(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in your tribute to Liam Laurence Smyth, and I wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a very happy birthday.
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will establish a reformed, human rights compliant and independent legacy commission that will carry out investigations and provide family reports on behalf of families who have waited far too long for answers.
Lincoln Jopp
I associate myself with your comments, Mr Speaker, about the Table Clerk and I wish him happiness in his next steps. I also wish the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) many happy returns.
Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill took place on 18 November, and the remedial order, which removed the protections from the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, was passed on 21 January, leaving our Northern Ireland veterans, of whom I am one, with no protections under the law. It feels rather like the Government have left our veterans in no man’s land, with no rounds in the magazine and no rounds in the chamber. How is that not a dereliction of duty?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in Northern Ireland. The dates for Committee stage and for the next stage of the remedial order will be announced in the normal way. Just to correct the record, if he is referring to the protections in the conditional immunity scheme that were set out in the previous Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, that scheme was never enacted and has never had effect, so the arrival of the newly elected Government has not changed the position in that respect at all. As he will be well aware, the Government have brought forward in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill protections for veterans that were not contained in the 2023 legacy Act. We are consulting further with veterans and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will bring forward further proposals when Committee stage happens.
Harriet Cross
That answer will be of very little comfort to Northern Ireland veterans across the country, including the veteran from Turriff in my constituency who contacted me about this just last week. They are living in fear of vexatious claims, as I am sure the Secretary of State recognises, so why are the Government delaying bringing this legislation back to the House?
First, there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution, because for that argument to be advanced, as others have done in the House, one is saying that independent prosecutors bring prosecutions for vexation or politically motivated reasons, and that is not the case. When it comes to civil claims, the previous Government, in their legislation, left 800 civil claims against the Ministry of Defence in place, and it is almost unknown for an individual veteran to be called to give evidence in such cases.
One of the lingering legacies of violence in Northern Ireland is our outrageous and distressing levels of violence against women and girls, in the echo of menace and threat that still exists in Northern Ireland. The murders this month of Ellie Flanagan and Amy Doherty bring to 33 the number of women and girls who have been murdered by men they knew. We grieve with their families, and we commend the family of Natalie McNally, who with decency and dignity finally got justice for her murder. Is the Secretary of State confident in all that he is doing on legacy that all possible levers are being used to tackle the disease of misogyny, including through Northern Ireland’s hate crime legislation?
I join my hon. Friend in what she says about the recent conviction for the brutal murder of Natalie McNally, and the deaths of Amy Doherty and Ellie Flanagan. It is a source of enormous sadness and—I would hope—shame that Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where it is most dangerous to be a woman, in relation to violence against women and girls. One thing that we are doing in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is closing the loophole that was contained in the previous Government’s legislation. There will now be a means of investigating any sexual-related offences that occurred during the period of the troubles. If they meet the threshold for investigation by the legacy commission, the commission will investigate, but otherwise, once the Bill is passed, it will fall to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to examine the case.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
What reassurance can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents that the health and wellbeing of veterans will be taken into account if they are required to give evidence to the commission or coroners?
We have already made that clear in the protections that are contained in the Bill, including the right to give evidence remotely, application for anonymity and no cold calling. Veterans have welcomed the fact that we are now planning to put those protections in place.
The Secretary of State says that there is no such thing as vexatious prosecutions. I think that he would do well to remember the cases of Phil Shiner.
In 1991, the SAS shot and killed three members of the IRA’s East Tyrone Brigade in Coagh. The coroner originally found that the soldier’s use of force was reasonable and proportionate, and that the IRA men in question had the intent to murder. A judicial review was brought against these findings, but in October last year it was thrown out by the High Court in Belfast, with the judge saying that the case was “ludicrous” and
“utterly divorced from the reality”.
Depressingly, this morning we hear that that case is to continue 35 years after the incident and after the soldier in question has been investigated for years. How can the Secretary of State think that is right?
Any citizen of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member is well aware, has a right to bring a judicial review against any decision that has been made. It is for the courts to determine that. Having seen what the original judge said in throwing out the case, and given the fact that the inquest found that the use of force in that case was lawful, perhaps it is not surprising that the judge threw it out as having no merit whatsoever. If the case is continuing, we will have to leave it to the judicial process to decide what happens, but I have confidence in our courts.
Does not this case absolutely exemplify why the Government’s solution is entirely wrong? It reopens the door to vexatious litigation, which allows our veterans to be dragged through the courts, even when the courts themselves say that the case is ludicrous. It also exposes the absurdity of the fact that legal aid is paying for these challenges against our veterans—we are all literally paying for lawyers to bring vexatious litigation against our troops. The Government seem rightly to have paused their Bill. Will they please use this opportunity to think again and take a new approach that guarantees genuine protections for those who serve?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be genuine protections. On the question of legal aid in Northern Ireland, that is a matter, as he well knows, for the Northern Ireland Executive. Given the case that he has cited, I was not aware that the previous Government at any point considered removing the right to bring judicial review against any decisions at all. If he is now advancing the argument that judicial review should not be available in certain cases, I would say good luck to him because that is a foundation of our legal system.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I met with numerous stakeholders, including veterans, victims and survivors, all of whom are seeking justice. Yet I fear that both the former legacy Act and the current troubles Bill conceive of justice too narrowly, while the constricting lens of lawyers is preoccupied with criminal sanctions and civil compensation. Stakeholders want answers, not retribution. That is why I have tabled amendments to the troubles Bill to formally provide the option of a restorative justice pathway for the many victims of the troubles who simply want to know what happened. Does the Secretary of State agree that restorative justice has an important role to play in reconciliation, and will he meet me to discuss supporting my amendments?
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, and the House will have an opportunity in due course to consider the amendments that he has put forward. Most of the victims I have met—I am sure the same is true for the victims and families he has met—are looking for answers. Most of them recognise that, with the passage of time, the prospects for prosecutions of anybody are diminishing rapidly, and part of the focus of the commission is to help those families to find answers. When it comes to how families are then reconciled to the terrible loss that they have suffered, in the end it will be for each family to find their own way of doing that.
The Secretary of State and the Labour Government promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would repeal and replace the legacy Act. They have not. They promised through this two-year extended parliamentary Session that they would deliver legislation that attained support across the community. They have not. The Bill is delayed at the moment because of discord among those on the Government’s own Benches. What does he say to the victims in Northern Ireland who want to see progress?
I say very simply that the Government are keen to progress this. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is a very complex piece of legislation, in part because it is having to fix the mess that the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 left this Government to deal with. I make no apology for taking time to ensure that we get the legislation right, because, as he knows, this is the last best hope we have.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has just heard from the chief constable of the PSNI, Jon Boutcher, who indicated that the Secretary of State has put in a claim to the Treasury for additional hundreds of millions of pounds to fund the legacy commission, yet the PSNI has nothing. It has £200 million of civil liability cases with it and no resources to progress. Even if it was asked for information, it could not provide it. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a legacy funding deficit within the PSNI, and will he similarly seek money for that?
The creation of the legacy commission took away from the PSNI some 1,000 cases, which it then fell to the commission to investigate. That cost has been transferred to the legacy commission. Whoever is investigating those cases, and whatever the system is, they will have to be looked into. When they are looked into, disclosure will be required.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
On 10 April we will celebrate the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which nearly 30 years ago brought an end to the troubles and enabled Northern Ireland to establish a power-sharing Government. In the years since, Northern Ireland has been transformed, and I look forward to working with everyone to make further progress.
Mr Foster
We approach the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, which was historic in that it ultimately delivered peace for a generation. With the knowledge that it requires constant political co-operation and public support, its biggest challenge no doubt is the Tory-Reform policy of leaving the European convention on human rights. If the UK left the ECHR, that would undermine a core principle of the agreement. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are some within this Chamber who would wholly compromise the peace in Northern Ireland for short-lived, ill-judged political gain?
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I do not understand why some are advocating removing the ECHR from the Good Friday agreement. It would be highly irresponsible, and it shows a complete lack of understanding about what the agreement involved. You cannot just walk in and pull out one of its pillars for the sake of party ideology.
Jessica Toale
The Good Friday agreement was a landmark achievement of the last Labour Government, and it is a beacon of hope for conflict-affected states around the world. Before coming to this place, I had the privilege of witnessing and experiencing the leadership of Northern Ireland’s young people in this area as they shared their experiences and the lessons from the Good Friday agreement. With that in mind, what is the Secretary of State doing to share the UK’s expertise and ensure that others affected by conflict can benefit from it?
I agree with my hon. Friend. The biggest lesson of the Good Friday agreement is that it takes immense political courage to say yes, rather than to go on saying no. To pick up her point, at the end of last year the Foreign Secretary convened the western Balkans countries under the Berlin process at Hillsborough castle, where the First and Deputy First Ministers talked through how Northern Ireland has made this extraordinary progress. That is one example of how the lessons of that agreement are being heard around the world.
The Good Friday agreement recognised the importance of addressing the suffering of victims of the troubles. Legislating for that remains unfinished business, as does the implementation of a border poll, for which there is significant support in the north. As we approach the anniversary of the agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to take action on both of those?
The provisions relating to a border poll are clearly set out in the Good Friday agreement. There is one criterion that governs such a decision, and at the moment there is no evidence that there is a majority for a constitutional change in Northern Ireland. I commit to the House, as I have done before, that I will uphold in letter and in spirit that bit of the Good Friday agreement.
May I add to the tributes paid to the Table Clerk? Among all the advice he has given in the last 40 years, he gave particularly good advice on the meaningful vote, which left many of us traumatised, but he developed great expertise in that.
As we celebrate the Good Friday agreement, may I urge the Secretary of State to be crystal clear to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland politicians that there will be less money coming from GB, so there needs to be revenue raising and a sole focus on economic growth for the next Session of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that economic growth is the answer to many of the questions that the Executive and the Assembly are facing. Northern Ireland, with its dual market access, along with its innovation and ingenuity, has an extraordinary opportunity. Being in government requires taking difficult decisions with the money one has got. We are giving a record settlement to the Executive; they have to decide how to spend it most effectively.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As the Secretary of State talks up the Belfast agreement, he of course ignores the fact that its primary pledge of no constitutional change without consent has been trashed by the Windsor framework, in that article six of our Acts of Union, no less, has been suspended, and in 300 areas Northern Ireland is subject to foreign jurisdiction. That is constitutional change without consent. More than that, the guarantee of cross-community support was removed to force through the four-year extension to the protocol. Surely the Secretary of State should realise that the Belfast agreement has been hollowed out to promote the nationalist agenda that he seems so ready to embrace.
I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument in relation to the Good Friday agreement. When it comes to the Windsor framework, those who advocated to leave the European Union did not think about the consequences for having two entities and one open border and how we could ensure that goods crossing the border would meet the rules of the respective entity—that is what the Windsor framework seeks to do. The Government are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which has been widely welcomed by all parties across Northern Ireland.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in any marking of the end of violence, a key date is 1994, when the main violence perpetrators, the IRA, finally woke up to the reality that its ranks were riddled with informants and it was running out of options, so it declared a ceasefire, and that was followed by loyalist paramilitaries doing likewise? But civilised society should never applaud or celebrate murderers ceasing to do what they should never have started doing in the first place.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was always an alternative to violence—always. That recognition was finally achieved when the Good Friday agreement was negotiated and signed, and Northern Ireland has seen the benefits since. It shows, as I indicated earlier, that instead of saying no, which happened repeatedly on all sides, when people are finally prepared to compromise in the interests of peace, enormous benefits flow—in this case, to Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Northern Ireland will directly benefit from the spring forecast, with almost £390 million in additional funding to the Executive over the next three years, including £231 million in 2026-27. That is money that the Executive can use to deliver on its priorities, which include transforming public services and promoting economic growth.
Douglas McAllister
The £379 million in Barnett consequentials announced by our Chancellor earlier this month is on top of the £370 million of extra funding announced in the Budget, and that is all in addition to the £19 billion funding settlement announced at the spending review. Does the Secretary of State agree that, with that record level of investment, it is now for the Executive to produce a balanced, multi-year budget that will deliver for the people of Northern Ireland?
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have taken a decision to enable the Executive, if they wish to do so, to agree a multi-year budget. Discussions are taking place, we have had the open book exercise and I hope that the Northern Ireland Executive, given those considerable additional resources, will be able to find a way forward.
As a result of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy, the spring statement forecast that economic growth and wage growth would go down and that we would have increased inflation, all of which will hit Northern Ireland more severely than other parts of the United Kingdom. Yet the Government refuse to do anything about the massive costs of the Windsor framework and have imposed, from 1 July, carbon taxes on sea transport from GB to Northern Ireland, which will hit our economy even harder. Why are the Government ignoring the real issues that face the Northern Ireland economy, through both their actions and their inactivity?
I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what the Government are doing. We have brought economic stability to the country after the disaster of the previous Government, we have given record support to the Northern Ireland Executive and we are working through our negotiations with the EU to reduce the impact of the Windsor framework. The SPS agreement, which as I said is widely welcomed across Northern Ireland, is a really good example of that.
Though the funding in the spring statement is welcome, the Secretary of State told us that he was looking at alternative sources of funding for the charity sector because of the disappointment in Northern Ireland over the local growth fund split of 70:30. Will he update the House on his conversations?
Yes; I am working hard, together with the voluntary sector and, I hope, the Executive to find a way forward. There is £9 million available in resource to fund those schemes from 1 April. I held a meeting to encourage the voluntary sector to apply for a bid to Peaceplus, and with the considerable additional resources that have been made available to the Northern Ireland Executive, it is open to them to make a contribution so that the economic inactivity programmes, which we all value enormously, can continue.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Northern Ireland Office and the Treasury are doing an open book exercise on how all the Departments of the Northern Ireland Executive are spending their block grant allocations. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing their findings?
There will be a report from the Treasury to the Northern Ireland Executive. It is for the Executive to take the decision, but I say from this Dispatch Box that I would welcome its publication.
Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?
The national insurance rise decision that the Chancellor took in her first Budget was necessary because of the woeful economic legacy left to this Government by their predecessor. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise that very basic fact, he has not been paying attention.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberI have met a range of businesses and representative bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, to discuss supply chains and how the Government could improve guidance and support on the Windsor framework. I will continue to take that feedback into account as we respond to recommendations made by Lord Murphy in his report.
Will the Secretary of State step up his efforts to ensure that there is no disadvantage to companies trading within Northern Ireland? Further to that, he will be aware of the potential threat posed by Chinese-built buses. Given that excellent UK-made zero emission buses are built in Northern Ireland at Wrightbus, will he liaise with the Department for Transport and mayors in Great Britain to ensure that purchases of those buses, which have no security risk, are seen as infinitely preferable to purchasing those made in China?
I join the hon. Gentleman in drawing attention to the wonderful zero emission buses being produced at Wrightbus, which I have had the pleasure of visiting two or three times. They are brilliant, one sees them on the streets in the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a very good reason to buy UK-made buses from Northern Ireland so that we can see more people travelling on them. That is an option that is open to local authorities.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has taken evidence from Lord Murphy on his review of the Windsor framework, which has made important recommendations that could support GB businesses moving goods to Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his considerations on the Murphy review?
I continue to give careful consideration to what Lord Murphy has said, along with what has been said by the independent monitoring panel and the FSB and other recommendations. There is a lot of similarity in the points that have been made about steps the Government could take to provide better, easier-to-access guidance for businesses to enable them to move goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We will set that all out when we formally respond to Lord Murphy’s review, which we must do early next year.
Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol says that where we experience diversion of trade, we may take unilateral action. The Secretary of State will be well aware that three reports in the past month have noticed significant trade diversion affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he be clear with the House about just how much trade diversion he is willing to stomach before he uses the powers he has under article 16?
There are now 15,000 businesses that have registered under the UK internal market scheme, and 97% of lorries moving from GB to Northern Ireland do not face any in-person checks at all. The goods are flowing and moving. It is, in the end, for businesses to decide to whom they sell and from where they purchase, but the Northern Ireland economy is doing extremely well, which shows that the problems—and there are some—are not affecting its overall strength.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The 2023 legacy Act was rejected by all the major Northern Ireland political parties, as well as by our domestic courts, by victims and survivors and by many veterans, who saw it as an affront to the rule of law that they sought to protect. The Government took a significant step in fulfilling our commitment to repeal and replace the Act by introducing the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday.
Sam Rushworth
I am proud to represent a community with a lot of veterans, many of whom served in Northern Ireland. Who is the Secretary of State engaging with to ensure that the protections for our veterans in the legislation are as strong and effective as possible?
Those protections have been drawn up following extensive consultation with veterans organisations, and I gave the House a commitment yesterday evening that I will continue to talk to veterans, the Royal British Legion, the veterans commissions and others to make sure that we get them right.
Sarah Hall
My constituents Colin and Wendy Parry, whose 12-year-old son Tim was murdered, along with three-year-old Johnathan Ball, in the 1993 Warrington bombing, have waited over 30 years for justice. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government act on the extracts of the Shawcross report and the all-party parliamentary group on Northern Ireland’s 2018 recommendations, and that there will be work across Government to deliver justice for Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism? Will he meet me to discuss these matters?
The whole House will once again want to express its sympathy to all the families affected by that terrible bombing. The Government and predecessor Governments have raised this issue with the Libyan authorities. Engaging with them is a difficult process, and there are complications to do with the way in which their assets are held. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is the lead on this matter, and I will make sure that the appropriate Minister hears the request that my hon. Friend has made.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Is it not the reality that this legislation has failed to win the confidence of many who served, and that we now need clear, robust protections against repeated investigations so that we honour our veterans in practice and not just in rhetoric?
Those protections, including against repeated investigations, are clearly set out in the Bill that the House gave a Second Reading to yesterday. I hope that, as people come to understand that they are there and how they work, they will offer the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman is looking for.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Yesterday in the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State gave an undertaking that he would not appoint any paramilitaries to the victims and survivors group. In light of that undertaking, will he now underwrite it by indicating that he will accept an amendment to put into statutory form that there cannot be any paramilitary serving on that group? If his undertaking is good, let us make it even better by putting it in statute.
From memory, I gave that undertaking three times at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and I hoped that it would provide the hon. and learned Member with the assurance that he seeks, because I am clear that no one with that record will be appointed to the victims and survivors panel.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Yesterday, along with the Veterans Minister, I met a group of special forces veterans based in Cornwall. The legacy Act’s immunity scheme, which would have enabled immunity for terrorists and included other key provisions, was ruled against by our domestic courts. Is it not the case that any new Government would have had to deal with that?
My hon. Friend is right—that is indeed the case. It was wrong to bring forward legislation to seek to give immunity to terrorists, which is what the last Government’s legacy Act did, and that is probably the principal reason why it had no support in Northern Ireland, including from victims and survivors. It is a fundamental principle that we believe in the rule of law and that it should apply to everyone. That is why the Government are acting, through the legislation and the remedial order, to finally lay that failed attempt at immunity to rest.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
Was the Irish Deputy Prime Minister Simon Harris wrong when he said that there were no new protections for veterans in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill?
There clearly are new protections for veterans in the troubles Bill—throughout the legislation—that were never in the previous legislation that the last Government passed. We have laid them out to the House, and the veterans community and others can see clearly what they are.
On 15 August 1998 in Omagh, the Real IRA murdered 29 people, including a woman who was pregnant with twins. It was the deadliest attack of the troubles, and the most wicked. Following the 2021 recommendation of Mr Justice Horner, the last Conservative Government launched the Omagh inquiry into whether UK state authorities could have done anything to prevent the bombing. However, the bombers planned and launched their attack from the Republic of Ireland, which is why Mr Justice Horner also said that an independent inquiry was needed in the Republic to ask whether Irish state authorities could have done anything. Given that the UK inquiry was announced three years ago, did the Secretary of State raise the question of an inquiry in the south with his counterparts on his recent trip to Dublin?
I have raised that question in my conversations with the Irish Government. It is, of course, for the Irish Government to decide whether they wish to hold a public inquiry but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the Irish Government have committed to co-operate fully with the inquiry that the last Government established, both through the memorandum of understanding on the provision of information and the commitment they have made to legislate to allow witnesses to give evidence to it.
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I am aware that the Republic is sharing the information with our inquiry, but he will be aware that the Omagh inquiry is only capable of answering questions about what UK state authorities did and did not do. Four years ago, Mr Justice Horner said that there needed to be a parallel inquiry in the south. The victims and families recognise that; does the Secretary of State recognise it?
I recognise what the judge said in his judgment four years ago, and I strongly support what the last Government did to establish a public inquiry, but it is for the Irish Government to make that decision. I hope that with the unprecedented co-operation that the Irish Government have undertaken to give the inquiry, they will provide vital information for the inquiry to get to the bottom of what happened.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As I hope that the Secretary of State knows, my party and I are hugely supportive of his efforts to move beyond the Tories’ failed legacy Act, provided the legitimate concerns of our veterans are fully met. Will he detail specifically, either now or in writing, which veterans’ groups he has consulted on the wording of the Bill, and which ones have expressed acceptance of the Bill as drafted?
I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman to set out the veterans’ organisations that the Government, the Defence Secretary, the Minister for the Armed Forces and I have engaged with in drawing up those protections, and I have already indicated to the House the groups that we will continue to talk to as we take that work forward.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Government’s new partnership with the European Union aims to deliver a broad range of economic benefits for Northern Ireland, including smoother flows of trade, protection for the UK’s internal market, reduced costs for businesses and benefits for firms that move agrifood and plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Matt Turmaine
Does the Secretary of State agree that aligning safety standards and cutting red tape—checks and paperwork—is precisely the kind of support for growth and trade that this Government promised to deliver for business when they were elected last year?
I agree with my hon. Friend. The partnership agreement reached with the EU back in May was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland, particularly by those in the agrifood sector, because as we take that forward and turn it into a full sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, it will bring enormous benefits to firms that are moving those products across the Irish sea from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Come 1 January, veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland will be reduced by 40%, according to suppliers over there. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that veterinary medicines are supplied to Northern Ireland? They ensure animal health but are linked to human health as well.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have the veterinary medicines working group, and we have been working very closely with the industry. We have set out two schemes, the veterinary medicines health situation scheme and the veterinary medicines internal market scheme. Drawing on the cascade, we are confident that we will ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines from 1 January to vets, farmers and others who need them.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will retain part 4 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which includes provisions for memorialisation. I would welcome views and suggestions on how to take this forward, including on whether any new memorials should be established.
Jo White
On 5 April 1979, an IRA sniper fired at an armoured vehicle as it entered Andersonstown Royal Ulster Constabulary station, killing Blues and Royals serviceman, Anthony Dykes. My constituent Kathleen, his mother, now aged 94, has never let his memory go. She told me that her son is a forgotten soldier. There are monuments for soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, but nothing for those who served in Northern Ireland. Kathleen is now very frail, so I am her voice today, asking the Government to commit to national memorial.
On behalf of the whole House, I express our condolences to Kathleen on the loss of her son all those years ago. The names of those service personnel who died on deployment to Operation Banner are rightly listed on the armed forces memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum as a lasting record of their sacrifice. I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s constituent has had a chance to visit there, but perhaps that is something that my hon. Friend might like to facilitate.
Many thousands of our brave troops served in Northern Ireland, and many gave their lives for peace and for our country. Does the Secretary of State agree that they deserve a permanent memorial, not for some of them to be prosecuted?
As I indicated in an earlier answer, there is already a memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. There are other places in which the service and sacrifice of those who served the state is recorded, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary memorial garden, which I had the opportunity to visit. It was extremely moving to look at all the names and remember the huge sacrifice that all those people made in the defence of freedom in Northern Ireland.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons Chamber
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I regularly meet Northern Ireland Ministers to discuss the shared challenges we face in improving public services, and the Government will do everything we can to help. Last week, I met the new Finance Minister, and we both expect to be in a position soon to announce progress on funding to help with the transformation of public services.
Robin Swann
The Northern Ireland Executive were meant to agree their programme for Government today, but apparently the meeting was cancelled at the last minute. The Secretary of State refers to the transformation fund; £245 million was allocated to it over a year ago, but it remains unspent. The transformation board that is meant to be managing that fund is still interim. With every party in Northern Ireland clamouring for transformation, and the Secretary of State and his ministerial team calling for transformation of public services, will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intervene with the Executive, and tell them to get on with it?
I hope very much that the programme for Government will be agreed as soon as possible; it is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, and I look forward to reading it. A number of bids were submitted for transformation funding. They have been carefully looked at by the interim board and, as I indicated a moment ago, I look forward, together with the Finance Minister, to announcing the results of that work soon.
Last December, the Royal College of Nursing Northern Ireland revealed that there is a severe shortage of nursing staff in the north—there are almost 2,000 vacancies in the sector—as well as concerns about retention. What steps is the Northern Ireland Office taking to support the Executive in providing safe levels of staffing in Northern Ireland, including by tackling staffing pressures, low pay and unacceptable working conditions?
I share the concern that my hon. Friend expresses about the number of vacancies. The single most important thing that the Government have done is allocate for next year a record sum to the Northern Ireland Executive of £18.2 billion, which is an increase of £1.5 billion. The resources are there, and it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to decide how they will use them.
Deirdre Costigan
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about public service reform being a shared challenge. Does he agree with me that it is in the interests of patients, both in Northern Ireland and in England, to share knowledge of what works, and best practice?
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I discussed that with Mike Nesbitt, the Health Minister, when I met him recently. I asked him what support and help we can give him, but we can all learn from each other across the United Kingdom.
When the Secretary of State has his discussions with the Executive, will he look to the example of Wales and its social partnership model? Government, public sector workers and unions are working collaboratively and are in positive discussions to bring about real change and harmony in the delivery of public services.
I have not looked specifically at the social partnership model in Wales to which he refers, but I look forward to learning more about it; it sounds very interesting. As I have indicated, we have a lot to learn from each other.
Douglas McAllister
The proactive approach that the Secretary of State has set out is an important step change from the approach taken by the previous Government. Does he agree that stabilising and transforming the health service in Northern Ireland is now the priority?
It certainly is. One has only to look at the waiting list figures in Northern Ireland: some 52% of those waiting for a first consultant’s appointment wait for more than a year; the figure in England is 4%. The First Minister recently described the state of the health service in Northern Ireland as “diabolical”. I am absolutely clear that Ministers and the Executive understand that, and I very much support the programme that the new Health Minister is seeking to put in place to deal with that.
Would the Secretary of State agree that the appointment of Mike Farrar as chief executive and head of the Northern Ireland health service—an external appointment—is a positive move, and a good example of the Executive getting on with it, despite comments that have been made?
I do agree. He has great expertise and knowledge, and I am sure that it will be used for the benefit of people in Northern Ireland, particularly patients waiting for appointments.
My daughter lives in Donegal. When her two little boys were born, she had the choice of them being born in Derry or Sligo—on either side of the border. The Republic of Ireland has introduced an initiative called shared island. That is not a united Ireland, but it works in improving services. Will the Government look at its success, and consider how Scotland might work in a similar way to Northern Ireland, for the benefit of services?
As I understand it, there is a long-established arrangement under which people can move from one side of the border to the other to seek care, particularly in Donegal and Derry/Londonderry. Things would be slightly different in Scotland, for physical reasons, but once again, I am sure that all opportunities that can be taken to help people get the care they need would be welcomed.
The Secretary of State will be aware that it has been a year since the Executive was finally re-established. In that time, they have still been unable to agree a programme for Government. This morning, we learned that today’s meeting to agree it has been moved again. Does he agree that, for the sake of the people of Northern Ireland, it is time they got on with it?
As I indicated a moment ago, I look forward to the Executive adopting a programme for Government. I am aware of what happened earlier today; I am confident that another meeting will be arranged, and I look forward to seeing the programme adopted.
The Government’s decision to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will mean reopening many inquests and civil cases. Many of those cases will impact on the police. Does the Secretary of State accept that that will mean a significant cost to the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the legacy legislation that the previous Government passed has been found to be flawed and unlawful in a number of respects, and it falls to this Government to clean up the mess that the last Government left. I am in the process of consultation with many parties. I have already indicated to the House the proposals that I put forward in the remedial order, and have said that I propose bringing legislation before the House when parliamentary time allows. It is important that people are able to pursue civil cases, and the ban on them by the last Government has been found to be unlawful. Why should people in Northern Ireland not be entitled to an inquest?
My question was about the liability that the Police Service of Northern Ireland might be under following the Secretary of State’s decision. Police numbers in Northern Ireland are at their lowest ever. Two weeks ago, Policy Exchange estimated that the cost to the PSNI of the repeal of the legacy Act might well stretch to hundreds of millions of pounds. If that is the case, will the Government step in to support the PSNI, or are they content to see a reduction in frontline policing and national security?
The Government have provided additional funding to the PSNI in the autumn statement through the additional security fund. I have read the Policy Exchange report, and it contains a lot of speculation about numbers. The fact remains that the legislation supported by the Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was part, has not worked; it was flawed and found to be unlawful. I am afraid that the Opposition will have to recognise that at some point, and it needs to be fixed.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Pharmacies in Northern Ireland are in a declared state of crisis. Pharmacists are having to dip into their savings just to stay afloat, and they are cutting staff numbers and opening hours. The National Pharmacy Association, which represents 6,500 community pharmacies, has warned that its members may have to further cut opening hours, halt home deliveries and reduce local support services, and that warning is amplified in Northern Ireland. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Ireland Executive to safeguard access to crucial pharmacy services across rural and urban regions? Does he agree that an urgent impact assessment on pharmacy underfunding is required to highlight the scale of the crisis for community pharmacies, which provide vital-to-life services?
That issue did not figure in the discussions I had recently with the NI Health Minister, but I have no doubt that it will do so in the future, and I will take the matter up.
Many ministerial decisions are important in getting public services delivered, but so too is back-up by the civil service. There is some concern about the level of expertise in the civil service in Northern Ireland. In the inquiry into the renewable heat incentive, the permanent secretary admitted that the civil service was not able to give timely advice to Ministers, and had not given accurate advice. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the gap that there appears to be in expertise in the civil service—because the Northern Ireland civil service is not integrated into the UK civil service—can be filled?
I have met many civil servants who are doing a very good job and are very committed to their work, but the Northern Ireland civil service is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministers in the Departments—it is not my responsibility to deal with.
Many projects that are designed to improve public services are being held up in the courts in Northern Ireland because of procurement, planning and the decision process. The latest ruse being used to hold up projects is the claim that they do not comply with the Government’s net zero policies and will lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. One of the projects that is being held up is the important A5 road in the west of Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that while we have statutory limits on CO2 emissions, we will always be vulnerable to major infrastructure projects being held up in the courts?
I do not accept that, because getting to a net zero world is really important for the future of humankind, and the Government have commitments that it is very important to fulfil. As for delays in the planning system and the way in which the courts operate in Northern Ireland, once again, those are matters for the Executive.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
The IRC’s report highlights progress, but reminds us that there is still much to do to tackle paramilitarism and the harm it causes. Following discussion with the Irish Government, it has been agreed to support a short, independent scoping exercise to assess whether there is merit in a formal process to bring about paramilitary group disbandment, as the IRC has suggested, and whether there would be public support for such a process.
Michael Wheeler
Having spent lots of time with family in Northern Ireland since I was a small child, I have seen the progress made over the years and know what a difference it has made on the ground. I welcome this Government’s commitment to help secure that progress and tackle the scourge of paramilitarism. Does the Secretary of State share my view that making further progress will require a range of measures, and that the Executive’s programme on paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime is a crucial part of that?
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend. That programme is doing very good work, and of course the UK Government are funding it together with the Executive. I also agree that a wide range of approaches needs to be taken, including continuing to use the full force of the law to deal with paramilitary criminality.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
After decades of illegal paramilitary organisations taking successive Governments for a ride over transition and pocketing millions of pounds along the way, the Secretary of State now wants to appoint a special envoy—a nursemaid to paramilitaries. When will this pandering come to an end, and is the Secretary of State going to accept the IRC’s grotesque proposal of moving to de-proscription, under which organisations that murdered thousands of people would ultimately be made legal? Can he at least rule that out?
On a happier note, will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming today’s announcement by the Irish Football Association and the Galgorm resort that there will be a new training facility par excellence for Northern Ireland football teams?
I am very happy to join in what appears to be the general consensus of welcome for the IFA’s announcement, a proposal that I discussed when I met the IFA during my time as shadow Secretary of State.
On the substantive issue that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised, the fact is that 26 years later, people say that the paramilitary organisations should have left the stage. They are still here, despite the progress that has been made, and are still causing harm to communities. The IRC’s proposal—which I recognise is not supported by everybody—is to inquire whether there are some paramilitary organisations that do actually want to leave the stage, and whether there is merit in having a process that ensures that. However, what I announced yesterday is not a process; it is a scoping study to find out whether it is worth having one or not, which I think is the right thing to do.
After all these years, people are bewildered that we are still talking about transitioning paramilitary groups, which have continued to recruit, to grip and to poison communities and current-day politics in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that we learn from all the things that have not gone right, and all the previous attempts at transition? Will he commit to ensuring that there is no payday for former paramilitaries, that we take a serious criminal justice approach, and that there are preconditions on such things as emblems and financial assets? Does he agree that that makes it even more important that we get the infrastructure right on the legacy of the troubles, and move towards getting back on track as a serious rule-of-law society?
For the avoidance of doubt, there is no question of paying anybody any money to disband. There is no question of doing that at all. As I indicated a moment ago, for all the efforts that have been made—there is much to learn from what has worked—the fact remains, as the Independent Reporting Commission report makes clear, that many communities in Northern Ireland continue to suffer real harm because of paramilitary activities. What is the proof that those who say they are prepared to disband are doing so? The proof will be: do they end recruitment, paramilitary-style assaults, intimidation, child criminal and sexual exploitation and violence against women and girls? That is what people are experiencing today in Northern Ireland.
I want all paramilitaries off our streets for good, and I also want to see justice done for their victims. That is why I cannot quite understand why the Dublin Government are closing their eyes to the 2021 Horner judgment, which recommended inquiries in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. The family hearings in Omagh have brought the horror of that day to a new generation. Will the Secretary of State use his influence to call on Dublin to give the Omagh families the public inquiry they deserve and want so, so much?
I recognise, not least because of the commemorative hearings that have been taking place in the inquiry, that all the pain, suffering, horror and tragedy of that day have been brought to life again for the families who live with that every single day of the week. I welcome the fact that the Irish Government are committed to co-operating with the Omagh inquiry. I look forward to the signing of the memorandum of understanding. It is for the Irish Government to decide what inquiries they wish to establish in relation to events in the Republic.
The approach to legacy taken by the last Government was wrong. It caused immense pain to victims and survivors, and in many respects has been found to be unlawful. In December I laid a proposal for a draft remedial order to address the human rights deficiencies in the Act that had been identified by the courts, and when parliamentary time allows, I will introduce primary legislation to reinstate legacy inquests halted by the Act and to reform and strengthen the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Why did the Secretary of State abandon the appeal in Dillon and Ors?
Because sections 46 and 47 of the Act were found to be unlawful, and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the case that gave rise to the attempt to deal with the problem through those sections that have now been found to be unlawful arose from a Supreme Court judgment in 2020. For two and a bit years, the last Government were unable to find a solution.
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s response, may I ask why this Labour Government are continuing to undermine the tough action taken by the Conservative Government on individuals who have acted against our democracy and society, such as Gerry Adams, by considering repealing the Act, giving Adams and others the possibility of a six-figure payout?
As I said during the last Northern Ireland questions, no one wants to see that happen. We are currently working to find a lawful way of dealing with the problems that were created by the way in which the original interim custody orders were signed in 1972 and, I think, 1973. In 2020, the Supreme Court found that orders that had not been signed and considered by the then Secretary of State were not lawful.
In 2019, Boris Johnson commissioned the Shawcross report on Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism. United States citizens have received compensation from the Libyan Government for attacks on British soil, but UK citizens never have. Will the Secretary of State work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that the report is published?
The whole House will have profound sympathy for all the victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, and all the victims of the troubles. The Shawcross report was commissioned by the last Government as an internal report, and decisions on the report and its future are currently under review by the FCDO.
People throughout the United Kingdom will be disgusted if former terrorists such as Gerry Adams receive compensation from the taxpayer because of Labour’s decision to repeal the legacy Act without putting something in its place. Will the Secretary of State finally commit himself to legislating immediately to prevent that from happening?
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave a moment ago.