colleagues in the Assembly. I trust that we will see much change in those issues, which have a daily impact. However, we must not paper over the cracks. There remains much work to do. This has been a sensible debate that has allowed many issues to be raised constructively. I look forward to engaging with the Minister on many of these matters.

United Kingdom Internal Market

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow the many hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken with great wisdom, knowledge and personal experience on these matters.

It is informative to apply to article 6 of the Acts of Union the four tests for impact that were developed by Justice Colton—specifically, Northern Ireland’s compliance with certain EU standards; the bureaucracy and associated costs of complying with customs documentation and checks; the payment of tariffs for goods at risk; and the unfettered access enjoyed by Northern Ireland businesses to the EU single market. I question the representation of the Supreme Court judgment as set out in paragraph 14 of annex A to the Command Paper, but those were matters for the last debate, and there is not time to make my point.

The Windsor framework removed many EU standards for GB-produced consumer goods destined for Northern Ireland. That does not change under the SI before us. The second test—on bureaucracy and compliance costs associated with customs—should concern us, as the protocol saw the diversion of £1.2 billion-worth of goods in supply chains from GB to the Republic. Indeed, logistics businesses testified to the Lords Windsor Framework Sub-Committee on the complexity of managing mixed loads, with two large haulage firms stating that groupage had been “forgotten” in the framework.

Expert analysis has also suggested that 75% of output in non-exempted manufacturing sectors, including electronics, engineering and chemicals, comes from firms with turnover above £2 million, which will see their GB supply chains stuck in the red lane or diverted abroad. The Command Paper published yesterday contains a pledge—a UK internal market guarantee—that no more than 20% of goods will flow through the red lane. In practice, that creates a monitoring panel to report on any failures to hit the target and make recommendations to which the Government must respond. That is admirable but does not represent a material change to existing customs requirements under the protocol. It is also worth noting that, worryingly, that could be achieved simply by diverting supply chains away from GB towards the EU, as affected GB businesses cut Northern Ireland out of their distribution chains.

The regulations before us create important easements for Northern Ireland to GB trade, including a guarantee that future divergence will not impact the ability of Northern Ireland traders to freely access GB markets. That is welcome, but the bulk of distribution has always pertained to GB-to-NI trade, not the reverse. As is also noted in the Command Paper, although technology may ease compliance costs in the medium to long-term, those costs will still exist. Shipping from London to Belfast will continue to require significantly more bureaucracy than shipping to York or Edinburgh. The third test, on tariffs, is not covered and does not apply.

Finally, let me turn to Northern Ireland’s preferential access to the EU single market. I must emphasise that the clear trade-off that we have chosen to give Northern Ireland unregulated access to EU supply chains comes at the cost of complicating access to GB ones, despite the fact that Northern Ireland imports from GB are two and a half times those from the EU and six times those from Ireland. Whatever easements we offer, that has created a customs, judicial and legislative border across the kingdom, and it is hurting our businesses. The fact that Northern Ireland continues to have preferential access to the EU single market is unarguable, but it should not be misunderstood. Again, I find that final test informative.

Nothing I say today is intended to diminish the achievement of the deal when it comes to material gain for Northern Ireland. Although I welcome the elements within the new deal, which undoubtedly offer increased safeguards for the Union, it does not change the fact of EU law’s application to Northern Ireland, additional bureaucracy for GB businesses attempting to access Northern Ireland, the existence of tariffs, or Northern Ireland’s de facto placement within the EU single market. Once again, the qualities and effectiveness of this deal will emerge over the months and years ahead, I am sure, and through the scrutiny that must come from this place. I will continue to offer my support in those months and years ahead.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I believe the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech. I call Gavin Robinson.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be very happy to let my colleague in if she wishes to respond to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar).

[Carla Lockhart]

I think it needs to be reiterated that if the people of England, Wales or Scotland woke up tomorrow morning and found that they would have to stand for election to try to stop laws in 300 areas being imposed on them by a foreign Parliament, it would be outrageous and seen as outrageous by this House. That point should not be lost on this gathering.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am glad that I allowed my hon. Friend to make that intervention even though the hon. Member for Aberconwy had brought his contribution to a conclusion, because that is an important point.

In the context of the UK Parliament, I am proud to stand in support of the SI before us, and to recognise the efforts over the past number of years to deal with what was imposed on us and the people of Northern Ireland by colleagues in this Chamber and by a Government, arising from the arrangements reached in the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. A series of measures were taken designed to encourage those who did not overly concern themselves with the position in which they had left Northern Ireland, to redress the harm done.

Today is, in many ways, a culmination of part of that process, but not an end to it. For the past number of years, my colleagues and I have stood firm in this regard. We have taken a principled position about the imposition of the Northern Ireland protocol and the harm it has caused our country and our place within our country, and have worked determinedly for solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I will adhere, as I always do, to your timescale, Madam Deputy Speaker; I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has a lot to say as well.

The combined years of negotiation have to be recognised. There has been movement, and even the harshest critics must be fair and admit to the huge steps that have been taken. It is right and proper that I thank those in the DUP, notably my leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and deputy leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), sitting on the right and left of me here in this Chamber. I also thank the others who have contributed, such as the Secretary of State and others with influence: the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has been a great advocate for Unionism in Northern Ireland, and we thank him for that. So I am grateful to all who have done the bulk of the work by tirelessly advocating for change. They have secured a deal, and I am thankful for that.

However, I must be clear: this is not the fulfilment of a wish list. It does not go as far as I would wish and I would like to see more, but how can I change that? I change that from in this House; I change it in this Westminster House of Commons. That is how we do it—as a democrat, that is how I believe we must do it. That is a point worth making.

I am an active constituency MP, as we all are—I am not saying that no other Members are—and I have travelled the length and breadth of my constituency discussing this matter. I met with Orange brethren and sisters in January this year, and did the same last year. I met with teachers, NHS workers, individuals and community groups. I took time on the doorsteps to explain to my people why we had to take the necessary step of bringing down Stormont, to try to provide the justification for staying out of Stormont at times when money was being withheld and every threat other than physical was being lodged at us. I took the time to attempt to tell people that it was not a matter of us being thran, to use an Ulster Scotsism, but it was a matter of us taking seriously the economic and constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the Union.

That is what my colleagues have done for two years, and I have stood firm on this and on the seven tests that the DUP outlined. Now today we see the legislation that I and others called for—constitutional legislation to secure our place within the internal market—and I retain some level of concern and press the Government for more assurances. Ministers would expect me to do that.

It was highlighted yesterday that the European laws may be overruled by Government, but the wording suggests that they may also be accepted, allowing Northern Ireland to diverge. All the people I represent seek an assurance from our Government that this deal and the legislation before this House will do exactly what it says on the tin and secure our place in the internal market—in fact restore and then secure our place.

I say gently to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench and across the Chamber that there is a lack of trust, which boils down to the treatment of Unionists by ruling Governments in this House for decades. The Secretary of State kindly took that on board when I raised it in an intervention. I look forward to that trust being built upon in a way that enables us to secure the trust of the people I am privileged to represent in this House.

The Irish Government have no issues with supporting calls for reunification, yet our Government Ministers have been afraid to appear unbiased. Government need to be unbiased. The opinion of this House on our sovereignty should be clear. My party leader sought not simply to secure legislation and change for this to take place now, but to future-proof it. In other words, we are not just dealing with it for today: we are dealing with it for the future of my children and grandchildren and those I probably will not be here for. Many of the people I represent have stated their lack of trust in a Government who told us they had given us the best they could and then did not deliver.

[Carla Lockhart]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about trust. The way the people of Northern Ireland have been treated over the past number of years by this Government is terrible. We need only look at the abortion laws that were forced on the people of Northern Ireland and the relationship and sexuality education change brought into Northern Ireland. So trust is at an all-time low, and there are people in my constituency who look at this not through rose-tinted glasses but with the view that we need to go much further and do more.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend clearly illustrates the distrust. To be fair, the Minister of State and Secretary of State have recognised that and know the job they have to do. It is clear why some of my electorate question not the dealings of the DUP, but rather those of the Government, wondering whether this deal is deliverable and will stand the test of time. Under the methodology before us, the Government must take a step, and only when they take that step can we then make an assessment of whether the deal is deliverable and will stand the test of time. That is what the issue boils down to, and it is why I express concerns. There is a huge lack of trust, and that has spilled over to many being unable to accept the spirit of the deal, and in all honesty—I say this respectfully—I fully understand the distrust.

Just to give the House one quick example, on Tuesday morning I had the opportunity to look over the deal. A gentleman has been in touch not just with me, but with my hon. Friends on these Benches. He said, “Jim, I’m going to test this out to see if the paperwork is less.” That was Tuesday morning. He came back to me Tuesday night, and he sent me a text today, which I think others may have had, to say that for the 251 products that had each needed 300 pages of paperwork, the paperwork was away. He also told me that the pet foods that he could not get, he will be able to get in three weeks’ time. That has to be progress. Why did that happen? It happened because of some of the things that have been done here.

I took the opportunity to speak to businesses and to the farmers. Farmers and their union have told me that as far as they are concerned, they see progress on machinery, tractors and vehicles. In an intervention on the Minister earlier, I mentioned the importance of having a veterinary committee. I make a plug for my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) to be a member of that, because his influence in that area will be critical. He has done the spadework, and he seems to me to be the right man to be in there to fight for us.

My electorate want their representatives back to Stormont, but not at any price. Rather than the spirit of Chamberlain’s peace at any price, which emboldened our enemy, they hold to the mantra of Churchill that we will fight them on the beaches, and how true that is. We have sought to secure the internal market, but reading the SI makes it clear that a lot of interpretation is in the hands of the sitting Government. My constituents are desperate to get the billions that have been wilfully withheld. I said that with great respect to the Secretary of State last week. Those awaiting treatment on the NHS list deserve funding to reduce their time in pain. The bus drivers standing a few yards down from my constituency office in the freezing cold deserve a pay raise. The children with special needs deserve the security of knowing that their day centre will remain open and not close due to insufficient funding.

All those people deserve those things, whether or not this deal is struck, but we also deserve the truth of who we are in the light of the legislation. Are we a casual member—[Interruption.] I will finish soon, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am rushing quickly to meet your timing. Are we a casual member of the UK, with the EU to have a continuing say on laws and the recognition of status, or do we have full UK membership, with the benefits and security of every other part of the UK? The deal has been hard fought for and seeks to address that, but the real power to assure us lies in this House, with the Ministers and the Government. At home, people are urging us to keep our word, and I agree we must, but we can do so only if the Government in this place also keep their word. Northern Ireland deserves our place in the UK, and my party leadership has fought hard for it. The question is simple, and so is the answer I seek: are we British in law, in economics and in parity, or are we not? Speak the word today and ensure that my Government and Ministers here keep it tomorrow.

Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

With the leave of the house, I will answer a few of the points that have been raised. We have heard a wide and varied range of contributions on all aspects of the regulations from Members across the House. In my closing remarks, I wish to take the opportunity to address those points.

First, I thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for the way that he has approached everything we have done. He asked a few questions, which I shall try to answer. He talked about these measures and how we will be protecting the European single market with this package. What these measures also do, which is unbelievably important, is protect our internal market at the same time. [Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows that, but I just wanted to emphasise the point, because it is important. He asked for an example—I think that it is in proposed new section 13C introduced through the regulations—of where there would be a significant adverse effect. I can refer him best to the example I gave of the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, where there is an obvious advantage to Northern Ireland to be different, which we took on board. He very kindly showed some ankle on Labour’s position on our future relationship with the EU. Can I beg him to continue to do that? While we all enjoy a good political debate—I will not go too far into this point, because we are in a consensual place—we would very much like to explore exactly what Labour’s position is on European Union free movement and a whole host of other things.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The right hon. Member makes reference to the fact that, within the legislation, there is now a safeguard around significant disadvantage towards Northern Ireland and significant adverse effect. Does he not agree, though, that the significant adverse effect is very subjective? It has no concrete definition and section 13B allows the Minister to go ahead anyway, even if it does cause a significant adverse effect.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Before I answer it, may I say that I owe her an apology, because I completely misheard her question yesterday? I was having trouble hearing her—I think it might be my age, but hopefully it was the microphone—so I wanted to apologise for not answering her question properly. I disagree with her and I think a written ministerial statement allows this place to scrutinise what the Minister is doing and to allow more transparency.

I also wish to make a point—I hope that I will not punch a bruise here—about the intervention of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on the right hon. Member for Leeds Central. The hon. Member for North Antrim said that tariffs between GB and Northern Ireland would be acceptable if they were the will of the Parliament. I disagree. I think a £3 tariff on Bushmills would not be that great. None the less, all of the arrangements in the framework are given full effect by the will of this Parliament, and so, by his definition, it must be completely acceptable. I thank him for his support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Windsor Framework (Constitutional Status of Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.

Northern Ireland Executive Formation

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; I know that he has talked to my Minister of State on these matters. Actually, our Standing Orders state the debating time for these things. The House is an interesting being, and I would not want to get in the way of its Standing Orders.

Secondly, as I tried to underline in a previous answer, a timetable has been agreed with the Democratic Unionist party, which the Government are committed to, and if we fulfil it, that will lead to the restoration of Stormont. The House is full of agile and able Members of Parliament who are amazingly good at scrutiny, and I know that they can do that very, very well in the time provided.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I thank my party leader and deputy leader for the many gains in the Command Paper. However, our leader said that there remains work to do. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm whether Northern Ireland still remains under the EU’s single market laws for the production of food and agrifood? Does the EU customs code still apply in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that such a situation is not compatible with UK sovereignty and Northern Ireland’s place as a full part of the United Kingdom? In accepting that, would he say that more work needs done on this? Will he further outline what assurances he has had from the EU that the rules governing the new internal market system are acceptable to it?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. May I recommend that she re-reads the Windsor framework and indeed the Command Paper?

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I add my comments about the outgoing shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), and congratulate the incoming shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I wish him all the best; he would be most welcome in the Upper Bann constituency—the premier constituency in Northern Ireland—in the coming weeks and months.

The stark reality of the debate tonight is that the budget given to Northern Ireland Departments is not enough for the effective delivery of services in Northern Ireland. Some £297 million is scheduled to be taken from our allocation this year and next. That is a huge chunk of the cake being taken away, from a cake that is already too small to satisfy the appetite or demands of our public services. I am being continually contacted, as I know are colleagues on these Benches, by constituents who are feeling the full effects of this harsh budget and the realities of our underfunded services: of health service waiting lists, crumbling school estates and scrapped road plans. While the physical infrastructure needs of our services are vast, so too is the even greater need of an even greater asset: our public sector workers. They ask for equality in pay, yet this Government refuse to give it. Some £575 million for public sector pay awards is needed, yet the cake is being cut and not made bigger to award people what they deserve.

The line that the Government cannot step in to deal with this matter does not wash with me or the public in Northern Ireland. If the Government want to do something, we see that they go and do it; we only have to look at the track record around the implementation of abortion in Northern Ireland against the will of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, or the relationships and sex education guidelines that have been foisted on the people of Northern Ireland without any consultation. Frankly, they are out of step with the values that the vast majority of parents want to instil in their children. The Government should not come at us with this line that “the Government cannot act”, when they can on other issues where there is very clear opposition in Northern Ireland.

When and if the Government want to do something, they do it, yet we see a lack of enthusiasm to deal with the issues that are keeping the doors of Stormont locked. We hear much from the Government that, if Stormont was back up and running, we could deal with the issues, yet they peddle false hope to those awaiting healthcare interventions and raise expectations among our public sector workforce about their deserved pay rises when there simply is not enough money to deliver such increases.

Our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), has said time and again that this party deals in realities. Those are the political and constitutional reality created by the protocol and Windsor framework, the economic reality created by the same, and the public reality that Unionist people have withdrawn their consent for the devolved institutions until their concerns are dealt with and our place within our Union is restored. Sadly, there are those who seek to lay blame for all ills at my party’s feet, yet it is they who are exacerbating the situation by refusing to address the genuine concerns of the Unionist community and, indeed, the continued difficulties faced by many businesses as a result of the Windsor framework and the protocol.

We want a solution that brings a firm foundation for the restoration of Stormont. We want a solution that brings firm political and financial foundations, which will be the key to the impact that any new Executive will have. Underfunding cannot continue. We need transformational moneys and moneys based on the needs of our changing society. Next year—I will reiterate the figures that we have already heard—public spending in Northern Ireland will increase by 3.6%, but in England it will increase by 6%. How is that fair on my constituents in Upper Bann?

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a significant contribution on the budget needs and the transformation of the Barnett formula to a needs-based formula. It is time for the Government to act. The people of Northern Ireland—people of this United Kingdom—deserve it. We in Northern Ireland deserve as much as those in England are getting. I implore the Government to do what is right and get a political and financial solution that will allow Stormont to be restored and got up and running, with decisions made in Stormont.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

I stress again to the Government that, even at the eleventh hour, they should please rethink this Bill. There is a different way of doing it. We have not had a chance to consider properly the Stormont House agreement. The Northern Ireland Office did a consultation on it many years ago, and there was a basis for taking it forward, but the Government did a handbrake turn back in 2021 and looked at doing things entirely differently. I ask please that that process be given a chance. It holds the confidence not just of the political parties, but of the vast majority of the victims in Northern Ireland.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I rise to oppose this legislation in the strongest possible terms and to speak on behalf of the many innocent victims of terror in Northern Ireland, for whom this Bill has caused great distress and anguish. As I was leaving Northern Ireland this morning, the real-life story—it has already been mentioned in this place—of Louie Johnston was booming out on the radio. Louie was the son of a police officer murdered in my constituency. Louie was seven years old when his daddy was killed by IRA criminals because he wore the uniform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I encourage all Members to google Louie’s news article today and see the picture of him walking behind his dad’s coffin, a broken child. It was one of the most powerful pictures of the troubles. His dad, David Johnston, along with his RUC colleague, John Graham, were shot dead while on foot patrol in Lurgan. When he was told of his father’s death, he said, “Why would anyone want to kill my daddy?” He asked today for us to show some empathy, and he asked whether we believe it is morally right to take away his avenue to justice. It is on those comments that I make my remarks today.

It speaks volumes that not one victims’ group endorses this legislation. It is a sad reflection that this Government today choose to ignore Louie’s call and the calls of the many who represent innocent victims. This House, I trust, will forgive me for labouring the point about the hurt and the lasting legacy of the troubles on their lives. They have physical and emotional scars that will never heal, and those are made worse when people sound out or imply that it is time to move on and draw a line in the sand. They feel that is code for, “Forget about the victims, and forget about what happened.”

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend also think that we are talking not just about the legacy of the past and the hurt that that has caused, but about the impression left on young people today when they see that the state will grant immunity to people who have carried out some of the most horrible crimes, deeming that to be okay? In other words, someone can commit a crime, and if the political circumstances or whatever are right, there can be no consequences. Does that not eat at the very moral core of society?

[Carla Lockhart]

My right hon. Friend makes such a valid point on the impact the Bill will have on young people and their outlook on these issues. It is unacceptable and does not sit well in our society. Victims in Northern Ireland have already suffered and have to endure the fact that, because of the Belfast agreement, they can meet the perpetrators of some of these acts walking down the street or in the supermarket. They live with the continual flaunting and glorification of terrorism by someone who claims to be the First Minister for all and who has said there was no alternative. Indeed, the Member for Belfast North (John Finucane)—a Member of this House—recently showed his true colours in that regard as well. In the face of all the sickening actions, the taunting and the re-traumatising, I applaud the fortitude, dedication and determination of innocent victims to fight for such basic concepts as truth and justice. Sadly, those concepts are lost in the Bill.

The other place has sought to make this imperfect Bill less imperfect. I welcome some of the amendments. It is of deep regret that the Government propose to disagree with Lords amendment 44 in relation to immunity. The amendment would have removed from the Bill provisions allowing immunity from trouble-related crimes, which the Democratic Unionist party, and I believe the majority of people in Northern Ireland, support. In my discussions about the Bill with victims’ groups in recent months, I have heard how immunity is what causes the most grievous hurt. Why? It is because it closes the door, erodes victims’ access to redress and draws a moral—or should I say immoral—equivalence between blood-thirsty terrorists and public servants. Quite frankly, it weakens our entire criminal justice system throughout the world. I find it most remarkable that the Government should endorse such a move. The decision is repugnant not just for its perversion of justice, which we in the UK claim to value, but for the trauma and hurt that it inflicts on innocent victims.

I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 20. Every family deserves the ultimate hope of a full and fair investigation into the circumstances of a loved one’s death. Such an investigation should be subject to the highest standards. The amendment would have established minimum criminal justice standards for a review along the lines of Operation Kenova following expressed fears of watered-down investigations. The commissioner should be under a duty to ensure that an article 2-compliant investigation either has been carried out or will be carried out. Is that too much to ask? It is difficult to come to any conclusions other than that the commissioner for investigations will be able only to comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 to the extent dictated by the authority and resources granted to that office holder under the Act. The restriction of criminal enforcement actions is such that even if the independent commission for reconciliation and information recovery refers all conduct to the Public Prosecution Service, much of that material will be admissible. Compliance with fundamental rights needs to be a cross-cutting safeguard in how troubles cases are dealt with. Irrespective of whether an investigation is at least partially the granting of immunity to perpetrators, its value is diminished.

The Government, by erasing the other place’s amendment to the Bill, simply fail to acknowledge the rights of victims in terms of the standards of an investigation. However, that is only one part of the jigsaw. For victims, it is equally important to have their day in court and the prospect of conviction and custodial sentences to grant some form of closure as it is to have a proper investigation. The Bill fails in those respects.

The Government’s objection to Lords amendment 20 will remove the requirement for a Kenova-standard investigation from the Bill. The Government, through their amendment, seem to want to provide an assurance, irrespective of whether a commissioner decides a criminal investigation is to take place as part of a review, that all the circumstances of a death, including potential offences, will be looked into. I am sorry, but there would appear to be a huge gulf between carrying out a historical investigation that gathers and explores as much information as possible in relation to a death or harmful conduct and the Government’s suggestion simply to look into that.

We oppose the Bill because we believe in justice and in holding fast to hope for those who paid the biggest price for our troubled past. The Bill will lead not to reconciliation but to greater distress, distrust and disillusionment among victims that they matter to this Government. We stand with those victims.

[Jim Shannon]

I am pleased to speak in this debate and to put forward the desires of the people of Strangford in this place, and also my own family. [Interruption.] Sometimes when you are at the end your emotions get you, and they have got me today. Fifty years ago, my cousin was murdered. He was the light of our family, a good man with a good heart who loved his family and his community. My aunt was robbed of the opportunity to see him have the joy of his own children and grandchildren, and I was robbed of my childhood hero and friend. [Interruption.] The perpetrators were never brought to justice—all three of them.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is deeply regrettable that we find ourselves in this situation once again. Sometimes, the Democratic Unionist party gets accused of not wanting to be in the Stormont and the Executive. To be clear to all Members across the House, we are a party of devolution and we want devolution restored in Northern Ireland. We want to take the decisions in the Stormont because budget decisions are best taken there. We know that, while our electorate want us to be back in the Stormont taking those decisions, they also clearly want us to ensure that cross-community consent is restored in that Assembly. That was the message on the doorsteps during the local government election. Although some will want to ignore that view, we will not.

Time is a precious commodity. Wasting time is not something I would indulge in—anyone who knows me will know that. There has been a criminal waste of time resolving issues with the protocol and the Windsor framework. Those issues could be quickly and easily resolved by the Government. Drift is not acceptable anymore. There was no drift when abortion laws were forced on the people of Northern Ireland. There was no drift just a few weeks ago when legislation on relationships and sexual education was forced on the people of Northern Ireland. There was no drift when Sinn Féin demands on Irish language legislation were introduced. When there is will from the Government to do something, they do it very quickly.

On a daily basis, economic harm is being caused to the people of Northern Ireland, with the continued placing of a border in the Irish sea resulting in Northern Ireland’s place in the UK being continually undermined. Businesses and industries are being impacted and competitiveness is being undermined, yet there is continued drift on the part of the Government. There is no urgency. Often, there is not even a recognition of the problems caused to businesses by the Windsor framework and the protocol. We hear much from colleagues about the idea that the Windsor framework has resolved all the issues.

I challenge all Members to speak not to the trade bodies, but to the businesses that are being impacted. Speak to the manufacturing industry, speak to the agriculture industry and speak to the horticulturalists in Northern Ireland who are still experiencing massive problems with the implementation of the protocol and, subsequently, the Windsor framework. What I want to see, on the back of this budget debate, is a change in attitude to addressing the most fundamental issues that are impacting Northern Ireland and keeping our Executive down.

Turning to the Bill, my first point is more general and has been made today several times. We welcome the Government’s commitment to look at this issue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has been to the fore and most effective in pressing for a review of the Barnett formula. I believe that debate is gaining traction—it is becoming abundantly clear at our weekly Northern Ireland Affairs Committee meetings. I welcome the Secretary of State’s intervention today, but in truth we are again placing a sticking plaster over the financial needs of Northern Ireland, unlike our Welsh counterparts who enjoy a needs-based financial allocation. We can see clearly that this budget is about short-term financial decisions and is not based on the needs of the people of Northern Ireland, including the needs of the people in my constituency of Upper Bann. We want a restored Executive.

[Robin Millar]

The hon. Lady used the phrase “enjoying a needs-based allocation”. I would contest that. My concern is the risk that we end up in a spiral, with a kind of Top Trumps of deprivation. Who is the most deprived? They get the biggest sum. Does she not agree that there is a risk to attaching a purely needs-based assessment to allocations?

[Carla Lockhart]

The reality is that the Barnett formula across the United Kingdom, in all the different nations, is needs-based. It is important that we do not just give Northern Ireland an amount of money, but drill down to the actual needs. On whether that means tinkering around with what has worked and what has not worked in Wales, we are more than willing to enter into those conversations, and use the Welsh model as a baseline and improve on it. Hopefully, if we can make improvements in Northern Ireland, they can be transported to Wales as well.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a financial allocation made on a purely needs basis would provide the resources to start addressing some of those needs? For example, if there were a high number of people claiming unemployment benefit because they had mental health problems, money could go into the health service to deal with those problems and get them into work, or for people unemployed because they did not have skills, the money could be used on technical education to give them the skills so that they could get back into work. The vicious circle that has been spoken about could be addressed by having the resources to deal with that.

[Carla Lockhart]

Absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.

We want a restored Executive not only to have firm cross-community consensus, but to be able to transform and deliver services effectively. For that, we need financial equipping based on need. As my right hon. Friend has indicated, those needs are really to the fore. If I think of my constituency, I think of the educational underachievement and the health needs. Those are the things we need to drill down into and fund adequately; if we do not, Northern Ireland will continue to be short-changed.

The Northern Ireland Office has recently been seeking to provoke discussions around revenue-raising measures. There is no question but that we are up for those discussions, but we cannot escape the fact that the Treasury’s contribution to funding public services in Northern Ireland is going down rather than rising. Spending up to 2025, for example, will increase by 6% in England but only 3.6% in Northern Ireland.

I have a specific concern about the impact that the policing budget will have on communities. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) made a very helpful intervention on that subject: it was a stark reminder that the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland is severe. In that context, we just cannot continue to ignore the concerns that the chief constable and the Police Federation have raised in relation to the capability of our police force.

Despite the commitments in New Decade, New Approach to grow our officer numbers to 7,500, the stark reality is that we are now on a trajectory towards 6,000, largely because of a failure to prioritise policing in our Province. The truth is that there is a risk of the headcount dropping further, unless the Government urgently deliver the financial firepower that local policing is crying out for. In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the Secretary of State made the point that that is on the Executive, but I would put the ball back into his court: it was an agreement in NDNA. When there was a language issue in NDNA, this Government very quickly helped and intervened, yet on the policing issue they have not gone far enough. The NIO claims to support the excellent work that the PSNI does. It needs to back up that claim and actually financially support it.

Similar challenges exist for health, education and roads. Time does not permit me to list the challenges that I am seeing daily in my busy constituency office, so I will draw my remarks to a close on the time issue. The time for the Government to act on funding for Northern Ireland is now. The time to act to review the Barnett formula is now. The time to take the necessary steps to restore cross-community consensus for devolution is now. It would be wholly unacceptable and utterly reckless if time were allowed to pass and we found ourselves passing another budget Bill in this place, as opposed to in Stormont.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I see our little hero has now moved to front and centre.

I could have made this point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, but I want to carve it out so that it will be noted. I pay tribute to the British Heart Foundation, which has done so much work with the family to make the case. Passing this Bill is one thing, but raising public awareness is another. This change will require some form of public information campaign, and there needs to be an opportunity for family conversations so that people’s personal wishes are known. These circumstances often arise at a moment of trauma or accident, so they are a huge surprise and shock, and rational discussion is often, perfectly legitimately, very hard.

We all support this amendment, but a follow-up public information campaign is needed to ensure maximum understanding so that people take up the opportunity it provides.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the opportunity to speak on these amendments. I will keep my remarks brief and to the point.

I commend the Secretary of State for tabling these amendments. He noted on several occasions that they are exceptional but are the right thing to do. They will allow for the exceptional transformation of our organ donation laws in Northern Ireland. I commend the Speaker’s Office for its efforts to ensure that the passage of the amendments could happen in this form.

We often hear that this Parliament is sovereign. I am taking heart today from the fact that this is law that will help to protect and save lives, which is an encouraging move by this Government and this Parliament that sends out a strong message across the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State and I differed on the abortion laws that were tacked on to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, as those laws were very much not about protecting life. This law is about protecting life, which is wonderful.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I welcome the amendment to address organ donation. This moment would not have happened without the courage of a little boy, who has been mentioned so often in the debate. We really commend Dáithí, his parents Máirtín and Seph, and his little brother for their determination and tenacity in bringing about real change in Northern Ireland. It is wonderful.

We all have ideas and ideology and want to bring about change and make our mark on society, but that little boy of six really has done, and I think that is absolutely amazing. It should inspire us all to go that extra mile to stretch ourselves and do the right thing. I also pay tribute to Fearghal, who I know has played a key role in supporting the family and helping them on this journey. Navigating the legislation and being in the right place at the right time is not easy, and I commend him for it.

As a mum myself, I wish Dáithí all the best for his future medical support and care. When I looked at him yesterday, I could not help but be moved. I thought, “Here is a little boy who is fighting for everyone else, yet he needs us to fight for him.” He has such an amazing mum and dad, who have done so much for him in his short life by pushing this issue. We wish him well as he goes for his surgery in the not-too-distant future. I assure him of our thoughts and prayers for that journey.

I also pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Jo-Anne Dobson, who has already been mentioned. She has been very much at the fore of this debate. She brought the matter to the Assembly a long number of years ago when she was an MLA. She brought it because it was personal to her as well. She, too, must be commended, because she gave the gift of life to her son, Mark, when she donated her kidney to help to save him. I commend Jo-Anne for her efforts; I know that she would be proud of Dáithí today and all that he has achieved.

My colleagues and I want to see devolution. We want devolution that delivers on issues such as health, education and public services—devolution that works. We are frustrated that we find ourselves debating this legislation in the House today. It should not be needed, but sadly it is necessary, because ultimately the Government have not acted or been able to resolve the long-running issue of the Northern Ireland protocol. That issue alone is the bar to the restoration of the devolved institutions.

Over recent days, there has been a great deal of speculation about progress and reaching a new agreement. Let me be clear: the DUP stands ready to restore the Executive, but that can happen only on the basis that the principle of cross-community consent for such a restoration is in place. Members who pour out affection and commitment to the Belfast agreement cannot escape the fact that Unionism consent for power sharing does not currently exist, and that is the test for any deal that may or may not emerge over the coming days.

My colleagues who were elected as MLAs in May stood on that platform and received a mandate for their stance, and we will not betray that trust—there will be no fudge. My party has set out its tests on which any agreement will be judged. The Government know those tests well, and it is this party and the Unionist community from which we hold a mandate that will assess any agreement against those tests. This place is known throughout the world as a beacon of democracy—as a nation, we stand with those whose democracy, even today, is undermined by threats from tyrants or dictators—but we the people of Northern Ireland, because of the Northern Ireland protocol, face the erosion of democracy at the behest of the EU.

It is pertinent to make the point that:

“My visceral objection is to unaccountable power…we ought not to live our lives under unaccountable power. Power has no legitimacy other than that given to it by the people by voting.”

Those are not my words or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), but those of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) when explaining his opposition to the EU. The democratic deficit foisted on Northern Ireland by the protocol comes through a power that is “unaccountable” to the people of Northern Ireland and that has “no legitimacy” in the terms described by the Minister, because not one person in Northern Ireland, to whom the rules would pertain, has voted for them.

I trust that that interview by Church Times reflects the Minister’s principles about an acceptable outcome to the negotiations and that he has not had a road to Damascus conversion from defender of democracy to someone who bows down to unaccountable EU power in the corner of the UK that I am honoured to call home. That point must be addressed, as must the totally unacceptable economic impact of the protocol.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

On the Damascus road experience, a number of people, parties and organisations in Northern Ireland seem to have been enlightened that the protocol, as it was presented, is definitely not working. Those are the same people who wanted it to be fully and rigorously implemented, but they have now had that Damascus road experience and say it needs major rework.

[Carla Lockhart]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

The protocol costs a significant amount annually. Some £350 million a year is spent on the trader support service, which is £18,000 an hour—let us think how that could be utilised to make things better in Northern Ireland. The protocol is damaging a wide range of small family businesses and larger industries in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) eloquently highlighted the issue around organic eggs. Such issues have a daily impact on our business.

Again, there is an issue around seed potatoes that Wilson’s Country in my constituency has been at the fore of fighting, because it cannot bring seed potatoes from Scotland. That would be unacceptable anywhere else in the UK, so the Government should not accept it for the people of Northern Ireland. It beggars belief that the Government have stood by while trade has reorientated from within the UK. It serves no benefit to the UK; that diversion of trade must be addressed fully in any new agreement.

The Government know well what must be done, and they know the prize. The NIO prioritised a whopping £600,000 of taxpayers’ money to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Belfast agreement, yet the longer it takes to reach an agreement on the protocol that respects the fundamentals of the Belfast agreement, the more air is escaping from the party balloons. Although the Bill extends the period in which an Executive must be formed following an election by 52 weeks, my hope is that this new deadline is never met, and that we have our Executive back sooner rather than later. To do so, however, the EU will have to stretch itself. If it does, it will unlock the prize of devolution; if it does not, it will be responsible for the demise of our political process and the Belfast agreement. Time will tell.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a matter of deep regret that this Budget must be brought through this House and not the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. As a devolutionist party, we in the DUP strongly believe that the budgetary process in Northern Ireland ought to be put forward by those elected to make decisions and provide local scrutiny and accountability, yet we are in what can only be described as a very serious situation, which is not helped by the ongoing denial of its gravity by Members of this House. In this debate, we have heard the naive and rather vacuous posturing of some Members across the House who have laid the responsibility for the institutions not being operational at the door of my party and called for the immediate restoration of Stormont.

Let me make one thing clear: we are in this unsatisfactory situation because of the decisions made by this Government. We are in this position because the party of government decided that its unity, as it imploded over Brexit, was more important than the economic and constitutional unity of the United Kingdom, and Ministers openly admit that.

The Government know that this situation is of their making. The leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), in trying his utmost to avoid this situation, gave the Government and the EU ample time and opportunity to find a new way forward that would command the consent of the Unionist community, and in doing so restore the foundations on which power sharing is built. Members know that until that consent is in place, there will be no restoration and no Stormont Budgets. It is time for people to get real about the magnitude of the situation and the urgency for new, comprehensive solutions to be found.

There is another reason that the Bill is before us today. We ought not forget that the Budget process in Northern Ireland started in October 2021, and in the time and space that my party provided for solutions to the protocol, there was ample time for the then Finance Minister, Conor Murphy, to prepare a Budget agreement, yet he failed to set a Budget and we are now reaping the consequences. His approach to setting a Budget was to promise millions when the coffers were empty. When Sinn Féin was peddling fallacies, the black hole in our Budget was getting darker.

Let me home in on the figures and how the Government are approaching allocations, starting with allocations to the Department of Health. The Secretary of State has aggressively pursued the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, as was evidenced by the consultation held by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), during his time as Secretary of State; yet while local health trusts are being compelled to provide these services, no additional money has been provided for them to do so.

Instead, with A&E departments overwhelmed with pressures to the point of complete meltdown, with a lack of care packages available across Northern Ireland to help people return home safely and free up capacity in hospitals, and with children enduring appalling waiting lists for speech and language therapy, for instance, to unlock their participation in this world, we now have the additional pressure of providing abortion services within existing budgets. There is no local mandate, no local scrutiny and no local accountability for that decision. I ask the Minister to advise which service currently provided by our crumbling health service ought to be cut to provide that service. Perhaps in his winding-up remarks, he can outline which service he would cut.

Let me turn to concerns about our education system. For too long, our schoolchildren have been the poor relation in terms of spend per pupil in the UK, and this Budget outlines a continuation of that disparity. I see no justification for funding inequality. Surely the education of a child in Banbridge, Portadown or Lurgan is of equal value to that of a child in Banbury or Portsmouth. We hear a lot from this Government about levelling up; surely it is time for levelling up in our classrooms. Our education system simply cannot take ongoing underinvestment, as has been made abundantly clear to the Government by the Education Authority and various school bodies. That issue has been much discussed today.

Since Stormont has been in abeyance, the Government have legislated to spend what limited resources are available to provide unwanted abortion services and unnecessary cultural and language provision that will cost millions, at a time when our schools are running deeper deficits, our healthcare system is in need of emergency care, and our households are set to face huge hikes in household rates. Of course, an even greater cost is the unnecessary and seemingly bottomless pit of money that is being made available to support the functioning of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Treasury has confirmed that the trader support service, which helps companies deal with the paperwork generated by the protocol, has cost the taxpayer £318 million in just over two years. That is £436,000 per day, or £18,000 per hour.

That £436,000 per day could employ 10 highly experienced nurses for a year. The protocol paperwork costs the salary of 10 highly experienced nurses every day—it is really important that we stress that point. That is 7,300 nurses. How transformative that money could be for schools, hospitals and roads in Northern Ireland, rather than facilitating an unnecessary border that divides Northern Ireland off from the rest of the UK. It is time for this Government to find real solutions to the protocol, so that we once again see decisions such as these taken and scrutinised by locally elected politicians, held accountable by local people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

The Secretary of State is reflecting on that very thing right now. I believe he is meeting the parents, although I cannot confirm when. The point is well made. The Secretary of State will certainly reflect on it. I will no doubt be party to those decisions.

[Carla Lockhart]

I associate myself with the remarks about Dáithí’s law and trying to ensure that that proceeds. The Minister noted that he was on his final point: can he first bring some clarity around the abortion issue that I raised? What services would he advocate being cut for abortion services to be provided in Northern Ireland? Will there be new money made available from the Treasury to facilitate the abortion services that have been forced on the people of Northern Ireland?

[Mr Baker]

As the hon. Member well knows and does not like, we were forced under law to bring forward abortion services because this House legislated. She may recall that I was in the Lobby with her voting no. That was because I did not want to see the devolution settlement trespassed upon. It is my belief that women in Northern Ireland should have access to abortion services. That is because I think that the law as it stands for my constituents in Wycombe and in England is about right, leaving as it does room for conscience in the earlier stages of pregnancy.

What I would say to the hon. Member is that the law required us to move forward. I know she does not like it, but money has been allocated as set out in the Budget, and the memorandum is available. We just have to move on. I am well aware that people will find that challenging, but the Secretary of State has done the right thing in complying with the law.

I will finish by saying that there has been a great deal of unity across the House on the pressing need for the Budget and the pressing need to transform and improve public services for the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Down mentioned managed decline in his remarks. I am clear, as I know he is, that managed decline is not good enough for the people of Northern Ireland. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and as we approach hopefully getting a deal on the protocol and therefore restoring the Executive, it is incumbent on all of us in our different and respective positions to work out how to better serve the people of Northern Ireland and deliver a Budget that not only works for them, but that transforms public services so that Northern Ireland can be a real beacon for the whole UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).