British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Mr Gregory Campbell will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implementation of the British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Act 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. At the centre of the issue that we are debating today is how successive Governments—Labour, Conservative, Conservative and Lib Dem, and now Labour again—have determined how the issue of nationality in Northern Ireland is dealt with. A consensus has come about, with all the successive Administrations following a series of what have been called internationally binding agreements, including the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Belfast agreement and the St Andrews agreement. They all left successive Governments with the consensus view that people in Northern Ireland who wished to describe themselves as British, Irish or a combination of both could do so. Each successive Government said that they would ensure that they dealt with people impartially and proactively, according to the nationality of their choice—in the constitutional framework of Northern Ireland within the UK, of course.

The consensus emerged, and many people in Northern Ireland expected that to mean—they certainly did not receive any information to the contrary—that whenever a nationality issue arose, there would not be any differentiation or favouritism shown between a person wanting to express an Irish identity and a person wishing to express a British identity, within the context of the United Kingdom. That all came about as a result, as I said, of those successive agreements, but the seeds of the issue in relation to UK passports were sown in 1949, when what is now the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth.

At that stage, legislation was passed to allow people who previously had lived in what is now the Republic, and had moved to Northern Ireland, to be regarded as British citizens and to acquire a British passport. That worked fine for a number of years, because most of the people who had moved had moved prior to that date. But obviously, as the decades wore on and we got into the 1960s and the troubles in Northern Ireland emerged, more people who had been born after 1949 were moving from the Republic into Northern Ireland.

For example, if we take the beginning of the troubles, the period from 1969 to 1972, people who had moved to Northern Ireland because of disturbances and violence in the Republic were at that stage in their early or mid-20s. They were born in the period from 1950 right up to the mid-1950s. All of them—including their children—were born after 1949 and none of them was able to avail themselves of a British passport, unless they went through the expensive and time-consuming naturalisation process. Therein lay the problem, because as time wore on, more and more people were falling foul of the 1949 process.

I have in my hands a British passport and an Irish passport. We expected Governments to treat people who were owners of these passports equitably and not to deal with them in a partisan way that would result in someone saying, “Well, is this because I own an Irish passport?” or “Is this because I own a British passport?” I entered this House in 2001, and in June 2005 I tabled my first written parliamentary question, which was to ask the Secretary of State whether he would

“ensure that people who have resided in Northern Ireland for a certain length of time, but were born in the Irish Republic, can obtain a British passport at the same cost as those who were born in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 13 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 167W.]

The answer was a standard answer about the fee that was payable, and did not distinguish between whether someone was born in the Republic or in Northern Ireland.

British Children: Syria

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister has alluded several times to the five-day window expiring tonight. Can he outline, even in general terms, what steps he expects to take this afternoon and this evening before that expiry?

[Dr Murrison]

As I said, we have been working over the past several days, and indeed for some considerable time, to better understand the situation in al-Hawl camp, in particular, to satisfy ourselves that we know who is there and who we might have responsibility for in some way or another, moral or legal, to work up a plan on how to deal with that. That is irrespective of the ceasefire, but the ceasefire is important because it makes things a lot easier when we are trying to get in place a plan to assist those we think we have a duty towards.

Northern Ireland Executive

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gregory Campbell

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

No, I cannot, because the EU Azores rules mean that it has to be taken into account.

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

Whenever the Minister is speaking with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, will he ensure that ongoing talks consider the possibility of additional resources, so that the skilled work force in Northern Ireland can become a pool of employees for inward investors who take advantage of corporation tax?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the economic pact published about 18 months ago and updated during the summer, which gave significant new powers to promote the economy, in particular to grow jobs, and there was a significant amount of lending as a result. It has been successful. The groundwork has been laid and we have seen, in the figures I have quoted today, that it is having some level of success. Corporation tax will take that to the next level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

Notwithstanding my remarks about the value of the inquiry, the Government have been clear that although each case will be considered on its merits, we should indeed resist further costly, open-ended inquiries. I note that the Inquiries Act 2005 will help in that regard.

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

May I welcome the Minister to his new position? Does he agree that the taxpayer is still paying for the ongoing costs of the Saville inquiry—as a reply I received from the Secretary of State in the past few weeks made clear—10 years after the last witness left the stand and after the £191 million was expended?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I can only say that the Saville inquiry was set up under the previous Administration, under rules that existed at that time, and that Lord Saville was given free rein—rightly—in his independent inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, so many years after this began, the costs are still coming in. Nevertheless, the value of the Saville inquiry is clear, and we need to understand that.