Privilege

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for reaching out to me earlier to explain her position; to the Clerk of the Journals for briefing me this afternoon; and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for talking me through this issue over the weekend. I will be unusually brief, because I wish to return to the debate in Westminster Hall—a lot of hon. Members who would otherwise be in the Chamber for this debate are currently engaged in another debate on Northern Ireland.

The Conservative party strongly supports the motion as worded on the Order Paper. The Omagh bombing inquiry was set up by my former right hon. Friend Chris Heaton-Harris in 2023 to deal with one of the very worst atrocities of the troubles, in which the Real IRA attempted to derail the peace process and, in doing so, killed many innocent civilians. As my right hon. Friend understood when he set up the inquiry, it was critical to have a process that could compel witnesses and take evidence under oath to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. Consequently, it is of acute importance that that inquiry has access to all available information in reaching its conclusions. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made clear in his remarks, anything else would make a mockery of the process. On that note, and on a point that the right hon. Member made, it is essential that the Republic co-operates fully with this inquiry. We have had encouraging signs that it will, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

I was reassured to hear the remarks made by the Chair of the Privileges Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). I look forward to hearing that Committee’s conclusions, but its members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party wishes to see this information handed over to the inquiry for its consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

The spending review settlement for the Northern Ireland Office explicitly covers the Finucane inquiry, but so far the Government have refused to say how much money has been set aside for that inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House how much do the Government expect the inquiry to cost?

[Hilary Benn]

The Finucane inquiry is beginning its work. It will publish, as is normal, statements of the expenditure that it engages in. It depends how long the inquiry lasts and how much evidence is taken, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that he will receive an answer in due course, as that process unfolds.

[Alex Burghart]

The Government have just had a spending review, so they must know how much they intend to spend. There will be a line in the Treasury accounts set aside for the Finucane inquiry. I do not understand why the Secretary of State finds it so hard to tell the House how much we expect to spend.

Similarly, the Government must know how much compensation they expect to pay Gerry Adams, following their inexplicable decision to drop the appeal that we lodged in that case. We have repeatedly pressed the Government to legislate to prevent that compensation from being paid and the Government have dragged their heels. This morning, Policy Exchange has published an excellent new report, “Legislating about Gerry Adams and Carltona”, which sets out a clear legal solution. The Government have nowhere further to hide, so will they finally do the right thing?

[Hilary Benn]

The hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. I answered a parliamentary question yesterday in which I made it clear that we will deal with this issue, which arises because of the application of the Carltona principle in the Supreme Court judgment of 2020, which the last Government could not sort out in two and a half years. We will deal with it in our forthcoming legislation, and I will keep the House updated.

Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 General Committees

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Conservative party remains wholeheartedly committed to trial by jury, a right that was first recorded in our laws in 997, but is thought to be even more ancient. The jury system obviously has a central place in how we run our justice system. It brings the public into that system, and gives them great confidence in the way in which the system is run. However, we entirely understand the Government’s reasons for wishing to extend the operation of the measures, given the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland. Only last month, we saw a number of minor sectarian attacks in north Belfast and Larne, which remind us that, despite the highly courageous work of the PSNI and others, the stain of paramilitarism persists.

On that subject, will the Minister update the Committee on an announcement that the Secretary of State made in February? The Secretary of State said that he would appoint an independent expert to consider whether there was any merit in talking to paramilitary groups with a view to seeing them disbanded. It has been five months since that announcement, and I think the Committee would be grateful to understand where that thought process has led.

Although we fully support the draft order, I am interested in hearing from the Minister about the circumstances in which the certificates have been used in the past year. I think she said that a right to a jury was withdrawn by DPP certificate in only 10 of 1,501 trials, or 0.7% of cases. Were there any instances in which an application was made for a certificate but the DPP refused to give one? In addition, can she tell us whether there were any legal challenges to certificates that the DPP issued? Also, I understand that three responses to the consultation suggested that the policy should not be continued. For the benefit of the Committee, will she outline what the objections to the continuance of the policy were?

Notwithstanding those small matters, the Opposition are happy to support the draft order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank Members for those contributions, which I will go through one by one.

The independent expert is currently being recruited. The UK Government and the Government of Ireland have agreed to appoint that expert, who will operate within the existing Independent Reporting Commission framework and be asked to undertake a scoping exercise through a broad programme of engagement to consider whether there are barriers to paramilitary disbandment that may need to be addressed through a formal process.

The expert will test levels of public support for any process that might be established to deal with those issues, and produce a final report within 12 months of starting that sets out what they have heard through their engagement and their assessment of whether a formal process would be useful. It is very much about scoping: there is no prejudgment about whether there will be a formal process; they will just consider it. The work to appoint that person is ongoing.

[Alex Burghart]

By when does the Minister hope to see that independent expert appointed—by the summer, the autumn or the end of the year? Can she give us a sense of how long the process will take?

[Fleur Anderson]

The process is now up to talking with potential candidates. We want the expert to be in place as soon as possible. I will not give a precise date, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that.

In 2023, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued 20 certificates for non-jury trials and refused three, and, in 2024, issued 17 and refused five, in line with the four conditions. I can provide further information on what the reasons were.

Respondents to the consultation who opposed the extension of the provisions felt that Northern Ireland should move towards normalisation of the criminal justice system by relying on alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Some stated that non-jury trials are now treated as normal, with insufficient consideration given to challenging established narratives, and noted that there is a lack of evidence of jury intimidation due to the long-term existence of non-jury trial powers.

Like all Members present, we want to move to jury trials for all. However, in a small number of circumstances, we have decided to continue non-jury trials. We agree with all of those who responded to the consultation to say that they want to move away from that as soon as possible. That is why we will be looking at this issue for the next two-year period, if that is agreed to today.

I agree that the threatening and intimidation of journalists is a very serious issue for our democracy and for justice, and is therefore pertinent to our discussion today. I commend the PSNI on the progress that it has made to address journalist safety in Northern Ireland directly, including the appointment of journalist safety officers. We should support those measures and everything done to support journalists and their safety.

On the points made by the hon. Member for South Antrim, there are four conditions for allowing a non-jury trial. They are broad and cover a broad range of circumstances. However, the additional test of the risk to the administration of justice must also be met before the Director of Public Prosecutions grants a non-jury trial certificate. Since the provisions have been in place, the Director of Public Prosecutions has shown that he applies that statutory test stringently. As I said, certificates were not granted in five cases in 2024. However, that issue is pertinent and should be part of the conversation for the next two years.

On the oversight of Northern Ireland’s non-jury trial system, in the course of the renewal debate in 2017, when Parliament agreed to extend the non-jury trial provisions, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Chloe Smith, committed to keep the provisions under regular independent review by requesting that the independent reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 include non-jury trials in their annual report. Recommendations made since then by the independent reviewer have led to more efficient engagement between the PSNI and the PPS, a reduction in processing times and improvements to the administration of the process. Again, this is a good discussion to continue with.

The Northern Ireland justice system is lacking a sentencing council, as the hon. Member for South Antrim highlighted. The justice system is devolved, as he will know very well, and the establishment of the sentencing council is a decision for the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional public service transformation funding, which I hope will be a part of the whole story of addressing the need to speed up the criminal justice system and make the other changes needed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State left out one crucial detail: the truth is that the last Government did legislate with cross-party support to prevent people like Gerry Adams from receiving taxpayer-funded compensation. The High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that that was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Conservative Government then appealed that judgment. When the Labour party came to power last summer, it dropped that appeal. Will the Secretary of State please set out why the Government decided to drop that appeal?

[Hilary Benn]

As I told the House a moment ago, the courts found that clauses 46 and 47 were unlawful. Although the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was not obviously asked to rule on that, because we had withdrawn the appeal, it did comment unfavourably on those provisions. We supported clauses 46 and 47 at the time, but they have not worked, and that is why we have to find an alternative way forward. I just say to the House that the main issue here is the Carltona principle, which the last Government argued meant it was lawful for junior Ministers to sign ICOs. The amendment to try to deal with that failed, and we need to find another way of reaffirming that principle. That is at the heart of this case.

[Alex Burghart]

The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State not give a reason why the Government did not continue the appeal. Government lawyers told the last Government that there were grounds for appeal. Policy Exchange, in a report in January written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, said that the High Court had almost certainly been “mistaken” in its judgment and that there were strong grounds for an appeal. Why did the Government drop it, and why have the Government not yet brought forward their own legislation to clear this mess up once and for all?

[Hilary Benn]

The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020, and the last Government could not find a legal solution in almost three years. I am committed to finding one, and I promise that I will update the House when we have found it.

EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will update the House on the likely impact on the Northern Irish economy of EU tariffs on the US.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the Prime Minister has said, tariffs are not good news for anyone and no one wants a trade war. The Government are doing everything possible to keep Britain secure during this new era of global instability, and we will always act in the best interests of businesses in Northern Ireland. As part of our customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exporters are facing a general 10% US tariff and a 25% tariff on steel, aluminium and cars, like other exporters across the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not therefore uniquely disadvantaged. We are, of course, preparing for the EU’s next move and any possible retaliatory tariffs that it may or may not introduce, as well as considering the impact that new EU tariffs would have on Northern Ireland businesses importing from the United States of America, because under the Windsor framework, the EU tariff would apply.

As hon. Members will know, however, because of the Windsor framework, businesses can reclaim any such tariff through the existing duty reimbursement scheme in cases where US imports into Northern Ireland do not then enter the European Union. The customs duty waiver scheme also allows duties to be waived entirely, subject to an overall limit. These schemes work in our national interest, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is continuing to talk to and support any businesses that might be affected, to help them understand how to use the duty reimbursement and customs duty waiver schemes. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has talked about all this with EU counterparts in recent days, because the Government are fully aware of how sensitive this issue is for businesses in Northern Ireland. What we need in these circumstances is a calm and considered response, and that is what the Government will continue to provide.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Alex Burghart]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly important that this House has the opportunity to question the Government on this issue before the Easter break and before the implementation of these tariffs. I have enormous respect for my opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Office, but it is totally unacceptable that we should have got to this stage in proceedings without a Minister coming to the House to update us on the likely impact on businesses in Northern Ireland of this emerging tariff war between the US and the EU. As the House will know, this comes off the back of the considerable damage done to the economy in Northern Ireland by the Budget last year, by the increases in national insurance contributions and by the changes to the national minimum wage, which have completely undermined business confidence and which are driving unemployment in the region.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the following three questions. First, a week on from the United States’ announcement and some time after the EU’s publication of a 99-page draft of its tariff responses, have the Government now done an impact assessment of what this means for the Northern Irish economy and for businesses in Northern Ireland, and will he publish it?

Secondly, he rightly mentions the duty reimbursement scheme, which would allow businesses taking goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and having to pay the EU tariff to reclaim that tariff. That scheme is now going to be put under enormous pressure. It is going to have to deal with volumes not foreseen when it was originally put together. Does the Secretary of State have complete confidence that it will be able to reimburse businesses in a timely fashion so as not to disrupt trade?

Thirdly and finally, because Northern Ireland remains within the EU customs code, affected Northern Ireland businesses buying affected goods will have to pay EU tariffs, but the same competitive businesses in GB will not. What are the Government going to do to ensure that such businesses are not left disadvantaged, and that we do not see serious distortions of trade? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that in the event that we see a major diversion of trade, his Government will be prepared to use article 16 of the Windsor framework, which allows the Government to take decisions to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland are not damaged? It is incredibly important that businesses hear from the Secretary of State that the Government are prepared to protect them in the event that this tariff war creates a diversion of trade for business there.

[Hilary Benn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I am slightly surprised by his initial comment, because of course we touched on this matter in Northern Ireland oral questions—

[Alex Burghart]

Only because I raised it.

[Hilary Benn]

Indeed, but we touched on this matter in Northern Ireland orals last week, and the Business Secretary made a statement to the House last week.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, of course the Government have been preparing for and looking at all eventualities, but until we know what the EU retaliatory tariffs are, it does not make much sense to publish speculation about their potential impact.

On the duty reimbursement scheme, I have met HMRC officials, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the scheme works effectively, depending on the number of Northern Ireland businesses that are affected, to reimburse tariffs. I would just say, however, that Northern Ireland imports about £800 million-worth of goods from the United States of America, which is about 2% of Northern Ireland’s total purchases. That impacts upon his third question. We are going to have to take this a stage at a time. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he will do what is in the national interest to protect our businesses, our companies and our economic future, but it is precisely because of the Windsor framework that the duty reimbursement scheme exists.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Burghart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

As the House has heard, we are expecting Washington later today to announce the biggest changes to its tariff regime in a generation. That may cause huge disruption to industry and business throughout the United Kingdom, and that disruption may be particularly felt in Northern Ireland. What guidance have the Government provided to businesses in Northern Ireland to help them prepare for different scenarios?

[Hilary Benn]

We do not yet know, apart from the tariffs on cars and on steel and aluminium, what else the US Administration may announce later today. But the effects of any tariffs, if imposed, will be felt equally in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. We will have to deal with the consequences when we know what the US Administration have decided.

[Alex Burghart]

I am afraid that reveals that the Government have provided businesses with no information to help them prepare for the different scenarios that may emerge. The Secretary of State will be aware that in some scenarios Northern Ireland, because of its unique arrangements, may be particularly disadvantaged in a trade war. Will he confirm to the House that, if that happens, the Government will be prepared to use article 16 of the Windsor framework to take unilateral safeguarding measures to protect businesses in GB and Northern Ireland?

[Hilary Benn]

In respect of tariffs that affect the whole of the United Kingdom, as I have already said to the hon. Gentleman, we will have to see what they are and take the appropriate action in response. If the EU retaliates, then there will be an issue in respect of Northern Ireland, as he will be well aware. However, there is the tariff reimbursement scheme, of which he will also be aware, and that means that, provided those businesses can demonstrate that the goods they have bought from the United States of America are not leaving the United Kingdom, they can get that tariff reimbursed.

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.