Northern Ireland: Security Situation

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Monday 21st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. It is for future activities but I appreciate it.

I have visited the Strand Road police station in Londonderry on a couple of occasions to meet frontline officers—that is such an important part of the work done by the PSNI. PSNI officers from all parts of the community serve in Derry/Londonderry, which is incredibly important because it means that they can be true community officers on the ground, understanding what is happening through their intelligence work. Although there was a coded warning, the PSNI officers had identified the vehicle and had started to take action. The hon. Gentleman is also right to comment on the delivery driver. It must have been a horrendous experience for a pizza delivery driver to find a gun at his head and to be put in that situation. There can be no excuse for the activities of the terrorists on Saturday, which we condemn fully.

On the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, I reiterate what the Prime Minister said earlier. We are steadfast in our support for the agreement, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a power vacuum in Northern Ireland. I want it filled. I am not sure that the ERG has a specific policy on it, but it probably agrees with me in wanting to see politicians in Northern Ireland back doing the job they were elected to do, which is making decisions on behalf of their constituents.

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

It is pleasing to hear that lots of Ministers and shadow Ministers will visit Londonderry in the months ahead. My Select Committee—the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—will visit in the very near future. There may be no politicians at Stormont, but there will be plenty in the great city of Londonderry.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the most striking thing in the past few hours has been the reaction of the people of the city of Derry, who are clearly revolted by this latest outrage? Will she consider accelerating the negotiations on the Derry and Strabane city deal, because prosperity is exceptionally important in ensuring that such things do not happen?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I am absolutely sure that its members will enjoy themselves immensely in what is a wonderful, welcoming, friendly and vibrant city. He is right that there have been, and will continue to be, a number of ministerial visits, including from my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and from me.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer visited and wanted to meet people to talk about the Derry and Strabane city deal. My hon. Friend is right that prosperity is the answer. If people see a bright future for their city, they want to stand tall and fight for it. They want to stay and work and enjoy jobs and opportunities.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the reaction of the people of Derry/Londonderry has been extraordinary. It sends a clear message that the people of Northern Ireland do not want a return to the troubles of nearly 21 years ago. They want to go forward with peace on their streets.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I was just about to say that I have published a draft copy of the guidance and placed it in the Library of the House so that hon. and right hon. Members can have a clear sense of what it seeks to do. The important point is that throughout my period as Secretary of State—I put on record how supportive the hon. Gentleman was when he was my opposite number of the need to make legislative changes on limited occasions in this House for the essential running of public services—when we in this House have taken decisions and passed legislation, we have been very clear that what we are not doing is changing policy. Policy and legislation cannot be changed by anything in this Bill. It is about allowing civil servants to make decisions that have been part of a policy that has previously been agreed. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the draft guidance in the Library, and says if he has any suggestions for how the guidance could be strengthened or improved to help civil servants.

I want to be clear: civil servants in Northern Ireland Departments have acted in an exemplary fashion. They have behaved without political cover and without an Executive or Ministers in a way that we should all commend. They have enabled public services in Northern Ireland to continue to be run, and the people of Northern Ireland are continuing to receive their public services. Significant reform is needed in many public services, but this is not about policy decisions on reform. It is about enabling those public services to continue, because the best way to change policy and law in Northern Ireland is for Ministers to be in Stormont making those decisions on behalf of the people who elected them.

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

Can the Secretary of State say how many legal actions have been initiated in the few days since the contents of clause 3(4), on the retrospective empowerment of civil servants, were made known? I would be grateful for her confirmation or otherwise, but my understanding is that those legal actions that have been initiated will not fall within the scope of the retrospective action that she is seeking to take through clause 3.

[Karen Bradley]

Perhaps it is best if I write to the Chair of the Select Committee with specific details, although I want to be clear that we have put in a specific reference to decisions taken since the Executive collapsed because we do not want those decisions that have already been taken to be challenged on the basis that once the Bill is in place there is more cover for civil servants. We want to ensure that the decisions that have already been taken are not undone.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this Second Reading debate. May I start by expressing my admiration of and gratitude for the Secretary of State’s energy and perspicacity in trying to achieve a settlement in Northern Ireland? Whatever regrets we have about the situation in which we find ourselves, we are all united in our admiration for the energy that the Secretary of State has applied to this process. I sympathise with her, because in the actions she is taking she is trying to sail between Scylla and Charybdis: on the one hand, she must do nothing that would impede the restoration of proper democracy and the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland; on the other, she must do what she knows to be best for the people of Northern Ireland. I shall comment largely on my perception of Northern Ireland lagging well behind where it should be, and increasingly so. I shall express in unequivocal terms my fears about what that might mean in 10 months’ time, if we are no further on.

On Monday, I had the great pleasure of visiting Belfast with members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. For the first time—to my very great shame—I visited the Royal Victoria Hospital, where I talked to deeply committed and dedicated professionals who are right at the top of their game and who work there doing their very best for the population of Northern Ireland. I must say to the Secretary of State that I came away deeply depressed, because it is clear that Northern Ireland is not getting what it deserves. In comparison with the population of the rest of the United Kingdom, it is lagging significantly behind on key healthcare indicators. We heard that morning from service users, particularly in the fields of mental health and cancer care—key healthcare areas. Were their experiences to be replicated in our constituencies, we would be very upset indeed. The reasons are complicated, but we are left to conclude that the absence for nearly two years now of Ministers capable of taking decisions is a significant part of the piece.

We are now to complicate another 10 months of potential delay, with no clear solution following that. We could call another election but, as has been alluded to already, without good will on the part of both the principal parties in this matter, it is likely as not that we would get pretty much the same outcome. I have detected no particular enthusiasm or appetite for an Irish language Act, which is the biggest roadblock to the process. I get a lot of people asking, “Why don’t I have the same healthcare expectations as people over the other side of the Irish sea?”, but I do not get angst expressed to me about the inclusion of an Irish language Act. It is self-evident that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland simply want to get on with their lives. They want to have expectations across a range of public sector functions that at least approximate those that exist in Great Britain. It is a failure for all involved if they do not achieve that sort of approximation. We have a devolved settlement, so there will always be difference—of course there will—and I guess we should celebrate that, but the people of the United Kingdom have a legitimate expectation that, broadly speaking, outcomes will be similar right across the piece. That is not the case in Northern Ireland, and it is getting worse. We have to work out a way to deal with that.

I welcome the Bill, but it should have been introduced to the House well before now—incidentally, that would have given us more time to consider it—because I am afraid that the situation we are currently in was predictable. We have simply lost time. In so far as it is a straightforward, simple Bill that will achieve the outcomes that the Government want, I very much welcome it, although I would have gone much further. The need to go much further is in the guidance. I hope the Secretary of State has some sense from the House that we are likely to support her in the development of the guidance in the months ahead.

I assume that the guidance is the same as that which was given in draft form to the helpful Northern Ireland Office officials who briefed the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee a few days ago. Getting hold of a copy today was quite difficult, but if it is more or less the same, I have been through it and must say that it is cast in extremely anodyne terms. It refers to decisions made by the Executive who have now folded, and to the draft programme for government and its 12 exciting outcomes, which are of course not outcomes at all but aspirations cast in the most anodyne terms imaginable.

In the weeks and months ahead, the Secretary of State will be faced more and more with Northern Ireland slipping backwards compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, unless some fairly significant policy decisions are made. I do not know the extent to which, on the basis of this Bill, it is safe for the Northern Ireland civil service to make some of those decisions, because some of them are really quite complicated, but they need to be made if we are to see key public services restored to the level at which they should be.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern not only about the policies that the civil servants will not implement—indeed, the Bill would not give them the powers to implement them anyhow—but that civil servants may even avoid the day-to-day functions of government, because the Bill does not instruct them to do anything? It simply says that it does not prevent them from doing anything. Given the inertia, caution, procrastination and lack of decision making that we have seen so far in the Northern Ireland civil service, there is no guarantee that any decisions will be made, even with the Bill.

[Dr Murrison]

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is a little harsh on the Northern Ireland civil service, because of course civil servants will act as civil servants always do. They are not politicians, they do not do policy and they are acutely aware, all the time, of legal challenge. I take my hat off to David Sterling and his people for doing what they have managed to do since January or March 2017, but the fact is that key decisions have to be made. We have already heard about the distinction between policy and decision making; some of the decisions are policy, but some are simply nuts-and-bolts decision making. I fear that there will come a point when the line will be crossed, and the Secretary of State may very well come back here to seek further guidance from this House on what she can legitimately do to prevent the backsliding to which I have referred and hopefully start making progress on some of these key public service areas.

Reading through the guidance, I am heartened because it seems to give the Secretary of State really quite a lot of scope. She will have heard—and, I suspect, will continue to hear in the balance of this debate—a great deal of support from across the House for her being pretty proactive in issuing guidance to the civil service so that it can do what is necessary to advance the day-to-day living experience of the people of Northern Ireland. In particular, I note the enjoinder in the guidance that “particular weight” must be given to the avoidance of

“serious detriment to the public interest, public health and wellbeing”.

In response to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) a few moments ago, I will reflect briefly on one example, which I mention as an exemplar more widely applicable to the whole piece. At the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday, we heard from a group of cardiologists—people who are leaders in their field—how the inability to share data with the rest of the United Kingdom was proving to be an impediment because there was a failure of a particular decision that had to be made by a Minister. That has clear implications for healthcare in Northern Ireland, because if Northern Ireland cannot compare and contrast its performance and what it is doing with other parts of a similar healthcare service, it cannot really make improvements. That is just a small example of the kind of thing that we are talking about today which I hope will be covered in the guidance. I urge the Minister to ensure that the guidance that she issues is much more specific than that laid out in the framework published today. I think that she will end up having to issue really quite a lot of guidance, and I urge her very strongly indeed to push the limits as far as she possibly can.

I was particularly taken with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who speaks for the Opposition. It is actually quite rare in this place that there is much in the way of consensus. Mercifully, reaching it tends to be easier in matters to do with Northern Ireland than in most public policy areas. The hon. Gentleman’s remarks, which I very much welcome, were exceptionally positive in regard to our sense that the Secretary of State really will have to issue guidance that is as prescriptive as possible, within the scope of the Bill, in order to move things along in Northern Ireland. That is the sense that I got from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

I do not wish to go on too much longer, but I want to mention another point. In the Brexit context—there is always a risk that a debate like this will be overtaken by the issue of the moment—a great deal is going on in Northern Ireland at the moment that is of a unique nature. I have mentioned healthcare, but much of the economy in Northern Ireland is pretty unusual and has a uniqueness that needs to be reflected by those who are currently dealing with Brexit. Of course, it is a perfect storm in a sense, because not only is there a uniqueness regarding the various sectors; there is also a lack of an Executive—of a body advocating specifically for Northern Ireland. Now, the Government will say, “Well, it’s for us to negotiate in Brussels”, which is perfectly true, but we know full well that Scotland and Wales are separately making their points to our interlocutors in Brussels. That is not the case for Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon]

In relation to Brexit and the Secretary of State’s guidance following this legislation, would it not be helpful for the Secretary of State to look back at the letter signed—if my memory serves me correctly—on 13 August 2016, just months after the referendum, by both the then First Minister Arlene Foster and the then Deputy First Minister, the late Martin McGuinness? Would not that be helpful in showing the priorities that the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister felt were relevant in the Brexit negotiations?

[Dr Murrison]

I usually agree with the hon. Lady and I agree with her on that point. Of course, the general principle in these matters is that one relies on what has gone on before—the decisions of the Executive and so on. It would certainly be in that tradition and spirit to rely on the remarks of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister at that time, as a starter for 10.

The issue I have is exemplified by the farming and growing sector in Northern Ireland, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will remember we have debated at some length in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. There are particular facets of Northern Ireland quite apart from the border that need to be considered in the context of Brexit. It is important for provision to be made to ensure that that happens. I am not clear that it has happened to the extent to which I would like, and I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on that.

I also ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the Select Committee’s report, “Devolution and democracy in Northern Ireland—dealing with the deficit”, which we published in May, and which made some helpful suggestions on how she might consult with the public and various bodies in the absence of an Executive. If this goes on and on, and she is led more and more to issue guidance and consider policy, it is helpful—particularly in the context of the Good Friday agreement, but in any event—to ensure that she has consulted as widely as possible.

If I feel a little disappointment about this Bill—a very concise piece of legislation, on which I congratulate the Secretary of State—it is because it has not really reflected in any meaningful sense the recommendations made in the Select Committee report, which is now just months old. I think that is a mistake, because some of the suggestions are pretty unobjectionable and would have helped matters along, particularly measures such as civic forums, which have been tried before quite successfully and which could give the Secretary of State the sort of confidence that she was doing things that had the support of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is in no way to try to subvert the institutions set up by the GFA or to suggest that they are not going to be restored, but in the interregnum it is important to get some sense of what people want. Those sorts of innovative bodies are a possible solution in the context of Northern Ireland.

We all hope that the Executive will be restored sooner rather than later—I think that the Secretary of State is as confident as she possibly can be that this will all happen within the next 10 months—but Northern Ireland is a unique and special place, and sadly we cannot necessarily guarantee that that will be the case. We therefore need—this has been mentioned previously—some idea about what will then happen.

We have to work on the assumption that a further general election will result in nothing new. Sometimes when we throw the cards up in the air, they fall down in a way that may surprise and delight us—or otherwise—but our working assumption has to be that such a thing will not change very much, which is presumably why the Secretary of State has not called an election up to this point. We will then have to decide what to do. Although I welcome the Bill, we cannot continue to kick the can down the road. One way or another, sadly by force of circumstance, the Secretary of State may again have to start making some of the difficult, crunchy decisions that have been made in this place since 1998.

One thing is for sure: it is simply not acceptable for the people of Northern Ireland to continue to sustain the sub-optimal public services about which my Committee has heard evidence, despite all the hard work of those on the ground and all the effort to try to stop up the gap indefinitely. I sympathise with the Secretary of State in her dilemma and absolutely support her intention to get the Executive back up and running, but I sound a cautionary note and ask her to start thinking: what on earth do we do in 10 months’ time, when we are back in the same place?

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

Rarely do we get such fine, sweeping oratory in a Bill Committee. That is probably one of the few advantages of fast-tracking legislation. I am afraid that I am going to turn the temperature down a couple of notches in speaking to my amendments 1 to 9, which are all far more prosaic than new clause 7. I will certainly not be able to match in any way, shape or form the oratory we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). These are nevertheless, I believe, important amendments to an important Bill. They deal with clauses 2, 3 and 4.

My amendment 1 is, as it were, amendment 20 in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)-lite—that is, it does not delete clause 2 but simply, modestly removes a subsection. That subsection deals with the expediency of not seeking the House’s approval to extend the provisions we are discussing in terms of the Executive. I tabled the amendment to explore with the Secretary of State what “expediency” might mean, because we are handing to her a range of quite important powers in unusual circumstances. That suggests to me that the Committee really needs to do its utmost to scrutinise what is going on. It does not seem to me that the word “expediency” should really creep into the lexicography at all. My point in tabling this simple and modest amendment is to probe the Secretary of State on the circumstances in which she would see fit to enact this extension without the prior approval of the House.

Amendment 2 is the guts of what I want to discuss. It really cuts to the chase in terms of the Bill, because it deals with guidance, which is the single most important part of the proposals before us. It seeks, for example, to be more prescriptive in the sort of guidance that I would like the Secretary of State to give to the Northern Ireland civil service. We discussed some of this on Second Reading. I believe that that would be an improvement, having gone through the draft guidance that has been published, of which, presumably, all right hon. and hon. Members who are interested in this matter have got copies from the Library. The amendment goes further and makes it more prescriptive.

The flagship issue is Hart. There is cross-party and cross-community support for the Hart report, and there really can be no excuse for not cracking on and doing this now. I very much hope that in the forthcoming guidance the Secretary of State will enable that process to be advanced. I have cited Hart as No. 1 in my list of things I seek her to be specific on, because it is obviously the No. 1, big ticket issue that people would like to see action on. People out there really cannot understand why action has not been taken.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I do not understand why Hart has not been done. There was huge courage within the Northern Ireland Health Department when we got medical cannabis for constituents in Northern Ireland when we were getting Billies and Alfies over here. People had the will and they needed the confidence. Is my hon. Friend sure that this legislation will give them the confidence, because clearly they are frightened and something is holding them back? They have done it for medical cannabis, so surely they could do it for Hart.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which elegantly exemplifies what I am going on about and brings me neatly on to—

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Murrison]

Before I move neatly on, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Owen Smith]

I have signed the hon. Gentleman’s excellent amendment, but does he not understand from the legislation and, indeed, the answer we heard from the Secretary of State earlier that, in her view, this does not allow her to enact any of the recommendations made under the Hart review? Is he not deeply disappointed by that?

[Dr Murrison]

I am not really sure that that is the case. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the guidance, which I am sure he has now read. On the third page, the guidance states that particular weight must be given to any

“serious detriment to the public interest, public health and wellbeing”.

That seems fairly clearcut to me. I think that the Secretary of State will have got the sense of the House today on her being proactive in the guidance that she is able to issue.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Some of the concern is that this is actually not that straightforward. The terms of reference that set up the Hart inquiry clearly said that what came after the findings was not a matter for the chair of the inquiry. There are issues and decision points in those recommendations. To use a quick example, Hart recommends legal aid or separate legal representation for each of the people coming forward to a redress board. That has never been agreed. There would be a huge cost and, in my view, a lot of bureaucracy with that approach. There are decision points in the recommendations that, as I understand it in terms of the guidance, could not be made by a civil servant, because there is no consensus at this stage on those matters. That is the complication, and that is why the Secretary of State needs to step in and make those decisions.

[Dr Murrison]

I do understand that. One point I made on Second Reading was that I was slightly disappointed that the Bill does not advance pretty much any of the recommendations we made in our report on the democratic deficit, published in May. Had it done so, there would be scope now for even more consultation, using formal structures, which may have assisted the implementation to which the hon. Lady rightly refers.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) mentioned cannabis, which leads me on to healthcare—a matter that is of particular importance to my Committee right now, since we were at the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday, where we took evidence from a number of service users. It is very clear from the guidance, which cites public interest and public health, that this matter is preying on the mind of Ministers.

It is a crying shame that there is no proper cancer strategy in Northern Ireland right now. There is one published in 2008, so it is out of date. We have a situation where, to pick one condition at random, the outcomes for prostate cancer are far worse in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country. This is pretty clear. If we do not have a cancer strategy and we believe that a cancer strategy will be of assistance in improving outcomes, of course outcomes will be worse if one is not in place. To get a cancer strategy, we need some form of direction to civil servants to get on with it and, furthermore, to implement it.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing we have discussed in the Select Committee is the scourge of diabetes. In Northern Ireland, we have the largest percentage of people with diabetes per head of population in the UK. We also have the largest proportion of type 1 child diabetics in the whole United Kingdom, with Scotland coming second. We need a strategy in place for that. We had a strategy before, which covered all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we cannot do that today because we do not have the wherewithal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we really need to see some action in the Health Department, to address all chronic diseases, including diabetes and cancer?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not want to labour the point, but I feel the need to briefly mention the fact that screening for cancer in Northern Ireland is frankly woeful—it is way behind. We cannot have a situation where there is faecal immunochemical testing in the rest of the UK, but it is denied to people in Northern Ireland, and they also cannot get HPV screening for cervical cancer. That is just not acceptable. But for these things to happen, we need some form of direction, however it comes, and that is a matter for Ministers and those who draft measures of the sort we are discussing and, of course, those who deal with the consequentials of the guidance that we are dealing with.

[Owen Smith]

I make no apology for going back to the Hart inquiry, because there are hundreds of victims of historical sexual abuse in Northern Ireland who will be watching this debate and wondering whether action is likely to be taken by the Government as a result of this legislation. I think that we are still very unclear whether the Secretary of State interprets this legislation, as the hon. Gentleman and I do, as giving leeway to civil servants in Northern Ireland to undertake further action. Through him, may I urge the Secretary of State to intervene at some point before the close of the Committee this evening and clarify whether this will allow action on Hart?

[Dr Murrison]

The purpose of amendments tends to be to elicit such answers from Ministers, and it will be very interesting to hear from the Secretary of State how she would like to play this, because I am hoping that we will have some encouragement in that respect. Hon. Members have certainly given her every encouragement. I have been struck by how much encouragement to be proactive in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland there has been during this debate. I think that the Committee understands full well that a great deal needs to be done, and it needs to be done fairly quickly on a number of important public policy issues, of which Hart is just one.

The guidance makes a great deal of the public finances and the economy in Northern Ireland. Goodness me, we could debate all day the economy in Northern Ireland and where that needs to go. One thing we have been particularly struck by as a Select Committee is of course farming and growing in Northern Ireland: horticulture is far more important there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the recommendations we are very keen on is that there should be a proper farming strategy in Northern Ireland very soon. At the moment, it is having to compete with the Republic, where, if I am honest, the Government in Dublin have been really quite proactive and have placed farmers and growers north of the border at something of a competitive disadvantage, with or without Brexit.

Things need to be done, and fairly urgently, to improve productivity in Northern Ireland, while recognising the unusual nature of farming in Northern Ireland and recognising that farming in Northern Ireland is not the same as farming in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the main, we are not talking about East Anglian barley barons in Northern Ireland, but about small family farms. That is why the guidance, which I hope will preoccupy the Secretary of State in the weeks and months ahead, should produce a firm statement about what the civil service of Northern Ireland needs to do in relation to producing such a farming strategy. If we have no restoration of the Executive by the end of the year, we should certainly give some attention to that directly.

I will skip the rest of my amendments because they are simply to do with ensuring that there is added scrutiny of these measures and the guidance that flows from them, as well as with the appointment function to be exercised by this House, as cited in clause 4, and in particular—if I may make this suggestion—by my Committee.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I would not of course challenge the Chair on the grouping of these amendments—that would be poor—but I would gently say that two hours for the range of amendments before us on a great many subjects is not sufficient. This is not satisfactory, and I hope that the Government will learn that we have a deep interest in the issues across Northern Ireland and will give us more time.

I have worked with the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on a number of health issues in England and Wales, and the points he raised in his amendments about health inequalities across Northern Ireland were well made. I particularly want to highlight amendment 22, especially in relation to pensions, in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). Such a measure is in the gift of the Secretary of State, and we certainly wish to see it progressed.

Most of my comments are going to be about new clause 7, and I will start with same-sex marriage. I was proud to be a co-sponsor of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), and I was a witness of his speech last March, which was one of the best I have heard in this Chamber. I should say that, although I am pleased to be married, he beautifully encapsulated the equality point when he told us the heartfelt response made by one of the people he was speaking to in south Armagh. The man said that, frankly, gay people had the right

“to be as miserable as the rest of us.”

With respect to the fact that people who love each other cannot build a happy life together as a married couple in Northern Ireland, he asked in that speech:

“Does anyone think that is fair? Does anyone think that is right? Does anyone think that can continue?”—[Official Report, 28 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 791-792.]

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I am very happy to accept that particular challenge. My amendment may well not be watertight. I understood that there were some reservations in the PSNI about a statute of limitations. That is one of the complexities.

There are other complexities: if we introduce a statute of limitations in Northern Ireland, why not introduce it elsewhere, where the British military is involved in other campaigns? I am sure that we will hear from the Secretary of State about other difficulties involving the European convention on human rights and so on, but the principle is that there should be some form of limitation. We cannot endlessly go back. Are we to reopen cases where it is alleged that Canadian or British troops shot prisoners out of hand in one of the more difficult days after the D-day landing? Should those cases be reopened? Nobody in this House would say yes. There must come a point when we have to draw a line.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his amendments, but does he agree that we need to tread very carefully, as there are important principles of law here? Our armed forces do not want to be aside from or above the law; they uphold the law. Does he also agree that under the military covenant our armed forces must suffer no disadvantage—that is the test—but that in that important regard they are at a significant disadvantage under the law as it stands?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

Many people bear credit for the developments that have happened since the signing of the Belfast agreement and the economic development of Northern Ireland. I say gently to the hon. Lady that perhaps the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom has more of a bearing on its economic strength than many other matters.

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

The technical note published on 7 June spoke of free trade agreements that could be entered into that would not affect any temporary customs arrangements. What discussion has the Secretary of State had with the parties on specifically what form those free trade agreements might take and who they might involve?

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is of course responsible for those free trade agreements. However, my hon. Friend alludes to the very important point that for Northern Ireland, leaving the European Union as part of the United Kingdom means that it will have access to those free trade arrangements with the rest of the world and a land border with the European Union. That puts Northern Ireland in a unique, privileged situation.

Devolution and Democracy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to present to the House our third report of this Session, entitled “Devolution and democracy in Northern Ireland—dealing with the deficit”. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed in January 2017, since when there has been no effective ministerial decision-making process at Stormont.

I pay tribute to the Northern Ireland civil service, which has done a fantastic job of trying to hold things together during the impasse. As I will go on to describe in my short statement, it is not good enough to expect the Northern Ireland civil service to continue the work of trying to keep the ship on an even keel. The time has now come for further measures that will enable good governance in Northern Ireland. In the absence of that, I am sorry to say that it is the Committee’s view that people in Northern Ireland will notice a difference in their day-to-day lives. It is a demonstration of the importance of Ministers in our way of life and our democracy that such a deficit should have been caused by the collapse of the Executive, and it is very clear to everybody that the lack of ministerial decision making is impacting on people’s everyday lives.

We launched our inquiry on 24 November 2017. It was aimed not at being a post-mortem—that is for others to do in the fullness of time and there is no shortage of people wishing to do that—but at looking at where we are now and how we can deal with this impasse in the short term to try to deliver to Northern Ireland the governance it needs and to make the institutions more robust in the future. We have to accept that what we have at the moment is just not working for most people.

It is important to understand at the beginning that while we consulted widely—we are very grateful to everybody who contributed to our consultation—we were not able to take evidence from one of the large parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin. That is clearly an omission. It was not the Committee’s fault; it was an omission on the part of Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin was asked repeatedly to contribute—it would have added to our report had it done so—but it chose not to. We tried to consult as widely as possible across the community in Northern Ireland, and I think the report has a balanced reflection of opinion in Northern Ireland, as well as a remarkable degree of consensus.

The Committee’s principal recommendation is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should restart the active facilitation of talks between parties. There is currently a sense of drift in Northern Ireland. There is a frustration on the part of people resident in Northern Ireland that important decisions are just not being made. The solution is very clear: the restoration of the institutions at Stormont using the power-sharing arrangements laid out in the Good Friday agreement. However, we have to face the prospect that that is not going to happen in the immediate future. In those circumstances, it is just not acceptable for us to continue kicking the can down the road and not making crucial ministerial decisions.

In annex 1 of the report, the Committee lists a number of decisions that need to be made right now. It is a long list and it is growing every single day. It is very wide-ranging, touching on practically every facet of life in Northern Ireland, from plans for Kilkeel harbour to the York Street interchange and from the likely delay in implementing a reduction in tourism VAT in Northern Ireland to a failure to build new homes. All of them touch on day-to-day life. Unless we get decisions made by Ministers on these issues, people will start to notice a real difference in the way that they live their lives compared with life in the rest of the United Kingdom. We feel that that is unacceptable.

The High Court ruling of 14 May on the Mallusk incinerator decision was that it was not acceptable for civil servants to make a determination on this planning issue in County Antrim. I think this is the beginning of a process. If the High Court should say that it is not appropriate for civil servants to make such decisions, there is bound to be a catalogue of similar decisions stacking up that will be delayed because we cannot get a ministerial decision without a Minister in place to make such determinations.

The list grows day by day, but help is indeed available to Ministers. In such things as the Hart report, the Bengoa report and the draft programme for government, agreed by the last Executive, we have guidance for making those crucial decisions available to Ministers. If they stick to that script, they will not go too far wrong. However, we need to do more than that. The Committee also recommends taking legal and procedural advice on how to set up committees of Members of the Legislative Assembly to improve scrutiny during the current impasse. It is important that we do what we can, imperfect though it may be, to ensure that democratic voices are heard in Northern Ireland and impact on ministerial decision making.

I will briefly highlight two areas that are in urgent need of ministerial attention. We cannot constitute the Northern Ireland Policing Board because we do not have MLAs capable of populating that board. That is causing real problems. It means, for example, that senior appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland cannot be made. We recommend that Ministers take in hand the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and implement the changes necessary to ensure that the board is able to conduct its statutory functions.

We would like Ministers, in the absence of an Executive, to take action on the Hart report and to introduce legislation, if necessary through this Parliament, to ensure that the victims that Hart identifies are given the redress that they have waited far too long for. We would also like Ministers to explore the role of local government. Councils—they were reduced to 11 in 2015, of course—told us that they are capable of doing more. In the absence of an Executive, that potential has to be explored. We would like Ministers to take note of the pilot that is under way by the Building Change Trust into civic assemblies. We have to ensure the long-term stability of the institutions and make them more robust. In our report, we touch on the sensitive issue of the Good Friday agreement, which contains within it the prospect of a review at some point, and we make recommendations about that, accepting all the sensitivities that surround it.

Everything these days has a Brexit angle, and this one certainly does. We found that the voice of Northern Ireland was not being heard properly in Brussels, when we took evidence from Mr Michel Barnier, and that civil servants struggle to have their voices heard equally with Ministers from Scotland and Wales. That needs to be remedied.

We took evidence widely for the report, and I am grateful to all those who gave willingly of their time to make it the—I hope—thoughtful and constructive piece that it is. I look forward to the Minister’s response today and the Government’s response in due course. I promise him that we will be tracking progress on a regular basis and my Committee will publish regular updates on progress made against the recommendations that we make in this report, our third of the Session.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

This week marks 20 years since the people of Northern Ireland endorsed the Good Friday agreement. The Committee is right to say that power-sharing devolution is the best structure and that the absence of the Assembly is impacting on daily lives. That is why everyone should be focused on getting devolution back up and running. Will the Chair confirm that as the Good Friday agreement was endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland, any changes to it need to be by the expressed wish of the people and political leaders of Northern Ireland?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is, of course, absolutely right. We practically say that on every single line of our report, because it is vital that we understand the tenets of the Good Friday agreement. It has a unique status. It was a remarkable achievement and is, of course, held dear in the hearts of those who have benefited from it over the past 20 years. Anything that is done needs to be done with consent, and that runs like a vein through the report that we published this week.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and his Committee colleagues for their report. The Government will respond in the usual way. I will make just one point: I hope that he agrees that it is appropriate that we give a huge thank you to David Sterling, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, to all his permanent secretaries and indeed the entire Northern Ireland civil service for their fantastic work in the past 16 months, in the absence of a devolved Assembly. They deserve our appreciation. That needs to be recognised, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with those sentiments.

[Dr Murrison]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—of course I do—although we have to understand that David Sterling and his civil servants, who have done a remarkable job, should not be put in the invidious position of having to make decisions or feeling that they have to do so because there is no Minister, and then finding that the High Court judges that what they have done is ultra vires. That is unfair, which is one of the reasons why we have recommended that the Secretary of State comes forward before the summer with a framework, at least, within which she will start to make those crucial decisions.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I add to the record our commendation to the Committee Chairman for doing a splendid piece of work. He has brought together some very difficult issues into a single report that was unanimously agreed by the Committee. It was incredibly difficult work. The Committee endorses several political actions with regard to how committees should function in the current Assembly, even though it has broken down. It endorses the re-establishment of the Policing Board and states that we need ministerial decisions as quickly as possible. Those recommendations, carried unanimously by the Committee, should be implemented immediately. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister hear that loudly and allow for normal functions to continue.

I understand that the judgment by Justice Keegan, as mentioned on page 25 of our report, will be referred to the High Court on 25 June. Is the hon. Gentleman confident that we will get a quick, urgent decision from the bench, so that we will know whether direct rule will be implemented speedily or whether we will go back into the state of flux of negotiations?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The report is strengthened by the fact that it was unanimously passed by our Committee, despite the fact that it was wide-ranging and contained some extremely difficult material. That is a tribute to the Committee, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman.

I believe that the Keegan judgment is probably the start of a process and that there will be similar ones in the months ahead. I think that it should serve as a catalyst to Ministers to think about the framework to which I have referred and focus their attention on how they can start to make those crucial decisions to deal with annex 1 in the report, and the list is growing by the day. The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in the judgment that has been made, but there will be more, I am sure, across Northern Ireland. Although I would not want to comment specifically on this one, I am confident that there will be several similar judgments ahead, and we need a strategy from the Government for dealing with them; it is clear that civil servants cannot make judgments of that sort because in our system those decisions are reserved to Ministers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and commend his Committee for its report. For me, there are two stand-out recommendations in the report. The first is the need for the Policing Board to be reinstituted, and the second is for there to be a Brexit Minister for Northern Ireland, because the Province’s voice is not being heard. These two recommendations can be advanced by the Government relatively simply: in the first case, with a legislative change—a lot of Northern Ireland legislation goes through this House pretty quickly—and in the second, with a ministerial appointment. Should not the Government just get on with it?

[Dr Murrison]

I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that he has taken in this matter, and he is, of course, correct on both fronts. We believe that there is no reason for further delay on the recommendations that we have made. I hope very much that the Minister, when he comes to respond to this in the fullness of time, will accept all the recommendations that we have made, but particularly those that are absolutely crucial now. Northern Ireland’s voice is certainly not being heard in Brussels alongside those of Scotland and Wales, although this is a UK Government responsibility and not a devolved matter.

Policing in Northern Ireland is a crucial and desperately sensitive issue. It is unacceptable that we cannot, for example, appoint senior police officers because of the lack of a Police Board. That, in our opinion, is a matter that simply cannot be delayed any further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), on the leadership that he showed to all its members, enabling us to reach unanimous conclusions. There were times when we thought that that would not happen, but he managed to ensure that it happened in each case.

The backdrop was, of course, the stop-start, pause, start again extension of the talks process, to which pages 3 and 4 of the report refer. That, perhaps, indicates where we are at present. The Committee again took the opportunity to consider where we would go if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not function. The annex outlines—as did the hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech—the number of works still to be done and on hold.

Some of the Committee’s conclusions are very important. If the hybrid system for the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has operated in the past, does not work out, we shall look towards direct rule. What are the Chairman’s thoughts about how we can pull Sinn Féin out of its obstinate position? Sometimes, we need to move forward and park the issues on which we disagree.

I have another question, about Brexit. The Committee concluded that the Secretary of State and other Ministers should be more active. How does the hon. Gentleman think it can be ensured that Northern Ireland’s voice is clearly heard in the Brexit talks?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Chairman of the Committee can pick any one of those three. [Laughter.]

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made an extremely important contribution to the report.

Clearly, without the co-operation of Sinn Féin, the recommendations in the report about the committee structure at Stormont, for example, simply will not work. That is inherent in the power-sharing structure, which forms such a big part of the Good Friday agreement. I urge Sinn Féin, the Democratic Unionist party and all the other parties in Northern Ireland to set aside the issues on which they cannot agree and get on with the issues on which they can agree.

I think that people in Northern Ireland are increasingly frustrated by the silly nonsense and the politicking. Matters that are important to them on a daily basis, such as healthcare, education and infrastructure, are not being dealt with because obstinate politicians are standing on their dignity in respect of certain matters. Although the politicians may hold those matters dear, the rest of the population clearly feel that they are not of a nature that justifies putting on hold the good governance of Northern Ireland.

As for Brexit, the hon. Gentleman knows—because he was involved—that we made a number of recommendations in relation to the representation of Northern Ireland, and I hope that Ministers will take them to heart. We need to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is properly heard. Given that the border is front and centre of the success or otherwise of the Brexit process, it is ironic that Northern Ireland’s voice is not being heard in Brussels at this time.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks with great interest. Where would he draw the line? Does he appreciate the dilemma the Government face in respect of the micromanagement and microgovernance of Northern Ireland, and dealing with the discrete and modest legislative vehicles—the Secretary of State made that clear—that we have to have to ensure that there is decent governance there? He has not said where he would draw that line and perhaps it might be timely if he did so.

[Owen Smith]

I am glad I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he understands Northern Ireland and understands fully that this is delicate. I completely accept that the Secretary of State is in an invidious position on these conventions, but to an extent they are just that—conventions—with the key one being the Sewel convention, whereby, ordinarily, this Westminster Government do not legislate on areas of devolved competence. However, there are instances where it is morally or fiscally necessary to intervene and the Government do intervene.

It is, in essence, for the Government to choose where the line is set, but there are moral and fiscal imperatives in respect of those people who are in the HIAI and those who have been severely injured, and who ought to see the Government intervene on their behalf. If the Government were to do that, it would in no way undermine the devolution settlement because the precedent is already set, as we are seeing today on the RHI and as we have seen on other areas of legislation. Nor would it undermine the peace process and the talks process, because there is widespread support for those things. Legal counsel supports my opinion—

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I want to complete this point. I sought some support from KRW Law, a firm of lawyers at the Bar in Belfast. Its view is:

“There are three significant points which would support a conclusion that Parliament should in fact legislate”

particularly in respect of the HIA. It continued:

“(i) The Sewel Convention is a…convention, not a rule of law, and can be departed from for good reasons;

(ii) The constitutional obligation to avoid a vacuum in governance clearly has more weight in the present constitutional circumstances”

where we do not have an Assembly.

The hon. Gentleman raised that second point. The third was that the HIAI made a clear case for intervention. Therefore, I put it to the Secretary of State that there is clear precedent and legal support for her intervening to support some of the most vulnerable and damaged people, either under the terms of the abuse inquiry or in respect of those who have been physically disabled.

I raise the pension for those who were disabled and injured because they are here today—some are in the Gallery for today’s debate and some are meeting hon. Members from across the House. I think they would want to hear from the Secretary of State that she understands the nature of the issues they face.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am very sorry that the Bill has had to come before the House, but it is clearly necessary for the good governance of Northern Ireland for it to be passed. The Secretary of State was right to describe it as modest and discrete, which it clearly is, but I am concerned about incremental drift, which was why I was testing the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). He sat down before I could intervene on him again, but the Opposition have certainly not said where their red line would be. He cited two examples, and there will be a lot of sympathy with his remarks—

[Owen Smith]

In case I did not, I meant to make it clear that I do not propose that we pursue other matters but absolutely do advocate that we legislate on historical institutional abuse and a pension for the injured.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I think he has established his red line. I therefore assume that he would not wish to make decisions on, for example, the Commonwealth youth games, which has been cited by a Back Bencher from his own party. I am thinking that the Opposition red line on governance in Northern Ireland, in the absence of an Executive, exists somewhere between those options. That is extremely helpful and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I, too, am interested in the metrics that have gone into making the recommendations in the Bill. It would be useful to know how the figures were arrived at. The House is de facto responsible for the scrutiny of these tax rises. Of course, imposing or levying taxes is a defining feature of any system of governance, and that is what we are doing today with the greatest of reluctance, notwithstanding the fact that we did with the same thing last year. We need to do everything we can to ensure that this does not become a habit.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, is currently considering the future-proofing of the governance of Northern Ireland and how its governance can be made more robust. In our consideration of the Bill, it strikes me that we might like to think about how district rates and regional rates operate and whether some other body might be able to levy them both. Of course, that rather unusual and peculiarly Northern Ireland feature does not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the council tax prevails. Has the Secretary of State given any thought to how taxes of that sort might be invested in local government? Given that local government in Northern Ireland has changed dramatically recently and the number of councils has been reduced, we might possibly be able to levy such taxes for particular purposes through local government, rather than the Assembly—that is, if Stormont is going to continue to be unstable, which is an eventuality that I regret we will have to allow for in our thinking.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although it would be interesting to find a way to democratise the taxes, the regional rate is really used to finance central Government services, while the district rate is set by councils and used to finance local government? It might not be an accountable way to levy taxes if councils levy a rate for services that they do not deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I note that we voted earlier to allow six hours to debate these matters, so I am more than happy to hold forth at great length. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await my Select Committee’s report on this matter, which will deal partly with how, as an option for future-proofing governance in Northern Ireland, powers might be given to local government in future rather than to a body that I am afraid has shown itself to be unstable. It would clearly be inappropriate for any body to levy taxes for services for which that body was not responsible. That is the burden of the point that he was trying to make: the two clearly have to go together. I hope that my Select Committee report, which will be published in the next few weeks, will make that clear.

Although we have six hours to debate these matters, I am sure that we do not want to take that length of time.

[Karen Bradley]

indicated dissent.

[Dr Murrison]

Well, if the Secretary of State wants me to go on, I certainly will, but I think I would rapidly lose the House’s sympathy. I clearly support the Bill, which is completely uncontroversial, given the grave situation.

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady will lengthen my speech, but of course I give way to her.

[Lady Hermon]

I am delighted to lengthen the speech of a distinguished chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and, indeed, former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. In both those capacities, the hon. Gentleman will have built up expertise on and a considerable body of knowledge about inward investment into Northern Ireland. The second part of the Bill is on the renewable heat incentive scheme. Has the hon. Gentleman come to any conclusions about the negative impact on inward direct investment into Northern Ireland as a consequence of the continued uncertainty and bad publicity surrounding that scheme?

[Dr Murrison]

The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, I have not formed a view on that. The absence of the institutions at Stormont is most definitely acting to reduce confidence in Northern Ireland as a place to invest. Indeed, the hon. Lady will recall our discussion of the electricity market earlier. All I can say—it has been repeated at length in this place and will continue to be—is that the solution is clear, and it is the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly.

[Ian Paisley]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has said he is not aware of any negative impact. The facts speak for themselves: Invest Northern Ireland has had its highest year of inward investment ever and unemployment is at an all-time low. It appears that, no matter how many people in Northern Ireland froth themselves up into a lather about how negative everything is, Northern Ireland continues to go forward because of the drive and thrift of good, hard-working people there.

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman has made that point time and again, and he is right to do so. I think the question was to do with the RHI, and I suspect that it has had a fairly small impact on the picture that he paints, and rightly so. He makes a good point, and it is worth emphasising, that we in this place have a duty, in the absence of an Executive and an Assembly that should be doing this, to big up Northern Ireland as a destination for FDI and for a place in which to grow jobs and prosperity. He is absolutely right to say that the picture has been transformed in recent years in Northern Ireland. I think it is true to say also that the restoration of the Executive would do wonders for that continuing picture. We must do everything in our power to ensure that that Executive is up and running without any further delay. I commend the Secretary of State for all her hard work in that respect. With that in mind, I shall end my remarks.

Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend always asks helpful questions; he is not known for doing anything other. We are looking to have the power in this House to vary the salaries of Members who serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly—MLAs—in response to the fact that there has been no functioning Assembly for 14 months and the clear public concern about people receiving salaries when the Assembly is not sitting. He is correct, of course, that Members of Parliament receive a salary for the period in which an election runs, but I believe that the rules are different for the period when Parliament is dissolved as opposed to when it is sitting. I understand his concerns, but I assure him that this relates specifically to MLAs’ pay, not MPs’ pay.

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

I encourage my right hon. Friend not to be distracted because a number of important points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members, but the Bill is very tight and, as she rightly says, responds to public concern. In my experience, and I suspect in hers too, that public concern goes right across the divide in Northern Ireland. She is right to pursue this matter, because the public expect these salaries to be dealt with. In my understanding, that is the sole purpose of the Bill. Everything else can be discussed electively, but it must not distract the Secretary of State.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for his intervention. He is right that the Bill responds public concern, which has been raised with me and with him as Chair of the Committee, and with its members. I am sure that it has also been raised with Members of Parliament here who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland.

The Bill will grant the power to vary pay and allowances for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and, as I have just said, it is clear from my conversations with the public and stakeholders that there is broad desire for action to be taken in this regard. The Assembly has not sat since 13 March 2017—its first meeting after the 2 March election—but its Members continue to be paid their full salaries.

MLAs’ salaries and allowances are rightly a devolved matter. The normal process for setting MLA pay and allowances is for the Independent Financial Review Panel—a body set up by the Assembly for this purpose—to make determinations on pay and allowances. The panel would normally do that ahead of each Assembly election to cover the newly elected Assembly, although it is also empowered to make changes to reflect extraordinary circumstances. The last panel determination was made in March 2016 before the election in May that year. As no Members have been appointed since the first panel’s term of office ended in 2016, there is at present nobody in Northern Ireland with the power to change MLA pay to reflect the current extraordinary circumstances.

From my conversations and from opinion polling, it is clear that the public want to see somebody with the power to act. That is what the Bill will leave me in a position to do. In short, it will put me in the same position as the panel ordinarily would be in, giving me, as Secretary of State, the power to set out the pay and allowances of MLAs by means of a determination.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I presume that the hon. Gentleman wrote his question before the announcement in Brussels by Michel Barnier and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The transitional arrangements will end in December 2020. The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and leaving the European Union means leaving the single market and the customs union—that is what we will do.

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

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has every sympathy with the Irish Government. They did not want Brexit, and there are lots of risks for Ireland and no upside. Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless impress on her interlocutors in Dublin that the option presented in the draft withdrawal agreement is wholly unacceptable and that they should work with us to ensure that option 1 in the December joint report goes ahead?

[Karen Bradley]

Both the UK Government and the Irish Government have stated that they would like to address the issue of the Irish border through the overall UK-EU relationship, as set out in option 1 in the joint report.

Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I had the privilege of meeting Mitchell Reiss when I was in the United States last week, and I think several Opposition Members may also have had the chance to meet him. I expect the Independent Reporting Commission to report its interim findings shortly. Its members will be visiting Northern Ireland shortly, at which point I expect to have a meeting with them. I am well aware of the point that the hon. Lady mentions—it was something I discussed with Mr Reiss in the United States.

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

Funding that is apparently destined for the implementation of the recommendations of the Hart report is quite correctly covered in schedule 2, but it is also covered in schedule 3, which seems to conflict slightly with the point made earlier. Will my right hon. Friend clarify the situation? Schedule 3 appears to anticipate spend on the Hart inquiry, which we would all welcome, but she has not said this explicitly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I agree that we all want to see devolution restored. As I have said, I am doing this reluctantly, but I am doing what is required to enable public spending to continue and public services to be delivered. I pay tribute to the civil servants and other public servants who have worked tirelessly for the past 14 months doing exactly that work, and I want to make sure that they can continue to do so.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I am probably being thick, but can she explain the difference between schedules 3 and 4 —that is to say the difference between “resources authorised” and “sums granted” for the year ending 31 March 2019? Many of the figures look pretty much the same, but clearly there is a difference in the form of words used. I would be very grateful for clarification on that point.

[Karen Bradley]

I suspect that that is a deeply technical point. It would probably be helpful to the members of the Select Committee if I wrote to my hon. Friend and set out exactly what the difference was. However, I want to assure him that we are approving the start of spending, but we are not approving final numbers or how that spending happens as part of the process for 2018-19. What we are approving today is the moneys that have already been spent and making sure that those moneys that have been spent are on a proper statutory footing so that the finances of Northern Ireland and the NICS can be properly dealt with.

As I conclude, I will set out once again a point that I have made several times before: the UK Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast agreement, and we are completely committed to working to remove the barriers to the restoration of devolution. That is because Northern Ireland needs strong political leadership from a locally elected and accountable devolved Government and that remains my firm goal. However, in its absence, this Bill is a reminder that the UK Government will always uphold their responsibilities for political stability and good governance, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing forward this measure. It is something that none of us wanted to see, but it is preferable to section 59 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, not least because it means that accruing resources can be used, and subsections (2), (3) and (4) make it clear that those sums of money are substantial. Clearly, this Bill requires a budget to be set at some point. We hope that that budget will be set in Stormont and not here, but it still needs to be set. It would be useful to hear what timetable the Secretary of State envisages. We have grown used to timetables that are somewhat flexible in recent months—indeed, years—but if she has to bring forward a Bill here, it will be nice to have a sense of when she intends to do so.

I thank the Secretary of State for her letter to me of 13 March, following mine of 28 February, on the Northern Ireland Office supplementary estimate. I think that she satisfied all the points that I raised on behalf of the Northern Ireland Committee. However, may I press her a little on efficiency savings? It is understood from the letter that the Northern Ireland Administration have already scored the formal efficiency review of 2017-20 against the target, but efficiency improvements are still expected. How will this be ensured, who will implement it and who will oversee it? What role does the Secretary of State see that the auditor has in this respect? I will come back to that in a few minutes, if I may.

In my letter, I drew attention to the £79 million discrepancy between the cash grant and the departmental expenditure limit at main estimate. The explanation relating to the Stormont House and Fresh Start agreements is perfectly satisfactory, but my Committee’s scrutiny work would have been greatly assisted by early notification of that apparent discrepancy. Hon. Members can be sure that we will scrutinise the figures in this Bill closely, and the budget when it appears. It is very important that any discrepancies are brought to the attention of my Committee, or indeed the House, since in the current circumstances, scrutiny in this place is vital.

Are we any further ahead in quantifying the costs of systems envisioned under option 2 at paragraph 49 of December’s joint report? If so, where and when will they appear in subsequent estimates? Those are the costs that will be involved in creating alternative solutions in order to ensure that the border in Northern Ireland is as frictionless and seamless as possible. Those costs are likely to be significant, if indeed such a solution can be created, and it would be good to know that sufficient budgetary accommodation has been made for them.

In her written ministerial statement of 8 March, the Secretary of State announced £100 million in flex from capital to resource. Capitalisation is uncommon. The Treasury dislikes it, and for very good reason. So why precisely is it felt necessary, against a relatively generous Northern Ireland settlement on this occasion, to introduce capitalisation?

The Treasury has made a rather unusual call for evidence in a piece of work that it is doing on tourism. It wants evidence on VAT and air passenger duty that may go to support an improved position for tourism in Northern Ireland. I very much welcome that. Indeed, my Select Committee took evidence on this subject recently, and the Treasury documentation refers to that. However, it does seem to be an unusual intervention. Indeed, since many of the things that will have to be done as a response to any such report that the Treasury may produce will be devolved, how does the Secretary of State see that work being carried forward? I am sure that she, like me, would not wish the Treasury to be embarked on a piece of work that was not, at the end of the day, going to result in recommendations that could be carried forward. I therefore imagine that she has worked out, in collaboration with the Treasury, a pathway between recommendations that may come out of this piece of work and how they are going to be implemented. We cannot necessarily assume—I am sure that she does not—that we will have an Executive up and running within a timeframe that will be suitable for this report.

[Nigel Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is right in respect of some of the recommendations that may come out of that report. As for whether Ministers responsible to this House or Ministers responsible to the Assembly take these decisions, we will have to wait and see what happens. Air passenger duty and value added tax are matters for this House—for the Chancellor and the Treasury—and therefore the main object of the report will be a matter for this House.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. However, the call for evidence goes much further than that. That is what I am chiefly concerned about, since it implies that competences will be available in the event that there is no Executive in place that will carry this forward. Otherwise, it would be a fairly tight and narrow call for evidence.

The Northern Ireland Audit Office this year will report on a number of things. It is a very busy office, and my Select Committee was very pleased indeed to be able to meet Kieran Donnelly recently in Belfast to take evidence on the work of his department. It will be reporting on digital transformation in Northern Ireland, welfare reform in Northern Ireland, speeding up avoidable delays in the criminal justice system, financial health of schools and the social investment fund.

A lot of that has to do with increasing productivity in Northern Ireland and rebalancing the economy. It is not discretionary work; it is vital. It has to do with achieving value for money. My question is: where is all that work leading? If there is no body to scrutinise the auditor, let alone an organisation to take forward his recommendations, he may be crying in the wilderness. It is a bit of an irony that his work is geared towards value for money, since in those circumstances—that is to say, those recommendations not being taken forward—some question would be revolving around the value for money posed by the auditor himself.

It would be useful to know what thoughts the Secretary of State has about how the auditor’s reports can be properly examined—perhaps by a shadow Public Accounts Committee made up of Members of the Legislative Assembly—so that some comment can be made upon them. There would then be at least some chance of that work being carried forward by perhaps a newly emboldened Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who may need to have powers if the current impasse continues for any length of time.

I would like to ask the Secretary of State about the guidance that she has recently offered permanent secretaries and the status of it. On 12 March, at column 646 of the Official Report, the Secretary of State said in answer to my question about budgetary granularity that she had written to permanent secretaries about her guidance on how money should be spent. She cited health transformation money as an example and said that she was taking legal advice on the powers that might be available to her. I sympathise with her. Dealing with lawyers is a tricky business at the best of times, and this, I assume, is a legal minefield.

The Secretary of State will want to ensure that this is got right, not least because, if she gets it wrong, there is every prospect of judicial review. I know very well that she is not going to publish the legal advice—I know better than to ask her to do that—but I wonder whether she could publish the guidance that she has issued to permanent secretaries. My Select Committee and this House will want to know what guidance she has issued, the status of that guidance and the extent to which permanent secretaries will be acting upon it.

In the schedules to the Bill, a whole raft of things are listed, with very big sums of money attached to them. It is important to understand whether we are dealing with governance by guidance or whether these are simply helpful suggestions that the permanent secretary may be guided by because, if he is judicially reviewed at some point for decisions made, the courts will want to determine what status that guidance has. At the moment, that appears obscure.

It becomes important in areas such as infrastructure. In the schedules, very large sums of money are attached to the Department for Infrastructure. We know that the Secretary of State wishes to pass £400 million for particular infrastructure projects in connection with the confidence and supply agreement, in two parts—£200 million in one financial year and £200 million in another. It is not clear to me what happens if that money is not spent within the timeframe of the agreement.

I ask that because, like right hon. and hon. Members who have observed large infrastructure projects in their constituencies, the natural tendency is for these things to run and run. In the event that the money is not spent, does it accrue to the Treasury? Is it spent on other things? Does it sit at Stormont, waiting for the glorious day of the restoration of the Executive? What happens to those unspent funds?

Can we also know a little more about what big-ticket items the Secretary of State has in mind? The wish list published by the Executive before their collapse contained a great deal more than the York Street interchange, which the Secretary of State has mentioned recently. Does the guidance issued for the permanent secretary at the Department for Infrastructure cite what things the Secretary of State thinks are important, in priority order? That, she will be aware, is difficult because some of the political parties in Northern Ireland—one of them in particular—are not at all keen on one or two of the projects and would rather see other things. It is politically quite sensitive, and it would be good to know what guidance the Secretary of State has issued to the Department for Infrastructure on that important item of public expenditure.

The £100 million for health transformation in the confidence and supply agreement is most welcome, but we have to understand what transformation means. It is not simply about opening clinics or hospitals; it is also about closing them. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) was right to make the point last week that there is nothing more political in what we do than the opening and closing of healthcare institutions. I know that very well from my own constituency experience.

Is it really reasonable to expect permanent secretaries to make decisions of that sort? Indeed, would they make decisions of that sort? If they will not, the risk is that Bengoa will simply be put on ice. Under those circumstances, everybody loses. One way forward would be a legal avenue by which the Secretary of State can offer guidance that is perhaps a little more prescriptive than might otherwise be the case. We will not know that in this place unless we have sight of the guidance that has been issued and are able to examine it.

Does the Secretary of State share my concerns on policy drift and “do nothing” becoming the default option? The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is not in her place, gave the great example last week of the decisions needed to secure the Commonwealth youth games in 2021. I know that the Secretary of State, because of her previous portfolio experience in this matter, is acutely aware of the difficulties. A number of decisions have to be made around that yet, at the moment, there is nobody to make those decisions. It may be small, but it is a poignant example of why it is so necessary for somebody somewhere to be able to make those sorts of decisions.

I know that the Secretary of State was recently in Derry/Londonderry. It just happened that she was visiting at the same time as my Select Committee. She will have heard from people in that fine city how frustrated they are that nobody appears to be making any decisions right now. This goes right across communities. Regardless of community almost, people just want things to happen, because they see society being pulled back and a Province that has made so much progress in recent years—economically, socially, in every conceivable way—essentially marking time while the Executive get their act together.

There will come a point when, with a heavy heart and the greatest of reluctance, Ministers here will have to start to make decisions. We can all hope for a restoration of the Executive, but we might be hoping for a restoration of the Executive in three years’ time. In three years’ time, the world will look a very different place. Bengoa will probably have been forgotten. Some of the big infrastructure projects that we want to see in Northern Ireland may well have fallen by the wayside. All that good stuff will not have happened, and Northern Ireland will have slipped further behind economically, socially, in every way imaginable. That would be a huge failure, and I know the Secretary of State feels the same way.

[Nigel Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is 100% correct in what he just said. He is right to point out that of course we want devolution, and efforts must continue to ensure there is devolution in Northern Ireland but, in the meantime, there are communities and people suffering as a result of the lack of decision making. As he rightly says, in the meantime we must ensure that decisions are made for the good of everyone. That is an extremely important point, which I am sure the Secretary of State heard very clearly.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman is, as ever, absolutely correct.

I will finish my remarks on the Hart inquiry, which Members are right to mention in connection with the business before us. The programme for government offers a helpful pointer to Ministers, who may otherwise not feel on particularly safe ground in relation to making decisions. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have said that it provides some basis on which they can take note of the last expressed democratic view on a number of issues. However, on 12 March—at column 653, on the Hart inquiry—the Secretary of State suggested that it is not the business of UK Ministers or this place to consider recommendations of bodies set up by the Executive, let alone implement them, and she repeated those sentiments today.

It would be helpful to have a bit of clarification, because I fear that we cannot have it both ways. We either observe what democratically elected bodies determined before they crumbled, and that extends to any bodies that they may have established, or we do not. It is an important principle because it seems to me that it is legitimate to take note of decisions that have previously been made and of the clear will of those bodies, particularly if there was no great controversy about them. It would be useful if the Secretary of State clarified this point, so that we are a bit clearer about what we can rely on and, indeed, what she will rely on in making any decisions or issuing any guidance on which she may wish to reflect.

[James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I was just about to sit down, but I will of course give way.

[James Brokenshire]

I commend my hon. Friend for his work and that of his Committee. Does he acknowledge that one of the challenges is that no recommendations were agreed by the outgoing Executive? That obviously makes the job of the Secretary of State in determining the right way forward on the hugely sensitive issue of the recommendations that the Hart inquiry sought to bring forward extremely difficult, and that is why she has to think carefully about how best—cross-community, and with the parties—to assess the right way forward.

[Dr Murrison]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right but I am sure that, if he re-reads Hansard from last week, he will see that the argument extended not just to decisions made by the Executive or passed by the Assembly, but to things done by organisations set up by the Executive, which of course includes the Hart inquiry. The issue is whether we are guided by the recommendations made by those organisations or not, particularly if there appears to the Secretary of State and her Ministers to be genuine cross-party and cross-community acceptance of those recommendations and findings. To what the extent is that the best we have to work on? The question is really whether we are guided by what happened before the collapse of the Executive or not. I do not think that we can easily be selective.