Clonoe Inquest

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker.

On a February night in 1992, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.

What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours?

The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question.

The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution?

The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability?

I will end by saying that if we in this House think the law is not fit for purpose, it is our job, and ours alone, to change it. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely understand the concerns, which he has expressed with such passion, about our armed services personnel, including in relation to this case. He has just said, “If this is the law, the law needs to be changed.” Is he suggesting that the arrangements for inquests and the way in which they are conducted—coroners sitting, hearing the evidence and coming to a finding—ought to be changed? [Interruption.] That is a very interesting observation from His Majesty’s Opposition.

The legislation passed by the last Government would have given the very terrorists who were killed in the exchange of fire, if they had survived, the ability to secure immunity from prosecution. That is what the last Government’s legacy Act did. It would have given anyone—soldiers, but also terrorists—immunity from prosecution. I am afraid that this Government take the view that that was wrong and the courts have determined that that was wrong. That is why we will repeal and replace the legacy Act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I would like to return to the question that has just been raised by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). When the previous Government passed their legislation, the Labour party was in favour of the amendments made in another place that ruled out compensation to people such as Gerry Adams and others similarly detained in the 1970s. Why have the Government now changed their position?

[Hilary Benn]

The courts have found those clauses to be unlawful. The last Government passed legislation to enable terrorists to get immunity. The last Government passed legislation to deny people in Northern Ireland the right to bring civil claims, including against terrorists. The Conservative party has never apologised for doing both of those things. It is about time that it did.

[Alex Burghart]

Let us return to the matter of Gerry Adams. I am sorry to say that I must correct the Secretary of State. The High Court found that those provisions of the legacy Act were unlawful, but it is well within the Secretary of State’s power to appeal that judgment. He has dropped that appeal. I do not wish to teach the Secretary of State to suck constitutional eggs, but he will know full well that it is also within the sovereign power of this Parliament to give legal basis to the Carltona doctrine, which has been in place since the 1940s. Or would he rather pay compensation to Gerry Adams and people like him?

[Hilary Benn]

Nobody wants to see that. The Supreme Court judgment that ruled that the interim custody orders following internment were not lawfully put in place, in which the Carltona principle was much discussed, was in 2020. The last Government did nothing about that for three years, until they belatedly accepted an amendment in the House of Lords that has now been found to be unlawful. It is a complex and difficult question—the last Government found it difficult—but we will continue to follow the same path to see whether it is possible to discover a legal means of dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

Draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 General Committees

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

May I welcome you to your place, Mr Mundell, and wish you and all hon. Members a happy new year? The Opposition do not intend to oppose the draft regulations, but we have some reasonably significant questions and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Some 87,000 voters are about to fall off the register. I believe that to be an unusually high number. What do we think is the cause? Perhaps we are dealing with the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem, so it would be useful to know what the Government think has led such circumstances to arise.

The Committee could do with some reassurance about the reliability of the local and Government data used in this process. I have read and understood the explanatory memorandum, but we could do with a little more detail so that we know that the data is accurate.

It would be helpful to know whether the Government have considered harmonising the good system that we have in Great Britain with the one in Northern Ireland. We have a very reliable system of annual canvasses here. I understand why there was thought to be a need to differentiate Northern Ireland when the Representation of the People Act was passed in 1983, but a lot has moved on since then. Would it not be better for the whole country if one system were used in all four of the home nations?

My last question is slightly outside the Minister’s brief, so I will understand if she or one of her colleagues answers in writing. There is a long tradition in Northern Ireland of voter ID to accompany registration. There have been some rumours in the press recently that the Government are considering doing away with voter ID in the UK. Would that cover just GB, or would it also cover Northern Ireland? When can we hope for some clarity on the Government’s position?

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Alex Burghart Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate—and nice to have an opportunity to stand up. It is also nice to see such enthusiasm for this subject from Labour Members, and I can see how disappointed many of them are not to have been called in this debate.

There are so many things that one might say about the extremely interesting Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We know that it will not progress, as Labour Members intend to talk it out, but I want to talk about some of the ideas and principles that have been raised today, and indeed some of the ideas and principles that are contained within this interesting Bill.

Many new and enthusiastic Labour Members were not here during the difficult days of 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, although some senior and experienced Members were. When looking at that densely packed history, there is a temptation to step back. We perhaps do not need to go back quite as far as Sophocles, although the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) always peppers his interesting remarks with cultural references. I was reminded of something else that Sophocles said: “There is a point at which even justice does injury.” There is something in these conflicting ideas of law, international law, obligation and principle that rings with Sophocles.

In those Brexit days, mistakes were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has referred to mistakes made by the then Administration. They created a starting position that some of us did not want and that has had long consequences. But we are, as has often been said, where we are. From those starting points there has been progress of a type.

The initial proposals for the backstop were unquestionably bettered by the protocol. The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. “Safeguarding the Union” is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible.

As the Windsor framework approaches its second birthday, it is worth taking stock of what has emerged from it. Obviously it made some improvements and achieved some of what it set out to do, but there is still the problem that Opposition Members have raised with the flow of certain goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not a frivolous concern; it is a serious concern. The promised investment—we were going to see Northern Ireland becoming a Singapore of the west—has not happened. I have asked about it in my conversations and in my visits to Northern Ireland, and I have heard that it has certainly not yet materialised.

On Wednesday night, the House debated the Secretary of State’s statement on legacy and on the challenges that he is bringing to judgments made at the Court of Appeal in Belfast. The interpretation of the Windsor framework is a very live issue that could have profound and long-reaching consequences for how law operates in this country. Even then, it must be acknowledged that popular opinion in Northern Ireland is shifting slowly. Queen’s University Belfast carries out regular polls on how people feel about it. It is becoming less popular over time. That may change, but it is an issue. These are all practical issues, even before we reach the serious issues, which must never be discarded, about sovereignty.

If this is where we are right now with the framework, we have to ask what will happen next. The Labour Government were elected not six months ago, with a considerable majority, on a manifesto that committed to

“implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market”.

They must be sure to do both. Both elements of that promise to the British people are extremely significant.

Opposition Members have raised many issues that have arisen with particular goods in particular sectors. Nowhere are those issues more pressing than in the SPS arrangements and the veterinary medicine arrangements. I talked to farmers in Belfast a few days ago, and they said that they were concerned that the Government do not appreciate that time is of the essence. The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned the need for haste in the Paymaster General’s work. It is indeed pressing, because the timescale that the EU is briefing out is the next two to three years, and the grace period is due to end at the end of 2025. More than 50% of Northern Ireland’s medicines will not be sourceable from the UK. That has a huge implication for farming and agriculture, which is a major part of the economy in Northern Ireland, as I do not need to remind Members of the House.

[Ben Coleman]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill would make it easier or more difficult for the Government to enter into successful negotiations on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement?

[Alex Burghart]

As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim says, if the Bill were to pass—as we know it will not, because it is being talked out—there would not be the same need for that sort of deal, because goods would be flowing freely from GB to Northern Ireland, so the question is at best academic.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I will not, actually. I have points to make and I want to leave the Minister time to make her speech and take interventions from Members in all parts of the House.

One thing that strengthened the Windsor framework was “Safeguarding the Union”, which is critical to where we are now. Hon. Members will remember that the Northern Ireland Assembly came back together only because of “Safeguarding the Union”. If elements of it are removed, it is possible that that agreement will fall away, although we hope that it will not. If it does, it will risk the stability of our institutions in Northern Ireland.

There are many points that one could raise—I have asked a lot of parliamentary questions on this—but there are some specifics on which we are now owed some detail. The first is about the independent monitoring panel. The internal market system is supported by the UK internal market guarantee, which is overseen by the independent monitoring panel, but when will the panel first report? Secondly, we have Intertrade UK, which could be an important body. We were all pleased to see Baroness Foster appointed in September, but as far as I am aware, Intertrade UK’s terms of reference have still not been published. That is unacceptable. We are now three months on from appointing a chair, and many months on from the publication of “Safeguarding the Union”. Intertrade UK must have its terms of reference, and they must be shared with Members of this House.

Similarly, we must have regular updates from the Government on business preparedness for the internal market system. It is not enough for us to depend on Members of the Opposition to ask questions proactively; the Government should report regularly on that.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way—I am sure that he will be grateful for the chance to sit down briefly. He has been very constructive, and I welcome that, but in reality the Government have largely inherited this situation, which is quite a difficult one, given the friction and the other issues that we need to discuss. Does he not think that he is being a little impatient by demanding progress so soon?

[Alex Burghart]

No, I do not think I am being impatient, because this is an extremely important subject. We were all aware, when the Command Paper was published earlier this year, that this would need to be done. The framework was in the Labour party’s manifesto, so we assumed that it was making those preparations. It is perfectly possible to put together terms of reference for Intertrade UK within three months, for example. We are not being impatient; such things need to be done for a reason and within a reasonable time. I know that the Minister is alive to the importance of those things, but I hope that she will hurry that work along.

It is clear that under this Government the Windsor framework will continue to run. How successfully it runs will depend on any deals they strike and on whether they are able to uphold the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. However, as Opposition Members have said, the limitations of the Windsor framework, in practical terms and on constitutional principle, are clear. That is why we must continue to seek even better solutions.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green talked about the Bill’s central issue: mutual enforcement. During the Brexit negotiations, mutual enforcement was categorised as “magical thinking,” but I think that was an unfair ploy used by people who did not want to do it. It is thinking that has magical potential but it is not magical thinking, because, as my right hon. Friend spelled out, mutual enforcement has already been done. We have seen it work in the EU’s dealings with New Zealand. Significantly, we heard that Monsieur Barnier was open to it, and that people involved in formulating policy at the time have stated again that they know it is deliverable. I just do not want anyone on either side of the House to think that mutual enforcement cannot be pursued; it can and must be. With the good will and the technology, there is no reason why there cannot be a future in which mutual enforcement plays a role.

During the Brexit negotiations, I remember being told repeatedly, as a Back-Bench Member, that there could not be any border checks, any infrastructure, or any checks near the border. However, in recent months we have seen that is not true. We know that it is not true because the Republic is conducting Operation Sonnet, which it is perfectly entitled to do. Operation Sonnet is a series of checks performed by the Garda on people crossing the border to make sure that they are not crossing illegally.

[Carla Lockhart]

I commend the hon. Member on his speech. Does he agree that today, sadly, is a missed opportunity? We had it within our grasp in this place to end the application of EU law in Northern Ireland, to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market by removing the Irish sea border, and to address the democratic deficit, but we failed, so we will just have more of the same as of tomorrow.

[Alex Burghart]

I am very glad that the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to make that point.

As I have said, we have seen that the Republic is carrying out checks on the other side of the border, so things that we were told were not possible are. If that is the case, it must open up possibilities for the future. I remain strongly of the view that the Windsor framework with “Safeguarding the Union” is a better solution than the Windsor framework was; that the Windsor framework was a better solution than the protocol; and that the protocol was a better option than the backstop. However, that does not mean that there are not better solutions available.

Those of us who believe in the Union do not wish for a sea border, or for a settlement that infracts the Acts of Union. Mutual enforcement obviously has the potential to be a sensible alternative, particularly if it is backed up by very serious penalties for those who infringe those arrangements. Indeed, in those circumstances, it could be remarkably effective. We would not start from here. We are where we are, but that does not mean that we cannot get back to where we once belonged.

Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Troubles

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, for giving an oral statement on this very important subject, and for scheduling the statement at such a time as would not interfere with the Opposition day debates—that was very decent of him.

I do not intend to rehearse all of the long debates that were had in the last Parliament over the legacy Act. The Labour party won the general election on a manifesto that included a number of measures that the Secretary of State has just discussed, and it has a mandate to make the changes it wants to make. But I will say this: there was an attempt by the last Government—a desire from the last Government—to draw a line under many difficult things that had happened, and with the actions the Government are now taking that line is being erased.

I will remind the House of the central reasons why the last Government legislated. They did so to try and protect some elderly people, including servicemen, who were being brought before inquests to discuss events that may or may not have happened very many years before. This was a process inevitably weighted against the police and the armed forces, who kept records and whose servicemen were easily locatable and contactable. Tonight there will be many such men harbouring a sense of dread. I know the Government are taking a different approach, but I do ask them to spare a thought for those men this evening and to think very deeply about what they can do to support them and what help they can offer them.

I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. I appreciate that he may not be able to answer them all this evening, so I would be grateful if he would undertake to write to me on these very important matters.

The first issue I would like to touch on is the ICRIR, which was set up by the legacy Act. Indeed, for all the Government’s current talk of wanting to replace the legacy Act, a very large part of that legislation is concerned with its establishment. I was very pleased earlier in the year that the Secretary of State affirmed his support for the ICRIR and for Sir Declan Morgan, who is doing an admirable job of overseeing it.

In his statement, the Secretary of State said that he will

“reform and strengthen the commission’s independence, powers and accountability.”

I would be grateful if he could set out exactly how and why he intends to do that, given that in September Sir Declan made it clear that he already had the necessary independence and powers to do his job.

Secondly, I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State intends to appeal the Court’s specific finding regarding the Secretary of State’s power to preclude the disclosure of sensitive information in circumstances where disclosure would be prejudicial to national security, but will he confirm that, in the event that his appeal is unsuccessful, the Government will legislate to ensure that national security is protected? If he does so, he will have our support.

Thirdly, I must ask the Secretary of State about the new regime that is emerging—it seems rather more by accident than design—and how it will work. We will have inquests, the ICRIR and inquiries. Who will decide which route a family goes down? Will it be the family, the Government or the courts? What criteria will be used? How will disputes about the route chosen be adjudicated? One of the qualities of the legacy Act was that it greatly simplified the system. The system is now being returned to complexity.

Finally, I must ask the Secretary of State to give the House some clarity on the Government’s position on article 2(1) of the Windsor framework. I am pleased that he is continuing his appeal against the Colton judgment handed down in July. That was a decision in which the Court of Appeal sought to disapply statute, and in his statement in July he referred to it as a technical point of law, but it is quite some technicality. Article 2(1) of the Windsor framework is very important in this judgment, and I would like him to be able to give clarity on the Government’s position. Is it, as the last Government’s position was, that the rights available to the people of Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement should not be diminished as a result of our leaving the EU, or is it that a broader range of rights available at the time of our departure from the EU should not be diminished as a result of leaving the EU, or is it that the rights of the Northern Irish people should keep pace with EU law as it develops? Those are incredibly important points of law that will have a long consequence in British courts. I would be grateful if he could give the House clarity on those matters.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the manner of his response and for acknowledging that the Government have a mandate to introduce the changes I have set out today, although he did not comment on the fact that a number of elements of the legislation that the last Government put in place have been found to be incompatible with our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, and that alone is a demonstration of the failings of that particular legislation.

I acknowledge the point that the shadow Secretary of State raised about veterans, and we hold them very close to our hearts, as I know does the Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), who is in the Chamber this evening.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about the ICRIR. Indeed, the courts have found it to be independent, and it has considerable powers. It is currently investigating a first case that I referred to it yesterday, following a report from the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the changes that I will be discussing with all the parties I set out in my statement will be to further build confidence in ICRIR. Part of the reason ICRIR does not currently command the confidence of all survivors and victims groups is because it was created in an Act that closed off any other route of remedy. People were told, “You cannot have a civil case. You cannot have an inquest. If you are having an inquest now, we are cutting it short on the 1 May deadline, and the only place you can then go is ICRIR.” If I may say so, that damaged confidence in ICRIR. I have great confidence in Sir Declan Morgan, and people have now started coming to ICRIR, and I want to build confidence. That is the basis of the further changes that I propose to come to later on.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question on disclosure, I have to say that, if we get leave to appeal, we will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. When it comes to the different regimes, as he will know, for ICRIR, families can approach it and say, “I would like there to be a review or, if you think it appropriate, an investigation.” Certain people have powers to refer cases to ICRIR—I have just done so in the case I have outlined. It is for the Government to decide whether to launch public inquiries.

Yes, there is some complexity, as the hon. Gentleman might say, but it does give people a choice, and it does give them their rights. How could we say to citizens in one part of our important United Kingdom that they could no longer have the right to bring a civil case? That is what the legacy Act did, and that is what the Court of Appeal has recently found to be incompatible.

Finally, on article 2, I am not a lawyer but I think the hon. Gentleman set out quite well the range of issues that arise out of the way in which the courts have thus far interpreted article 2 and its application. As the courts have taken what I might describe as an expansive view of what article 2 means compared with what some people might have thought when it was originally written, it is important for the Government, and indeed for the country, to go to the Supreme Court and ask, “Which is the right interpretation?”

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I associate Conservative Members with the remarks that the Under-Secretary of State made about Ken Reid; he will be very much missed. A belated happy birthday to the Secretary of State for yesterday.

Last week, the Secretary of State suggested to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the Treasury had not yet conducted a detailed analysis of how the Budget will affect farmers in Northern Ireland. Has he now asked it to do so?

[Hilary Benn]

The Treasury has conducted an analysis of the overall number of farms that it thinks will be affected. It is important that people look at all the arrangements that we have put in place, including how, as the hon. Gentleman will know, individuals can pass £1.5 million on to family members and couples up to £3 million when all the allowances are added together, as well as interest-free payments over 10 years. Of course, land transferred seven years before death can go to children with no inheritance tax paid.

I should have congratulated the hon. Gentleman on his double-hatted appointment: he is shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as well as shadow Secretary of State. He will now have many a merry conversation with himself about the Windsor framework.

[Alex Burghart]

And, I hope, conversations with the Secretary of State. He will know that the make-up of farming in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that in the rest of the UK: there is a greater density of farms in sole ownership and agricultural land is worth more. That means that farms in Northern Ireland are more exposed to Labour’s family farms tax. The farmers I have met in Northern Ireland are deeply concerned about that.

As the Secretary of State said, there is disagreement nationally about the figures. On one side, we have the Government who say that not many farms will be affected. On the other side, we have the experts who say that very many farms will be affected. Transparency will help everyone. Will the Secretary of State commit to asking the Chancellor to publish detailed Treasury working on the Budget’s impact on farms in Northern Ireland so that independent experts can check their figures?

[Hilary Benn]

To understand the impact, we have to look at the ownership structure of each individual farm. I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating that the Government should do that for all farms right across the country. It will be for farmers to look at the arrangements that will apply from 2026 and to take advice on how they can ensure that they can continue to pass their family farms to their children and grandchildren.

Draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for Northern Ireland) Order 2024

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 General Committees

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

Hon. Members will be disappointed to hear that I do not intend to detain them for long. We support this order. As my noble friend Lord Caine said in Grand Committee in the other place, this is essentially Conservative legacy legislation. We drafted it, we conducted the consultation earlier in the year, and we are pleased to see that the Government have continued with it.

I want to raise a couple of small points, the first of which is technical. The hon. Lady referred to how an intimate search may not be authorised or carried out under the new power. Will she give us a little more detail about why that decision was made? Secondly, looking to the future, we all hope to see this change implemented. What provision are the Government making to review the new code to ensure that it is working effectively and getting the results that we all want?

Thirdly, the hon. Lady referred to the fact that the Government have made money available in the Budget for additional security funding for Northern Ireland. There is, as she will know, quite a long-standing problem with police numbers in Northern Ireland. At the moment, I think the PSNI has 6,300, and the number agreed in New Decade, New Approach was 7,500. What is the Minister doing in conjunction with the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that the PSNI can get up to the required figure, which obviously has implications for national security?

That said, I join the hon. Lady in thanking the PSNI for the work it does for the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed for all of us in the United Kingdom, and I congratulate it on helping to reduce the threat level from “severe” to “substantial”. I am pleased to say that my party will be supporting the order today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

The Executive’s draft programme for government acknowledges that policing numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low, a situation that Chief Constable Boutcher has described as dangerous. The draft programme commits to increasing numbers in line with New Decade, New Approach. Is the Secretary of State convinced that the budget sustainability plan is sufficient to achieve that aim?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not sure that fits with the question.

[Alex Burghart]

I was intending to ask a supplementary to Question 4.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I think we will wait then. Let us move on. I call Dr Lauren Sullivan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

It is very generous of you to call me again, Mr Speaker. The Executive’s draft programme for government acknowledges that policing numbers in Northern Ireland are at an all-time low, a situation that the chief constable has described as dangerous. The draft programme commits to increasing numbers in line with New Decade, New Approach. Is the Secretary of State convinced that the budget sustainability plan is sufficient to achieve that aim?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, as we discussed just a moment ago. I recognise the pressures on the PSNI, but it falls to the Executive to decide how much to allocate, from the funds available to them, to policing and other public services in Northern Ireland. If they wish to allocate more, they are in a position to do so, but it involves making a choice.

[Alex Burghart]

The Secretary of State is of course right that policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, but national security is not. If we look at policing numbers right now, which are at an all-time low, we are reminded that his party’s manifesto made explicit commitments to improving public services in Northern Ireland. Will the Government commit to ensuring that policing in Northern Ireland is sufficient to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and maintain national security, and to protecting the additional security funding of £32 million a year that comes direct from His Majesty’s Treasury?

[Hilary Benn]

On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman just has to wait a week to see what the Budget produces. I simply say to him that the PSNI, the security services and others do an outstanding job in protecting the people of Northern Ireland from terrorist threats, and we should all support them in that endeavour.

Northern Ireland City Deals

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Northern Ireland city deals.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

As the Chancellor set out in July, the Government have inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. As a result, the Treasury is having to consider a range of measures to deal with this significant problem. Last month, the Treasury informed the Northern Ireland Department of Finance that the UK Government’s contributions to the Mid South West deal and the Causeway Coast and Glens deal would now be considered as part of the spending review. The Belfast regional city deal and the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city deal are unaffected and proceeding as planned. Since the announcement of the pause on those two deals, I have met with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Finance Minister. I will also be meeting the chief executives of those two deals shortly.

Everyone in Northern Ireland understands the importance of the city deals to economic growth and encouraging investment, and this Government are committed to working with the Northern Ireland Executive and businesses to make the most of the huge economic opportunities that now lie ahead. That is shown by the progress being made on the Belfast region city deal and the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city deal. I attended the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city deal signing on 18 September. The UK Government’s £105 million investment will help to progress transformative innovation, digital and health projects, which will build on the region’s well-established research excellence. The Chancellor will set out the results of the first phase of the spending review on 30 October, which will include an update on the two outstanding city deals.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart]

As the House will know, on the evening of Friday 13 September—the day after we went into recess—the Government took it upon themselves to make a number of announcements affecting Northern Ireland: the cancellation of the Casement Park project; the decision that Sean Brown’s family will not be given a public inquiry into his murder; and the subject of this urgent question, the pausing of four Northern Ireland city deals. It is quite something to instantaneously unite all the political parties in Northern Ireland, but that was the feat achieved by the Government on the evening of Friday the 13th.

The House will be aware of how crucial the city deals are, providing significant investment to boost economic growth, create jobs and enhance infrastructure and bringing together Westminster, Belfast, local councils and private investment. We are pleased that the following day, after considerable confusion, the Government U-turned and announced that the Belfast region city deal and the Derry and Strabane city deal would go ahead, but the other two regional growth deals—the Causeway Coast and Glens deal and the Mid South West deal—now sit in limbo.

Critically, those deals cover areas that have not had the same levels of investment in recent years as big cities. One need only look at the empty shops in Enniskillen and Armagh to understand that these deals are badly needed. Can the Secretary of State tell the House why was the decision to pause taken at such a time and why was it announced in such a way? Following that announcement, why was there then a U-turn on two of the deals but not the other two? What criteria were used to make that decision?

The Secretary of State has referred to money. He knows that the so-called black hole, for which the Government have provided no breakdown, is partially of Labour’s making, given the above-inflation pay rise that it has chosen to award to the unions. He will know that the money involved is, in the world of the Exchequer, not that significant and, crucially, will deliver major returns to Northern Ireland and to the UK.

I ask the Secretary of State for two things. The first is an apology for how the matter was handled; I know he would not have wanted it to happen in the way it did, but someone should take responsibility for how the House and the people of Northern Ireland have been treated. The second is that, in negotiating with the Treasury in the run-up to the Budget, he will be the lead advocate for un-pausing those city deals.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response. On the matter of Casement Park, since he raised it, I will say that we took the decision for the reason we set out, and I think it is one that he supports. On the question of Sean Brown, I set out in my letter to the family why I had reached the conclusion that I did.

I would just correct the hon. Gentleman: the Belfast city deal was never affected at all—it is roaring ahead and is a great success. In the case of Derry, I was pleased to attend the signing of the deal, which will now progress to its next stage.

I would also simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the public finances inheritance the last Government left us—[Interruption.] Well, the last Government made a load of promises but never identified where the money to pay for them would come from, and then they were turfed out and left this Government to deal with the problem. That is the reason for the situation with these two city deals. He can rest assured that I, as Secretary of State, will continue to make the case for the two city deals, which is why I said in my opening answer to him that everybody in Northern Ireland, including me, understands their importance, and I will continue to make that case. But in those circumstances, the Chancellor has found it necessary to look at a whole range of commitments that were made by the last Government for which no funding had been identified, and the fault for that does not lie with us, and if any apologies are required, a belated apology from the other side for the mess they left us would be much appreciated.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for advance sight of it and his courtesy call this morning. I am particularly grateful to him for bringing it forward before recess. I know the deadline that the Court gave him was 27 September, so it was important that we had the chance to hear the Government’s position and ask questions before we rose for conference recess.

The murder of Patrick Finucane, like so many murders during the troubles, was a dreadful act of violence that must not be forgotten. The Opposition stand by the findings of the 2012 de Silva report that while there was no evidence of an overarching state conspiracy in the case of his murder, there were shocking levels of collusion—something for which the then Prime Minister, now Lord Cameron, rightly apologised to the House in that year. I fully appreciate the Secretary of State’s desire to bring the matter to a close after a very long period, and I know that a full public inquiry will do it, but I wish to ask serious questions about the decision to choose a full public inquiry over one of the alternatives that he mentioned.

It is clear that the Finucane family, who have suffered so much, are owed a further and deeper investigation. That much was made clear by the Supreme Court’s finding in February 2019, when it noted that the de Silva report had not been able to compel witnesses or take its evidence in public. In other words, it had not been article 2 compliant. However, as the Secretary of State said, this year the Belfast High Court concluded that the ICRIR was capable of conducting an article 2-compliant investigation and was sufficiently independent to do so.

My first question to the Secretary of State is: given that the ICRIR has powers to compel witnesses and take evidence in public, what is it that a full public inquiry will be able to do that the ICRIR cannot? This is important because the ICRIR is already fully staffed and active and could begin work quickly, whereas the establishment of a full public inquiry and the building of that team will inevitably take time. Given the opportunity for further delay, I ask him to set out for the House what steps he is taking to ensure that the public inquiry is conducted as quickly as possible. Can he give an undertaking to have appointed a chair and agreed terms of reference before the end of the year, say? In his statement, he referred to the High Court proceedings, where the judge suggested that an inquiry could

“build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place”.

I hope that will mean that we can have terms of reference relatively fast.

Similarly, in the Secretary of State’s conversations with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, has the Secretary of State set an expectation of time and costs? We know from previous public inquiries that unless these things are considered early on, the inquiries can take a long time and cost a great deal.

On the issue of the ICRIR itself, I am pleased to hear that the commission has the Secretary of State’s confidence. We agree that it is showing itself to be an excellent and effective body with a highly capable chair. I note that it was also the creation of the previous Government. It was created, as he knows, by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which his Government have committed to repeal. Indeed, the House will appreciate that a large part of that legislation is given over to the creation of the ICRIR. I ask him to reassure us that he has no intention of repealing that part of the Act.

Returning to the public inquiry that has just been announced, there is one other issue on which we should seek clarity today. In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the “unique circumstances” of the case. It is important that we understand exactly what those unique circumstances are, because it is important that the Government do not unwittingly set a precedent for many more public inquiries. As a veteran of the Cabinet Office, I became acutely aware of a danger that public inquiries could cease to be the exception and become the rule. Given that there are thought to be thousands of murders from the troubles still unsolved, there is a risk of setting a precedent that would make inquiries the rule. There will be those who ask that if there is to be a full public inquiry in one murder case, why not in another, or in many others? To avoid that happening if this case is, as the Secretary of State says, genuinely unique, the Government have a responsibility to set out why that is. We must not risk turning the system of public inquiries into a more routine process. I am sure that he will feel the same way, and I ask him to make that commitment. I thank him for his statement.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson for his opening remarks, and I will respond directly to his very legitimate questions.

What is unique about this case—I apologise for the length of the opening statement but I thought it was really important to take the House through the history—is the commitment given on two previous occasions by the Government of our country that there would be a public inquiry. To come to his last question, it sets no precedent, but there were exceptional circumstances relating to this case that led me to take this decision.

I will of course, especially as the Finucane family have been waiting 35 years, seek to establish the inquiry as quickly as possible. We have to appoint a judge. The judge then has to be consulted by myself about the terms of reference. The time it takes will depend on how the inquiry unfolds. I am acutely conscious of cost—the hon. Gentleman’s point was extremely fair—which is why it seems to me that, given all the material and information that is already out there, what the inquiry can most usefully do is not seek to go over all of that, but interrogate the information, material and witnesses as necessary. As the Supreme Court made clear, that is what has been missing that led it to conclude that this was not article 2 compliant.

We have a commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, and we will begin that process shortly, finally laying to rest the conditional immunity. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Government have said about civil cases and inquests. On the independent commission, while I shadowed this role in Opposition and since taking up the office of Secretary of State, I have been very clear that while we want to return to the principles of the Stormont House agreement, there needs to be information recovery and there needs to be continuing investigation. It is true that the agreement envisaged two separate bodies, but those functions are combined in the ICRIR. As I have been very frank in saying, now that body has been established and all its staff appointed, I really do not see the point in abolishing it only to recreate something that looks very much like what we have today. It is a pragmatic decision that I have taken. I also made clear in my statement that I am committed to considering further steps to strengthen the ICRIR’s independence and its powers as necessary. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance he was looking for.