Northern Ireland Executive

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I share the weariness of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) about our continuing necessity to debate Northern Ireland business on the Floor of the House, and I hope very much that, before too long, we will see democracy in Northern Ireland restored to where it should be: Stormont.

However, we have to contemplate the possibility that that day may be some time off. I share the desire already expressed for some form of road map, some sense of when it may be necessary to bring powers back to Whitehall to make sure that Northern Ireland is properly governed, because there can be little doubt—my Select Committee has certainly taken evidence to this effect—that the good governance of Northern Ireland is suffering big time right now. Decisions that should be made in the interest of the ordinary lived experience of people in Northern Ireland are not being made because of the absence of ministerial decision making.

That situation is sustainable for a while but not for too long, and it has become increasingly clear to us that public services are suffering, that decisions are not being made and that infrastructure is not being put in place. Civil servants, who are trying to do their best, clearly have their limitations. That has been proved in the courts, despite the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and there will come a time when Ministers here in London will have to start making those decisions with a heavy heart. It probably is not acceptable to kick this particular can too much further down the road.

I share the temptation, expressed by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), to think about calling the Assembly to see who turns up, but he knows as well as I do that that recall would be very short-lived indeed because of the need for cross-community consent.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The recall may well be short-lived, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that one significant advantage is that reconvening the Assembly would prove, beyond any doubt, who are the willing and who are the unwilling?

[Dr Murrison]

That’s as may be, but the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my preamble that I am interested in ministerial decision making, and I rather suspect that very few decisions would be made by Ministers in the short space of time between the convening of the Assembly and it breaking down. Under the legislation, it certainly would not have legitimacy.

[Sammy Wilson]

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s cynicism and caution in all of this, but as Sinn Féin, which I assume he was referring to, has publicly made it clear that it does not object to going back into the Assembly, does he not think this would at least be a useful exercise to test the sincerity of Sinn Féin spokesmen, who almost daily are now saying that they wish to go back into the Assembly? If the doors were opened and the Secretary of State invited all the parties, we would see whether or not those assurances, which are given with a straight face on the TV almost every night, are sincere.

[Dr Murrison]

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has his own views on the sincerity of the party to which he refers, but the preoccupation of the Secretary of State is the good governance of Northern Ireland. In that respect, I suspect we would not be moved much further on were we to recall the Assembly and see who turns up.

The date of 25 August is interesting. As has been said, not much is likely to happen between now and then, particularly given the marching season. What happens on 25 August? It seems to me that there could be a throwing of the electoral dice in order to work out a way forward because something might turn up; the numbers may change and it may be possible to form an Executive. The sense is that that would not happen.

We are then of course faced with another important date: 31 October 2019, the latest in the deadlines for this Brexit journey. One thing has been made clear in terms of the chronology: in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there would have to be some form of direct rule from Westminster. That is the only certainty we have been given by Ministers. I would like to know from the Minister, therefore, whether it is his working assumption that, on 25 August, an election would be called in very short order, because that would give a small window between then and 31 October in which to hold elections and perhaps have a slightly different outcome from the one we have at the moment—that may just be crucial.

That is pretty much all I have to say. As the Minister has said, this is a short measure and it is unobjectionable. Like most right hon. and hon. Members, I cannot wait to get on to discuss seed potatoes, which is the second matter of Northern Ireland business we will be debating this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) who has spoken very eloquently about the attractions of Northern Ireland. She is right to point out, as we consider the dark news of the weekend’s events, the many tremendous assets that Northern Ireland has going for it, which include, most of all, its people despite everything that has happened in recent days. We have seen the worst of what can happen in Northern Ireland, but we have also seen the very best, with people coming together in a very, very strong way to send a powerful message about the future that we all want for our beloved country. Although we may have our disagreements—our strong disagreements—we all hail from Northern Ireland. We were born there, we live there, and our families grew up there. Our grandchildren, those of us who have them—I am blessed to have two young grandchildren—will live their lives there, and we want to see the very best for them. We are united in that great hope of wanting to see the very best for the future of our country.

Part of the sad fact of what we have to deal with is not just the human tragedy, which we spoke about earlier, and the terrible events in Londonderry, but the fact that we do not have a functioning political Assembly or a functioning Government in Northern Ireland. That is deeply regrettable. I remember the evening when Martin McGuinness came and told Arlene Foster, me and a number of our aides that he was going to resign. Even at that stage, we urged him to think again. We said to him, “If you collapse everything, it will be much, much harder to build it up again.” It was throwing away 10 years of progress over something that, by comparison with all that we have been through in Northern Ireland and have overcome, was a comparatively minor issue—important, but not the sort of issue that we had dealt with previously and had overcome. We urged him to think again, but Sinn Féin was determined to take this course of action. In the full knowledge of what might be at stake, it plunged Northern Ireland into a needless election. We have all seen what unnecessary elections sometimes bring about: very much unintended consequences. These elections have outcomes. Martin McGuinness called that election; Sinn Féin effectively called that election in the belief that it would strengthen its position and things would carry on with it in a more important, dominant position. Of course, it did not work out that way.

We are where we are, and this statutory instrument is a necessary one. Of course, we will not oppose it, but we do not believe that it is at all satisfactory in terms of the government of Northern Ireland. Quite frankly, we cannot go on like this for much longer, and I think the Secretary of State knows that. Indeed, the House needs to be reminded that when the Conservative party manifesto was written in 2017, the Government said that they wanted to

“avoid any return to direct rule, but in the continued absence of a functioning devolved administration, a Conservative government will do all that is necessary to provide the good governance and political stability that Northern Ireland needs, including political decision-making from Westminster”.

That was in the Conservative party manifesto in 2017, and it bears repeating today because what we are being offered in Northern Ireland is the worst form of government that can possibly be imagined anywhere in a modern, civilised, developed, democratic country.

The people who are running the Government in Northern Ireland are effectively senior civil servants. David Sterling, the head of the civil service, made it clear on 23 March last year that it was totally and utterly unacceptable for senior civil servants to be put in this position. Not only is this SI—and the primary legislation that underpins it and give it its locus—wrong in principle by having Northern Ireland governed in this way; it is also a flagrant breach of the Conservative party manifesto, on which this Government stood and on which they are supposed to be proceeding.

[Dr Murrison]

I do not disagree with anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, but he himself said that when the institutions collapsed, he pointed out to the late Martin McGuinness how difficult it would be to rebuild them. Is it not also the case that it would be less likely that the institutions would be capable of being re-established were powers to be brought back to Westminster?

[Nigel Dodds]

We are now two years into this limboland, which is utterly unacceptable in its own terms, but it is not correct to suggest that this is having the effect of bringing about the restoration of devolution. The people of Northern Ireland deserve proper government, with accountable decisions being made. These are normal, democratic, basic fundamental rights.

Let me give the House a couple of examples. We were talking earlier about violence and paramilitarism in Northern Ireland—about the still pernicious role of paramilitaries on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. I have experience of that in my constituency of Belfast North, on the loyalist side as well as the republican side. The head of the Organised Crime Task Force says that not having Ministers taking decisions is hampering its pursuit of paramilitary and criminal assets. The unexplained wealth orders, whereby people are forced to provide evidence as to how they have gained their wealth, cannot be implemented in Northern Ireland. These are common-sense measures that would empower the security forces and the agencies of the Government to tackle criminality and paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, but they are simply left to wither on the vine. That is utterly unacceptable. These things are now well past the time when they need to be brought into force, and that has to be done, one way or another, through Ministers.

The Chairman of the Select Committee referred to the impact of Brexit. I have heard the argument that if we leave the European Union, direct rule will have to be implemented in Northern Ireland. I have read reports that apparently this has been considered such a terrible prospect that the UK should remain in the European Union for as long as it takes to avoid direct rule in Northern Ireland. I point out to the House that we had periods—considerable periods—of direct rule after the 2003 Assembly elections when Sinn Féin refused to decommission its weapons. It was in government but it was still murdering people on the streets through the direct action against drugs, I think it was called. It was still holding on to its arms; it had not decommissioned them. So the Government of the day—a Labour Government—had to introduce direct rule in order to deal with the matter. Of course, people accepted that there had to be proper governance. It was not permanent; it was interim. It was not intended to last for ever. It was designed to give some semblance of good governance to Northern Ireland while these issues were resolved.

Arlene Foster, our party leader, has made it clear that she is prepared to form the Executive in Northern Ireland tomorrow, along with the other parties entitled to seats in the Executive, if the Assembly is called. I would agree with what Members have said in the House tonight about calling the Assembly. Let us see who is willing to go into government and who is not. Let us test it with people who talk about wanting to get government in Northern Ireland. Arlene Foster made an offer last year in which she said, “Let’s get the Assembly up and going, to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with—health, education, schools, the environment, roads, infrastructure—and let’s talk about the other issues”, which had suddenly became evident after the elections were called, “in parallel.”

In case anyone thinks that this is an open-ended process designed to lure Sinn Féin into the Executive and the Assembly without any kind of finality or prospect of getting agreement on these issues, we can time-limit it and say, “Well, the Assembly will fall again if we do not get these matters resolved.” That was dismissed within 30 minutes of the offer being made. This week we heard what Sinn Féin’s position was. This was said on Easter Sunday by Mary Lou McDonald: “Let us have a British-Irish partnership—a joint authority between the Irish Government and the British Government—to get things implemented, and then call the Assembly.” Let us be clear in this House tonight about what is happening in terms of the willingness of parties to enter government.

People have talked about what will happen on 25 August. The Secretary of State is clear that under this SI she will be under an obligation to call elections, but then she was under an obligation to call elections in 2017, when nearly a whole year went by and then we introduced retrospective legislation to extend the date to March 2019. So let us not get too excited about what might happen on 25 August. One thing that should certainly happen by then is that good governance should be returned to Northern Ireland in one shape or form.

I am intrigued that the explanatory memorandum, which was prepared by the Northern Ireland Office, says in paragraph 12:

“There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.

There is no, or no significant, impact on the public sector.

An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector.”

How can the Northern Ireland Office seriously suggest that there is no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies? There is a massive impact in Northern Ireland every single day as a result of the failure to do not only what is right but what the Conservative party promised to do in its manifesto.

Northern Ireland: Murder of Lyra McKee

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and agree with much of what he said. He sums up eloquently, in a way that is typical of him; he is a very eloquent speaker at the Dispatch Box, and that was a particularly poignant and moving contribution. He is right to say that the whole House shares in the condemnation of the acts that took place. His comment about the brightness of life of Lyra was very moving. She did represent Londonderry. She represented Northern Ireland, and she represented its future. As I mentioned in my statement, I was with the mayor of Derry and Strabane on Saturday, and he knew Lyra personally and had taught her; Councillor John Boyle said that Lyra was one of those people who wanted her name in lights—just not in the way that her name was in lights over the weekend, and that is the tragedy.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is definitely a sense on the ground that this is the end and people do not want to see this happen again. Those communities, which have been oppressed by the terrorists and the dissidents, and made to live in a way they do not want to live in those estates—they do not want to be part of that—are standing up and saying, “No, not in my name.” He is right about that. None of us can escape the symbolism of this. It was Good Friday and a woman, a journalist, an innocent was shot dead by terrorists. None of us can escape that. None of us can miss that. I also agree with him about the symbolism of the political leaders joining together on Friday in Creggan and being together. Great leadership was shown by all those political leaders; it was leadership that the people of Northern Ireland want to see, and I commend them all for what they did. We will need to talk about many things in the coming days, and I am happy to work with him on those, but at the moment, with Lyra’s funeral tomorrow, it is best that we reflect on the brilliance of the light that she shone and the future that she had that we will never see.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Viacom channel MTV appears to have been central to this awful tragedy, through no fault of its own. What can be done to ensure that media operators that, quite legitimately, seek to create content in conflicted situations of this sort are not involved, clearly against their wishes and much to their horror, in events of this sort, where there appears to have been a failed propaganda attempt by the New IRA?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee. I know that he, as a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, is very familiar with the situation in Londonderry and the security threat the PSNI and security forces face every day. It is quite something to think that when actions like this happen in Londonderry it is almost normal—it is just what happens. The PSNI face petrol bombs and shots being fired at them. They sit in Land Rovers and take the fire and the onslaught. Clearly, we will need to wait to see, in the days to come, what effect the camera crew being on the ground had, but this also shows that a crowd had gathered. People came out to watch what was seen as being a spectacle. That just goes to show that these spectacles can have the most deadly outcomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The Belfast/Good Friday agreement was a landmark achievement. It took many years and many people take credit for it, and quite rightly so. We have been clear that there will be no diminution of rights when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. That is set out very clearly in the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement, which means, as I said earlier, that the answer is to vote for the deal.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy that cutting corporation tax to the level enjoyed by businesses in the Republic of Ireland would more than compensate for any loss of attractiveness of Northern Ireland to foreign direct investors and the associated job losses?

[Karen Bradley]

This House gave the Northern Ireland Executive the power to cut the corporation tax rate. That is an achievement of this Government, and we believe it would help the economy of Northern Ireland. We need a functioning Executive—we will come on to that issue later—for that power to be used, and that is what we all want to happen.

Northern Ireland Assembly Election

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I have to say I am very disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s tone—he is someone I respect and have enormous time for.

I was incredibly disappointed when I saw that my conversations with political parties yesterday had been put out in press releases and ended up on social media. That was not the intention. I made this decision having consulted all five main parties—I spoke to them all yesterday, either face to face or over the telephone—and I also spoke to the Irish Government, and when I had consulted all those parties and said that I was minded to extend the legislation, but only if there was any prospect or possibility of the parties coming together, and they confirmed to me that that was the case, I contacted the hon. Gentleman. I, too, am disappointed that information was on social media before I had had the chance to contact him, but I assure him that I contacted him at the very earliest opportunity after I had made my decision based on my conversations with the parties.

I do meet the parties regularly, I do speak to them and I do hear from them. I brought the parties together in five-party talks to see whether we could find a way to get a process in place. Parties tell me that they want to do that, so I intend to spend the next few weeks working with them on actions that can be taken so that, when we are able to start a formal talks process, we are able to do so in a way that gives us the best chance of success.

The hon. Gentleman is right that two years is too long for the people of Northern Ireland to be without Ministers. I know that the parties want to find a way to go back into Stormont, and I want to do everything in my power to ensure that that happens. That is why, extremely reluctantly, I have laid the instrument today—an instrument that he will have 90 minutes to debate on the Floor of the House, and can vote against if he disagrees with it.

The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to see devolution restored in Northern Ireland, yet he consistently undermines that position by demanding that decisions are taken in Westminster—the very opposite of devolution. He also says that he wants to see Northern Ireland protected in Brexit, but he consistently votes against the only position that protects the Belfast agreement—the deal that is supported by his sister party in Northern Ireland, which would ensure that Northern Ireland does not move into chaos and would not wreck the prospects of any devolution in Northern Ireland. If he wants to start taking actions that match his words, he should do the right thing for Northern Ireland and vote for the deal next week.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I fully understand the need to table the written ministerial statement, but it states quite clearly that the proposed talks should be “short” and “focused”, and I assume that that is more than rhetorical. However, my experience of talks in Northern Ireland is that they are neither short nor particularly focused. Will the Secretary of State explain a little bit more about her thinking on the matter, as what she has written seems to suggest that there is a specific bone of contention within the current impasse in Northern Ireland that can be resolved through the short and focused talks that she envisages?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, whom I also notified of the decision yesterday. The reason for the comment about short and focused talks is that I genuinely believe that there is a will to re-establish devolved government. A number of issues need to be resolved, but we will ensure that work is done before the talks start. Let me be clear that I do not want to mislead people in Northern Ireland to think that a talks process will have success if I do not believe that it will. I will therefore only call that talks process if I believe that there will be success, but I believe that the issues can be dealt with through a short, focused process, and that is what I intend to bring forward.

Exiting the European Union (Armorial Bearings, Ensigns and Flags)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am not quite sure that I can follow that speech either in substance or in sentiment, but I shall do my best.

On the face of it, this is a minor, unobjectionable, technical measure. However, I commend the European Statutory Instrument Committee for being canny enough to spot the fact that the words “flag” and “Northern Ireland” appearing in the same sentence probably mean that we should exercise caution and be careful. Presumably that is why the Committee referred this measure for affirmative resolution.

I recall that shortly after the referendum in 2016, people were getting terribly excited about hauling down the European Union flag. I thought that that was rather sad and unnecessary, but of course when we come to leave the European Union, the big picture in the newspapers the following day will be the European Union flag being hauled down from overseas embassies, for example.

Europe Day is clearly important for a lot of people. It is important for the European Union itself, for our neighbours and for European Union citizens here. I think we need to be little relaxed about this particular flag in the United Kingdom. I note that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport issues guidance and advice in GB, although it is clearly more prescriptive for Northern Ireland for the obvious reasons that were touched upon by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) when he outlined his long-standing personal experience of this matter, particularly in relation to Belfast City Hall.

I think that this country as a whole needs to be just a little bit relaxed about the flying of this flag on Europe Day, although I have no idea what guidance DCMS will subsequently offer on the subject of flying flags. It would seem to be a reasonable expression of our amity and concord with other European Union states, and indeed European Union citizens, if we could perhaps be a little laid back about the flying of this flag on public buildings, given that we are in the habit of flying various flags and banners from such buildings on the appropriate days, either formally or informally, from time to time. Given the importance of flags as an expression of goodwill, it would not be inappropriate for DCMS to ponder that fact as it issues and updates its guidance.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

We have had significant debate on this matter on Second Reading and I do not wish to prolong proceedings any further at this stage. I look forward to hearing from right hon. and hon. Members.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to you for calling me to speak in this stage of our proceedings, Sir Lindsay. The complexity of the Bill, apart from clause 1, has been demonstrated by the level of discussion that we have had. That really underscores the need for full and proper scrutiny of this Bill. Forcing this through all its stages in a day is a challenge, and I fear we have not explored sufficiently the complexity of this matter. It is a matter that bears on the lives of many people in Northern Ireland and we must get it right. I know the Secretary of State is as keen as I am to ensure that that happens.

I am grateful to the parliamentary draftsmen for their assistance in crafting my new clause, which is available in manuscript form. It turns what I thought would be a simple matter—that of dividing the largely uncontroversial part of the Bill from the more difficult bit on the RHI—into something that, in my mind, is really quite complicated, but that is the nature of this place and of parliamentary draftsmanship. We cannot consider these two parts separately and be sure the matter will be finalised in time for people to get their money on 1 April, so in consultation with parliamentary draftsmen, we have devised a new clause and an amendment to clause 6, which is the commencement clause.

I am grateful to the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee who have co-signed the new clause and amendment. I have appended to the new clause what I hope is a helpful explanatory statement. It explains that the new clause is essentially a patch-up job that I hope will help to facilitate consultation and fuller and better scrutiny of proposed changes to the renewable heat incentive scheme to ensure that current participants are not disadvantaged by changes to the scheme. I appreciate that this is imperfect—I would have preferred for it to be dealt with separately and for the Bill to have been divided into two parts to allow for a proper debate on the RHI clauses and schedule—but I accept that we are faced with the choice of supporting the Bill or not and that if we do not support it many people will be financially disadvantaged, which is not acceptable. I hope that the new clause provides a mechanism for scrutinising this matter, albeit imperfectly, and for making recommendations that the Secretary of State might implement to ensure that as few people as possible are disadvantaged.

I am not in the business of job creation, and I gently point out that my Select Committee is the most productive in the House of Commons, according to figures I have seen—we are pretty busy, particularly at the moment—but it might be thought a proper Select Committee to undertake this work. If so, I will discuss it with my Committee, but I make no prescription. I am quite clear that this complicated element of our business needs proper detailed scrutiny and that we need to see and examine the data produced.

Several right hon. and hon. Members have been a little critical of the Department for the Economy. It is after all implicated in this situation, as the informatics it produced and the advice it gave are partly to blame for where we are, and that means we are doubly obliged to examine closely any material it has produced. That is fair and proper scrutiny. I gently suggest that whichever Select Committee undertakes this work focus heavily on that information so that we can be clear what is being recommended to the Secretary of State and are better able to make recommendations to minimise the hard cases that we are all concerned about in the course of this legislation. I hope she will consider the amendments carefully, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I cannot continue with those, because the advice that I have is that to continue with them would be illegal. Under the ministerial code, I cannot, as a Minister of the Crown, legislate for something that I am advised is illegal. So I am left in a very difficult situation. I understand how people feel about this. I empathise with people and I understand the implications for them of a reduction, but as Secretary of State, legislating for something that none of us wants to be legislating for in this place, I am faced with the choice of legislating for something that is legal, to allow some subsidies to continue, or not legislating, which would result in no subsidies happening after 31 March. The legal basis on which the reduced subsidies, as set out by the Executive, are paid expires on 31 March.

[Dr Murrison]

I appreciate the Secretary of State’s dilemma. She is having to act on the basis of advice that she is getting from the Department for the Economy, a Department whose advice has been shown to be flawed in the past. Does she understand that we need to examine this closely? She has been told that, legally, she has to do this, and we in this place have to accept that, but we also have to scrutinise the legislation. I hope that she can give me sufficient reassurance that she will note our examination of this matter and our recommendations on it, and that she will not take at face value the advice that she has been given from a Department that has erred in the past. I very much hope that she will be able to tailor her remarks accordingly, and I am all agog as to what commitment she can give to providing the scrutiny that I have described in my amendment.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions, and I will come on specifically to those points in a moment.

I want to come back to the question of whether there is an option to delay. I agree with the principle and intention behind the amendment, but it is not the solution to the wider problem. As I have said, the tariffs set out in the legislation are the only tariffs available that will bring the returns on the scheme into line with the 12% approved by state aid. The tariffs strike a fair balance between the interests of scheme participants and the wider public interest, in ensuring that the Northern Ireland budget and public services are protected and that taxpayers’ money is spent to achieve value for money. The only lawful alternative would be the closure of the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the concerns expressed and articulated through my amendments. I note her remarks from the Dispatch Box that she will carefully consider the result of further scrutiny of this Bill and any recommendations that my Committee, or any other Committee, might make on how to ensure that this necessary measure does not disadvantage businesses in Northern Ireland. I look forward, if my Select Committee agrees to undertake this work, to the scrutiny that the Bill deserves, so far as we are able to provide it, and to making recommendations to her in very short order. I particularly look forward to her response to any recommendations that we might make.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Is the Minister concerned about the possible impact on small businesses of the changes proposed to non-domestic renewable heat incentives in the legislation that we are about to consider, and is he particularly cautious about advice he may be receiving from the energy Department, because it was that that Department that got us into this fix in the first place?

[John Penrose]

Without wanting to prejudge this afternoon’s debate—as my hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Chairman has said, we will be going through this in a lot more detail—he is absolutely right that the renewable heat incentive scheme has been the subject of a great deal of concerned commentary, because it has dramatically broken its budgets and is not a sustainable solution. I think everybody is treating any proposals with a great degree of concern and scrutiny because of that history, and I am sure we will have a chance to go through it in more detail, and we will try to ensure that any proposals that are legislated on do not suffer from the faults that existed in the previous version.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

These are unusual times for Northern Ireland and this is an unusual Bill. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what we have today is something of an essay crisis; that is to say, something presented as being urgent and in need of consideration by the House in one day that could in fact easily have been considered more electively.

It has been said that we should decouple the two elements of the Bill. In truth, most of the Bill relates to the renewable heat incentive. The regional rate issue is largely unobjectionable and would pass with the greatest of ease through the House on a bipartisan basis, but we have to accept that politically the renewable heat incentive is an extremely toxic issue. After all, it has brought us to the sorry pass that we are currently in, with the collapse of the Executive and the Assembly. It is absolutely central to the political chaos that currently afflicts Northern Ireland and that is adversely impacting on the lived experience of people in Northern Ireland, so it demands that we look at the legislation closely and in a considered and measured fashion, of the sort that usually involves a proper Committee stage. That is not being offered on this occasion. I share the surprise expressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) that these two completely different issues have been conjoined in this rather unusual Bill. I have sympathy with his suggestion that the two might be separated so that we can pass that which is unobjectionable and straightforward and consider on a more elective basis those bits—those clauses—that are more complicated.

A 12% return is pretty good by any standards. A casual observer of our proceedings would wonder, I suspect, what the fuss is all about—I would love to have a 12% return on my investments—but the fact of the matter is that those small businesses that invested in this technology did so on the copper-bottomed understanding that they would get a different rate of return. The institutions that lent on that basis would have been similarly advised, and the investment would have been procured on that basis. We now have to unpick something of a disaster on the part of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, and I understand the Secretary of State’s dilemma. This is not easy; something has to be done. However, when Bills are before us in this place, we must consider those people who will be inadvertently disadvantaged. Like most hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have been lobbied by such people who point out that they invested in good faith and that their small businesses might be brought to the edge because of the change in circumstances over which they have no control.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does that not go to the heart of the matter? The existence of a voluntary buy-out scheme seems an implicit recognition to me that exactly the situation that the hon. Gentleman identifies is one that is likely to occur. That surely means that the legitimate expectations of the recipients of the subsidies are so adversely affected that any legal challenge would be successful.

[Dr Murrison]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns in that respect. As a lawyer, he will know better than me that there is every prospect of a judicial review in this matter. It would be very surprising, given the propensity of individuals and organisations in Northern Ireland to seek judicial review on a range of things, if that were not the case in this instance. Indeed, that includes their representative organisations. Clearly, the Government need to do everything in their power to ensure that they are protected against such an eventuality, including, I suggest, ensuring proper scrutiny of this Bill, as inadequate scrutiny will surely be cited as a reason for such a review to result in a judgment that is in favour of those bringing the case forward. However, fear of judicial review is one thing, but what we need to do in this place is to ensure that individuals are not disadvantaged. That means scrutinising this Bill properly and trying to ensure that, if possible, those hard cases are avoided.

I understand the rules on state aid and I understand that the buy-out is a mechanism of trying to be generous to those who may be disadvantaged, but within the rules that have been set. I also have concerns because the Department that has advised on this matter—the Department for the Economy—is, of course, implicated in the mess in the first place. I would be worried if the Secretary of State were being overly reliant on the advice that she is receiving from that Department and, in all candour, I suggest that she needs to be extremely careful about that.

Scrutiny—challenging advice—is what we do in this place. It worries me that this controversial Bill on this most toxic of issues is not undergoing such scrutiny. It would seem to me to be entirely sensible for Ministers to ensure that this measure has all possible scrutiny to hedge against the possibility that what it is doing, on advice from the Department for the Economy, is in fact erring in some important respect, as indeed the advice to Ministers has been from that Department in the past.

I also worry—this has been touched on already—about what confidence institutions will have in these sorts of Government schemes in the future, given that they will have assumed that anything backed by or instituted by Government is copper-bottomed, safe and triple A rated. They now find that that is not the case, and that any loan they may have made on the basis of an expectation of, admittedly, fantastically high returns—nevertheless, backed by Government—will in fact result in a return much less than that. Indeed, in the event that some of these businesses go to the wall, these investments may have to be written off.

We have to reflect on the fact that many of these businesses are marginal concerns. Many of the 1,800 businesses are farms, and we know that farming in Northern Ireland is quite different from farming in the rest of the United Kingdom. They tend to be small, marginal farms. The people from those farms who have invested in this scheme may find themselves embarrassed financially by this particular decision. It is quite possible that we might be able to design some sort of scheme that is based around hardship for special cases. There is no recommendation to that effect in this Bill other than the buy-out scheme. I commend the Secretary of State for that, as it is absolutely right to bring such a scheme forward within the constraints of state aid, but there is very little beyond that, and there will be cases of hardship. In the context of Northern Ireland—a small place with lots of small businesses and small farms—would not it be tragic if we found some of those businesses going to the wall as a result of this change in policy?

Of course, this legislation has to go through because if it does not, on 1 April people will be faced with getting nothing, but I gently suggest to Ministers that this is an imperfect Bill that needs further scrutiny and input. I hope very much that my new clause 1 will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that we may debate this matter further in Committee. It would be extremely good if we could do so, because the new clause makes some sensible recommendations about how we can ensure that this difficult part of a Bill that is otherwise unobjectionable is given the scrutiny that it deserves so that people can therefore have greater confidence in it.

In general, the Secretary of State is quite right to bring this legislation forward. It is a pity that we have not had the scrutiny of the whole Bill that it really deserves. Given the issues that currently apply at Stormont, we need to be particularly careful in this place that we give matters that relate to Northern Ireland all the scrutiny we can possibly can. This represents something of an essay crisis that was absolutely avoidable had we brought the measures forward in a more timely manner and decoupled these two very different elements of a particularly unusual Bill.

Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The additional funding for health and education is partly down to the new money that the Treasury has found—the £140 million—but it is also down to Barnett consequentials and other reasons. We have worked to ensure that the money that is needed by Departments, as requested by the permanent secretaries, is given to them, but the shadow Secretary of State is right that it is for business as usual activities. Major policy decisions cannot be taken at this stage because that needs political leadership.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that this is not simply a matter of uplifting the amount of funding to education or healthcare; this is also about trying to work out how best to spend that money. Will any of the £4 million in transformation funding that she identified last month be used to try to work out how the footprint of the education and healthcare estate might be better utilised?

[Karen Bradley]

We are keen that the Northern Ireland civil service does the necessary work to prepare for the transformation of health and education and for the urgently needed reforms but, to be clear, the actual reforms can only be made once Ministers are in place in Stormont to make the decisions and give political direction.

Returning to the vote on account, the reason why it is 70% in this Bill, rather than the normal 45%, is that that recognises the increased spending pressures facing public services and the lack of Ministers in place to take reactive and decisive steps to respond to emerging or escalating pressures. It also recognises the uncertainty of the political situation in Northern Ireland in the months ahead. In the light of that context, such a level of vote on account is reasonable and provides the practical and legal certainties to protect public services in any circumstance and up until the point that Northern Ireland budget legislation for 2019-20 is taken through to secure funding for the full year. It goes without saying that I genuinely hope that a new Executive will be in place to take their own budget legislation forward for 2019-20, but this Government stand ready to take it through if needed.

To be clear, this Bill does not represent a budget for the year ahead. It does not seek to set out in legislation the departmental allocations that I outlined in my written statement on 28 February, because the headline allocations will require legislation later in the year. However, until that point, the vote on account in this Bill and the draft Northern Ireland budgetary position for 2019-20, as set out in my written statement last week, give the necessary clarity and certainty to Northern Ireland Departments to enable them to take decisions and plan and prepare for the year ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

I simply repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not want to see direct rule—I genuinely do not—and there are massive issues with it. Some of my hon. Friends served as Ministers during the period of direct rule, and it is a very difficult and undesirable thing. I will say this, and it may give him a small hint: the Labour Government did bring in direct rule, so none of us can say that it will never happen. We are not there yet, but we are in a position where we have to see greater activity from the Secretary of State and—yes, of course—from the leaders of the political parties. I will return to that theme in a little while, because I want to make another point in that context, but I am definitely not giving up yet on Stormont being brought back into operation.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me a totally separate question. By the way, let me make it clear to him that there were soldiers who were victims themselves, members of the then Royal Ulster Constabulary were victims. Many of them take the view that the justice process has to continue because they want justice or, very often, the families of soldiers and serving police officers want to know what happened to their loved ones. I think that is still a legitimate case to make, and it is one I will continue to make. We will no doubt debate this on other occasions.

[Dr Murrison]

As always, I am following all the hon. Gentleman has to say with a great deal of interest. He has mentioned victims, and he is right to do so. Will he say whether he would include within his definition of a victim those who are victims by virtue of actions by their own hand?

[Tony Lloyd]

I am afraid—to give the hon. Gentleman the answer he does not want to hear—that, yes, I think so. We have to cut through this very difficult situation, and we cannot delay payments to victims. It is controversial, and I am very well aware of that, but if we are going to delay payments to victims across the piece to get the perfect, then we may be waiting forever, and that would be at the expense of the ageing population of people who are now dependent on seeing some real progress.

[Dr Murrison]

I do appreciate that this is a sensitive point. In saying that, however, does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is condoning criminality, because that is what compensating criminals would be? It is an extraordinary thing—indeed, I would say, an unprecedented thing in this country—that the state should seek to compensate those who damage themselves by their own hand while engaged in terroristic activities.

[Tony Lloyd]

I do understand the difficulties. Let me simply say that this is probably not the right time to pursue this debate, although I am more than content that we ought to pursue it, because bringing to a conclusion the question of victims’ payments is clearly right and just, and it is important that it is done in this era, not simply deferred forever. However, it is probably not for today. I hope I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question as directly as I could—I think it was a clear answer —and we will continue the conversation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s hard work over the past several months in trying to resolve the impasse at Stormont. She has worked tirelessly. If I may be ever so slightly critical of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), I think he is being a little harsh—uncharacteristically —about the efforts of the Government to restart this process and about the Prime Minister’s efforts. I do not particularly appreciate shuttle diplomacy of the sort we have seen in the past—there are other more effective ways of achieving the same end—but he has to accept the extraordinary difficulty that currently pertains in Northern Ireland and the intransigence of some of the actors therein.

Like the Secretary of State, I hope that we restore the Executive in the near future—more in hope than expectation—and I understand why she is behaving as she is in trying to keep the ship on an even keel while trying not to interfere in matters that are properly devolved. It is a dilemma she faces on a daily basis. She well knows that the longer this goes on, the more the people of Northern Ireland suffer and the more their lived experience deteriorates. In that context, I congratulate once again the Northern Ireland civil service and David Sterling. It is important to do that. This is unprecedented, and Northern Ireland should be very proud of its civil service. I also thank and commend the work of the Northern Ireland Office under the strong leadership of Sir Jonathan Stephens. It is often forgotten in this mix, but it has done an excellent job in trying to keep things going.

Clearly, I welcome the Bill, which is largely of a technical nature, but I share the concerns expressed about scrutiny. I am not entirely clear that this measure should be dealt with as an urgent matter, as referred to in paragraph 27 of the guidance notes. It could have been far more elective than that. Scrutiny is important. I accept that the Secretary of State is avoiding at all costs making decisions on important matters relating to Northern Ireland that are properly devolved, but this place has to assume some responsibility for scrutiny of these important matters, and I am not sure we are doing justice to that process.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend says the Bill is of a technical nature, and I agree in some respects, but ultimately it authorises the spending of billions of pounds in Northern Ireland. Can it really be called merely technical when it is so substantive in nature? On scrutiny, despite all the money going to Northern Ireland, there has been very little progress in getting it directed in a way that meets the needs of people in Northern Ireland since the priorities were first set. If we are to be in this situation again in 12 months, we will need to reflect on how we can do this better.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are in uncharted waters. It is difficult to hold to account Ministers who are not making decisions. It is not clear where accountability lies in this process. I hesitate to say we are making it up as we go along—clearly that would be unfair—but it is difficult to know precisely whom to hold to account, which is the job of this place.

Of course we have organisations such as the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which does its best to ensure that public funds are being disbursed in a reasonable manner, and there are other mechanisms for Members to attempt to shed light on the position and hold the Executive to account. Ultimately that process may end up in the courts through judicial review, but the Secretary of State is very keen for that not to happen, hence the guidance that she issued recently. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) that the whole thing is unsatisfactory. I suspect that if the Secretary of State were answering his point, she would say that the solution is very straightforward, and it is the restoration of the Executive.

I must say that I worry about the state of Northern Ireland and where it is going, given the lack of Ministers. The public are often rather cynical about us politicians, but I think this process has shown that Ministers have utility in improving people’s lives. David Sterling himself has referred to “slow decay and stagnation” in Northern Ireland. Those are strong words, and I take them very seriously: I think he is absolutely right. Very few of us who have anything to do with Northern Ireland will not be impressed by the sense there that people are being let down by their political class, and that is an indictment of us all. I will not pin the blame on any one party or set of politicians, but it is incumbent on us all to ensure that proper governance is restored to Northern Ireland at the earliest available opportunity.

I accept the arguments for the uplift in the vote on account for the financial year 2019-20, because that strikes me as a pragmatic way ahead, but it is quite unusual. Of course I accept everything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to say—she is a person of great honour and integrity—but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire pointed out, surely the job of this place is ultimately to scrutinise, and this 70% uplift is somewhat unusual. I therefore particularly regret the lack of opportunity that we are having—and, if I may say so, my Select Committee is having—to delve into why the uplift is needed. It may be expedient, but expediency is not necessarily sufficient.

I also accept that the Bill does not imply any particular decisions, political or otherwise, except, of course the so-called flagship projects to which the Secretary of State referred in her written ministerial statement on 28 February, which include the A6, the York street interchange and the mother and children’s hospital. Those projects are unobjectionable and I believe that everyone in Northern Ireland wants to see them, so I think that the Secretary of State is on very safe ground. Nevertheless, they are big infrastructure projects, which, in the normal course of things, would be subject to intense scrutiny one way or the other. That scrutiny clearly cannot come from Stormont, as Stormont is not working, but it falls to someone, and it really falls to us, because we are the default position. I am not clear in my mind that those big projects, and the planned expenditure on them, are being given the scrutiny that they deserve.

At the risk of being accused of being a pedant, I should like the Minister, when he sums up the debate, to clarify what the £4 million allocated to transformation is being spent on. I alluded to that earlier in a brief intervention. “Transformation” is very politically loaded, because it implies that something is being transformed into something else. It is important to know what is in the minds of those who are doing the transforming. I know that £4 million is not a great deal of money, but it would be useful to know what it is being spent on, because it implies a particular direction in terms of the outcomes that are being sought. I understand from what has been said previously that it is intended to make public services more sustainable. “Sustainable” is one of those words that sound innocuous, but it does imply change, and when change impacts on public services, it becomes politically contentious and, again, politically loaded. We therefore need to be told in a reasonable amount of detail how that relatively small sum is being disbursed.

I welcome the real-terms increase for health and education. My Select Committee has taken the view that it should get involved in both those areas. They are both areas that in the normal way of things we would be firmly told to set aside since they are devolved matters, but nobody else is looking at these particularly important areas of public policy at the moment and we have taken that as licence to exert some level of scrutiny. It has been very clear to us that not only is transformation needed in both areas, but that we need to look at making root-and-branch changes particularly in relation to footprint, to ensure that public money is spent properly and outcomes are improved.

In healthcare in particular, outcomes in Northern Ireland are really not good at all. The people of Northern Ireland deserve much better. We have heard in our Committee about issues to do with education, and I think we will be drawn to conclude that the footprint is part of the problem. All these things in all our constituencies up and down the country would ordinarily be matters of acute political interest in which politicians would be heavily involved, and there would be public meetings and all manner of things. The hon. Member for Rochdale who speaks for the Opposition was absolutely right to draw that comparison in his opening remarks, because were this to happen in my constituency I know I would be attending public meetings and doing all sorts of things that simply do not happen in Northern Ireland because of the absence of normal politics there at the moment. What is important however is that, wherever we can, we make sure we have some level of scrutiny, and that is why in its small way my Select Committee has taken upon itself investigations into health and education, and will be reporting very shortly.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State, or the Minister who replies, can update the House on what the £130 million transferred from capital for the next financial year to deal with public service resource pressures is being spent on. It has been referred to already and is a substantial sum of money. We really do need some level of granularity to ensure that money is best spent on areas where it will have the biggest impact. It is of concern, obviously, when money is transferred from capital to revenue, because it implies that there will be a backlog in due course of capital spend not being done at the moment that will have to be made good in the fullness of time.

Will the Minister say why the Executive Office vote is being uplifted by 4.4%? On the face of it that seems remarkable, and, knowing how eager the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is to scrutinise these areas, she might have it in mind to press Ministers further on this when she speaks. It is remarkable that when we do not have an Executive in place, the Executive Office should be having an uplift of 4.4%. I would have thought the reverse would be the case.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most heartbreaking pressures brought to the attention of his Committee is that of special educational needs children in the education sector, and that some of the money he has identified would be far better allocated to addressing that particular and acute need that affects everyone on these Benches, and indeed those who do not even come to this House?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I very much do, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to attend my Adjournment debate tomorrow on the subject of special educational needs in Wiltshire, perhaps he will find some commonality between his situation and my own as a constituency MP. [Interruption.] I am looking forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I would be very disappointed if he did not contribute to my debate. He will be very welcome, while of course trying to remain in order since I suspect his knowledge of special educational needs in Wiltshire is somewhat limited—not that that will necessarily stop him.

May I press Ministers on how confidence and supply money is being spent? Of course spending in general in Northern Ireland uses guidance set by the collapsed Executive. That is perfectly right and proper, and to use that trajectory to guide spending is perfectly legitimate, but that justification obviously falls away in relation to confidence and supply money; the guidebook is not there, which makes it of particular interest.

For example, under the non-ring-fenced resource departmental expenditure limit—RDEL—£100 million is being allowed for health transformation. Health transformation is surely needed, but it is politically sensitive. We in this place really do deserve to know how that money is being spent, but we are none the wiser. Under CDEL—the capital departmental expenditure limit—there is £200 million for infrastructure. Again, that is highly politically sensitive stuff, and almost certainly involves projects that will be warmly welcomed by the people of Northern Ireland, but our job is scrutiny, and one way or the other, scrutiny must be done. I fear that it is not being done at the moment.

We are sort of being asked to sign this off, although the Secretary of State is saying that she has no input into decision making within this process. Nevertheless, the mere fact that we have a Bill before us today means that we have to accept some level of responsibility. I am left with a sinking feeling that I do not have the information necessary to do this confidently, yet it needs to be done, because the consequences of not doing it would be immense. This is putting right hon. and hon. Members in something of an invidious position, because we do not have the level of detail or granularity that we deserve. Paragraph 27 of the guidance notes claims that the Bill needs to be implemented “urgently”. I think it probably does, and I sincerely hope that it is passed this evening, but this really should not happen at the expense of scrutiny.

Northern Ireland: Restoring Devolution

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman made a number of points. Although the last round of formal talks collapsed 12 months ago, I assure him that there are continued discussions with all parties to try to find a basis on which we can get people back in a room. But there is no point in my imposing a solution on the parties in Northern Ireland that they do not want to be part of, and there is no point in my demanding that people come to talks if there are no grounds to believe that they will be successful, because that would do a disservice to the people of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is worth making the point that the BIIGC was established under strand 3 of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and it deals exclusively with east-west matters, but of course there are regular bilateral discussions between Ministers from the Irish and UK Governments on a number of matters; they are not exclusively held through the BIIGC. We also have the British-Irish Council, which meets twice a year and which representatives of the Scottish Government attend.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the petition of concern. That needs to be decided by politicians in Northern Ireland. It is a devolved matter. It is not for Westminster to impose solutions on a devolved Administration because Westminster is not happy with the way that matters are being used in the devolved Administration. I am sure that he, as a member of the Scottish National party, would not wish to see this Parliament imposing solutions on Holyrood that we felt were right but with which he disagreed.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman alluded to the Government’s confidence and supply arrangements with the Democratic Unionist party. I gently remind him that the institutions collapsed before the confidence and supply arrangements were in place. We are all working tirelessly to see those institutions restored.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will share my dismay at the stalling of plans for the Tyrone to Cavan interconnector—a huge infrastructure project that will have a direct impact upon lives in Northern Ireland. How does she think the guidance she is able to issue under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 can be used to resolve that? If it cannot, is she prepared to determine the matter herself, since we cannot continue to kick this can down the road?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend gives an important example of why we need devolved government in Northern Ireland. He alluded to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act, which allows civil servants to make certain decisions but is no replacement for having Ministers in Stormont making those decisions. That is why I am determined to find a way to bring the parties back together, and I assure him and his Select Committee that I will update the House at the earliest opportunity.