European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

The hon. Member might be interested to know that the growth area of the Northern Ireland economy is the services sector, which is the one sector not included by the protocol—it is outside all that. The one sector that is outside the protocol is increasing. There is a clear message in that.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I had not intended to intervene on the hon. and learned Gentleman, but on that point, Invest Northern Ireland, the body charged with encouraging foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland and with growing our economy, cannot point to one example of business investing in Northern Ireland as a direct result of the Windsor framework.

[Jim Allister]

Absolutely. I will return to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I will respond in, hopefully, the same tone and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I suspect there is a big prize for him waiting in the Government Whips Office after this debate. He welcomed every intervention going. I do not besmirch his character at all, but since he suggested that there is interest in the concerns being raised by the Unionist community, I reflect that with almost two hours left of a five-hour debate, I am the third speaker. Scores of Members from Northern Ireland on both sides of the Chamber will probably not get the opportunity to make their point and represent their constituents, because of a quest to make sure that the Bill is talked out. I say, respectfully, that the hon. Member did exactly what he was asked to do, but when considering these issues, I am not sure just how constructive that will prove to be.

The hon. Gentleman said in his remarks that we will be able to deal with issues as time goes by. I have watched “As Time Goes By” on repeat on UKTV Gold, and I have watched people in this Chamber say that we will deal with these issues “as time go by”. Here is an opportunity to engage in the concerns that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised, having received support from across the Unionist spectrum in Northern Ireland to raise them. Yet, as time goes by, though it is said that we shall not be dismissed or demeaned in the position that we are putting forward, that is exactly what is happening.

I stand not only as leader of my party and my colleagues, but as a co-sponsor of the hon. Member’s Bill. I commend him on the position that he has outlined to the Chamber today and on his success in the private Member’s Bill ballot. He is not a gambler—anyone who listens to him will know that he will put forward his principled position without fear or favour—but he took a chance and he has this opportunity. I commend him on doing so in a collective and cohesive way that has allowed for greater co-operation not just from those in Northern Ireland, but from across the country. He should be commended for that.

The hon. Member and I embarked on this journey in the same position as we approached the 2016 vote. Although over the intervening years there have been a few crossed paths, a few cross words and the odd crossed sword, I suspect that it is good, fitting and encouraging for people at home that today we are speaking with one voice about these issues.

I say to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Bootle that one of the best ways to deal with the issues raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and me, and supported by colleagues in their own remarks, is to honour agreements that have been reached. When the hon. and learned Member said in his remarks that it seemed as if the people of Northern Ireland were being asked to “suck it up,” the Minister said from a sedentary position—I hope she will not fall out with me for sharing this—“No, we fight to maintain the Union.” [Interruption.] She is agreeing.

However, whenever agreement was reached earlier this year, the “Safeguarding the Union” paper outlined a number of stepping stones to a better place. The Minister and her colleagues present voted in favour of that agreement. They recognised the recurring issues in Northern Ireland, and the harm that those issues were causing the people of Northern Ireland and consumers, no matter the constitutional outlook. If constitutional principles are not shared, it harms ordinary people in Northern Ireland. They voted for solutions on an interim basis—a stepping-stone approach—to move these issues forward. Where are we on that today? What is the Government’s position on eradicating routine checks within the UK’s internal market system? They voted for it in this House back in February, and they did so because they recognised the constitutional implications that checks were having and the practical frustrations they were causing consumers in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is addressing an important part of the Bill’s purpose—from all the rhetorical issues right down to hard tacks. The previous Government went into the negotiations on the Windsor framework because it had dawned on, and been agreed by, the European Union that the protocol was not working. It recognised that nothing is fixed; these things are about experience, and then tempering that experience and changing. Labour Members keep saying, “You’ve reached an agreement and you will breach it,” but the real principle behind that is to recognise that there are still fundamental flaws, and that we could agree a better way to harmonise everybody in that respect.

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for co-sponsoring the Bill and being present today. He is right: the people who say in this or other debates that we cannot change what is written in tablets of stone are of the very party that was, from 1998, part of securing the Good Friday agreement, which was worked on in a political way, with parties in Northern Ireland, including my own, and changed time and again through processes at Leeds castle, the St Andrews agreement and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. The very arguments that they are deploying against change ignore the fact that they have a history of doing exactly the same thing—particularly on the Belfast agreement, which they often suggest is written in tablets of stone.

[Jim Shannon]

Let me quote someone from a small business that relies on supplies from Etsy. They say:

“I simply cannot continue without this supply. My suppliers have said that they can’t understand the system and can’t afford to look into this any further. Therefore, I am cut off. I am having to give notice to my landlord. I was barely making ends meet as it was - another business lost.”

The Bill is an opportunity to retrieve that and every other business, which would help the economy in Northern Ireland to thrive and create jobs. The Government need to do something.

[Gavin Robinson]

That is a fair point, and illustrates the requirement to honour the agreement—supported by the Minister and her Labour colleagues back in February—to eradicate routine checks within the UK internal market system. Does that deal with all the issues? No, it does not. Does it deal with what is in the red lane? No, it does not. Does it deal with the constitutional impurity of the overarching framework? No, it does not. But is it a step forward? Does it remove the frustration of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who does not share my constitutional outlook? Yes, it does, and it should have been delivered in October.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has also included in the Bill aspects on customs and parcels—another commitment made back in February and supported by the Labour Government. It was to be implemented in October this year, but they delayed it. The Minister and Members should know that we did not get overly exercised by the delay, because we recognise that it will be implemented by the end of the financial year. However, owing to the practicalities, the fact that attention was diverted because of the general election and all the rest, it did not happen in October. It is happening, which is good, but it is being done in a way that recognises the overarching imposition that we have from relationships that are totally unnecessary.

If the business run by the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is bringing in thread, wool and felt from Etsy to make craft, I defy any Member to stand up and indicate how that will have a material impact on the integrity of the single market. I defy any Member to stand up and give me an example—other than from “The Lord of the Rings”—of where a tree has come from GB to NI and been planted, and has then got up and walked across the border. It does not happen, yet we are told that sending a tree from Stranraer to Belfast would destroy the sanitary and phytosanitary integrity of the single market. It is a nonsense.

We are having to live with, and try to work through, the practical solutions to the overarching imposition that this Parliament agreed to, in spite of the concerns raised by people like me who were here during the Brexit years, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) was. We raised concerns, but we were ignored. So when people stand up in 2024 and say, “Why are we still talking about an issue that started in 2016?”, it is because Members on both sides of the House did not listen to the warnings, the concerns, and the opportunities for compromise and agreement. Moreover, in repeating the same approach today, we are storing up greater potential for frustration in the future.

[Ms Creasy]

rose—

[Dr Gardner]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because I am giving way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Gentleman actually knows that I have a lot of sympathy for his frustrations, because none of us should ever say there is a perfect solution to the challenges that he presents. That was always why many of us were concerned about the idea of Brexit, but we know that Brexit has happened. Once it happened, it created a series of problems. Does he recognise that there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat that he is setting out, and that this legislation actually takes us back to those old arguments?

By working together in this United Kingdom Parliament, we could look at how we get a better SPS deal, and at how we deal with the problems that the border operating model has created, so that all our constituents can benefit. We cannot go backwards; Brexit has happened and created all these problems. Those who advocated for it may wish to reflect on that, but we can go forward by trying to tease out better solutions. They will not be perfect, but they could be better. This legislation is not the solution, but I will offer a hand of friendship across the Chamber to find better solutions, if he is game.

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not respond to the hon. Lady’s last line; I will leave it to others to determine. She and I have engaged with each other—sometimes helpfully, and sometimes crossly—for years. When there are opportunities to work together to benefit my constituency or anybody else’s in the United Kingdom, I will do it. What I am actually doing at the moment is sharing agreements that were reached. She and her colleagues voted for them, yet we are still waiting for their implementation.

Let me give another one: an agreement outlined in “Safeguarding the Union” required a labelling regime across the United Kingdom. The reason for that was that there were no cost implications or benefits for businesses in Scotland, England and Wales if they simply chose not to supply our market in Northern Ireland. We have heard every hue and cry from drinks manufacturers and food manufacturers across the United Kingdom, who have said that this is costly and will cause them difficulty, yet Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco simply put it on their best-before date line. It costs them nothing, but what does it ensure? No divergence of trade within our own country. What does it ensure? Access to the Northern Ireland market and the removal of a disincentive.

What have we heard? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has no interest in honouring the very aspect of the agreement that Labour supported back in February. It is now saying, “Yes, we will take the power, but we will not use it, unless—”. Unless what? It is repudiating a commitment from an agreement that it supported, but it will not say what is the trigger point. At what point is it OK for it to step in? At what point should Northern Ireland be disenfranchised before our sovereign Government and our sovereign Parliament will take steps to protect the consumer interests of the people of Northern Ireland? We do not know, but what we do know is that even when they have been prepared to engage in discussions that are of practical benefit to the people of Northern Ireland to resolve these issues—and Labour supported those—there has not been full and faithful implementation. It is not governed by the Vienna convention, but we are not seeing that full and faithful implementation.

[Sammy Wilson]

My right hon. Friend says that even when solutions are found, they are not implemented. We have heard examples of things that people never imagined would be problems becoming problems. The fact is that every time a solution is found, because we in Northern Ireland are subject to laws that are different from those in the UK, new problems arise. Unless we deal with the fundamental issue, namely what is causing the problems, we will be continually looking for solutions and continually fighting to get them implemented, and that is not good either for business in Northern Ireland or for confidence in the Union.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. What have we achieved over the last five years? A game, and not a very enjoyable game, of whack-a-mole, for it is about as strategic as whack-a-mole. An issue comes up involving the VAT margin schemes for second-car salesmen; we find a solution. Then another issue pops up, and another, and another. Whack-a-mole! That is the best strategic approach that this Government, and the previous Government, have adopted to deal with issues that are affecting us because of the decision taken back in 2019.

I remember the parliamentary discourse about the quest for agreement, but I know this. When the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson—[Interruption.] Just let me finish. No need for your wee quips. When Boris Johnson engaged with this issue, in respect of the protocol, he went to the Wirral for a walkabout in a wedding venue with Leo Varadkar, and became smitten with Leo. He ditched the democratic consent principles in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. It was always part of the preceding arrangements that a consent vote in Northern Ireland would adhere to the consent principles in the Belfast agreement, and Boris Johnson ditched them.

In “Safeguarding the Union”, there was a commitment to remove and repeal a legacy provision in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, on having due regard to an all-island economy—a commitment that Labour supported, but now repudiate because it is in “Safeguarding the Union”. Let me remind the House that it is only in “Safeguarding the Union” because it features in the Windsor framework. Much of the approach from the Government Benches seems to amount to “We cannot achieve anything with the European Union unless we demonstrate our trust and our integrity—or our servitude!—to the European Union.” Paragraph 53 of the Windsor framework indicates very clearly that there is no need to have a legal due regard to an all-island economy that does not exist. Anyone who stands up here today and talks about their full-throated support for the Windsor framework should read what paragraph 53 has to say about the all-island economy. It is a matter of fact that we do not have an all-island economy; we have strands within our economy that operate on a cross-border basis in the context of two legal jurisdictions, two tax jurisdictions, two currency jurisdictions, two VAT jurisdictions and two regulatory jurisdictions, unless covered under annex 2 of the protocol. We do not have an all-island economy. It is a superfluous piece of legislation that is drawn out of the joint report from 2017, and it should go. It should go because I say so; it should go because it was agreed under the Windsor framework, which is quickly forgotten and ignored.

We have talked about article 2 in this debate. No one on this side of the Chamber is indicating that we should leave, through this argument, the European convention on human rights, nor that we should replace the Human Rights Act 1998, which embeds those commitments in our domestic legislation. The argument being raised on article 2 of the Windsor framework is that what has been presented as an international treaty, an agreement and a resolution on trade is impacting and frustrating the ability of this sovereign Parliament because of how the courts in Northern Ireland are interpreting the provisions on myriad areas outside trade.

Immigration is a classic example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow was right that we worked on this and we talked about this, but let me be very clear: whenever I stood up in this Chamber on behalf of my colleagues as our spokesman on home affairs to say that I would not vote for the Illegal Migration Act 2023, it was not because I did not think there was an issue with immigration. I do. It was not because I was ill-prepared to support Government in their endeavours. I was prepared to do so. I said this in this Chamber and my colleagues supported me: it was because, though the Government said that the provisions would apply in Northern Ireland, we were indicating that they would not.

The very same people who told me that the immigration legislation would apply in Northern Ireland launched a leadership campaign on the back of the arguments I was making afterward. We were right, but it is wrong that a trading agreement should have any impact whatever on the ability of this sovereign Parliament to set a uniform immigration policy across the whole United Kingdom. It was wrong then, and I am glad that the Secretary of State on Wednesday night indicated that that is a ground of appeal that the Government are bringing forward, because it is wrong.

[Ms Creasy]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

I hope, if I agree to allow the hon. Member for Walthamstow to intervene once more, and once more only, that she will agree that it is right to sort that issue, too.

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. He and I may disagree about how to resolve it though, which is what I want to ask him about so that I do not misunderstand him. That disagreement was about the right to remedy being removed from people in Northern Ireland seeking asylum; in other words, it was the right to petition to an external court to uphold your rights. This Bill removes the domestic legal effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework and breaches paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 4 of the EU-UK withdrawal agreement, which require that individuals be enabled “to rely directly” on the provisions of that treaty.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is right? Many of us believe that there is a libertarian argument for a third-party court to uphold the rights of citizens, whether that relates to contract law and what they are sold or to their basic human rights. Is he saying that his resolution is that the right for citizens to petition a third party to protect themselves against the Government should be removed from the people of Northern Ireland?

[Gavin Robinson]

Our judiciary are independent from the Government as well, as she knows. At first instance, in the High Court in Northern Ireland, citizens can draw upon legal jurisprudence within the European system without needing to go to the final arbitrary appeal of a third party. She knows that. The hon. Lady and I have parsed the course on many occasions. Despite all the suggestions made by Members, when challenged, that they are prepared to engage in the debate on this legislation or on the wider issues affecting Northern Ireland seriously, earnestly and with a willingness to resolve problems, there have been an awful lot of giggling Gerties and Cyril Sneers across the Chamber. There has been an awful lot of dismissal of concerns that have not been raised for the first time today—they have been raised on many, many occasions.

It is not just immigration that has been encroached because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, but legacy, which was the basis on which the Secretary of State raised this issue on Wednesday night. The legacy of our troubled past is an important issue, and it has absolutely nothing to do with international trade or trade within our own country—yet here is a case predicated on article 2 of the Windsor framework, which is frustrating this Parliament’s ability to legislate on that issue. That cannot be right. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down seeking to intervene, or is she just waving supportively?

[Claire Hanna]

I was agreeing with the right hon. Member that the trade rules have nothing to do with the past. I was also hoping to remind him that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who spoke before him and tried to equate the murderous campaign of the IRA with the protocol, degrades everybody in this Chamber, and degrades every victim of that campaign. I respect the right hon. Gentleman, and he knows that. I am sure he agrees with me, and that he was as mortified as everybody I know hearing that.

[Gavin Robinson]

I regard the hon. Lady as well, as she knows. She has made that point now on two occasions, and she is free to do so.

I want to come back to the SPS point that has been raised on a number of occasions. Here I stand as a Unionist Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, having engaged on these issues for the past eight years, as have my colleagues in this place, whether recently or over the same period of time—nobody sitting behind me has a shorter political career than I do; in fact, almost all have a much longer political career. We have engaged on these issues because we have been trying to find solutions that work for the people of Northern Ireland. Sometimes that causes discord among us. Sometimes the best tactical way of achieving that does not meet unanimity or agreement. I am sharing with Members present that when we make progress and make achievements, we want to see them implemented, and there is no trust or honour earned when those agreements are breached or not fulfilled.

We are invited to wait for an SPS agreement. I just want to be very clear that in a debate such as today’s, on the Windsor framework and the EU withdrawal Bill that the hon. and learned Member has presented, the Paymaster General should be here. The Paymaster General, who has been charged by the Prime Minister to engage with the European Union and resolve these issues, should be in this Chamber. I greatly respect the Minister present, but some of the issues being raised are for the Paymaster General. It is he who intends to go and secure this SPS agreement.

Let me say very clearly to Government Members who think that such an agreement is the answer to all of our problems: it is not. There is a world in which that process could provide solutions and get equilibrium across the United Kingdom on SPS issues alone. However, nobody has yet said that that will see the removal of the overarching framework that is causing the imposition; nobody has once suggested that once reached, all the legislative requirements and the constitutional and practical impositions would dissolve. Nobody has suggested that, and that is problematic. The fact that the agreement would be a single solution for SPS and would not touch on any of the other areas of law is problematic.

However, what is most fundamental? The Paymaster General knows as well as I do that the European Union does not see this process concluding within the next two or three years. I do not think it is appropriate or acceptable for the people of Northern Ireland to wait so long.

The Paymaster General has not indicated what the content of his agreement should look like, nor the content he would like to achieve. I understand that this week—only this week, some six months into government—he has written to the devolved Administrations asking for ideas as to what that process would look like; only this week, six months in, for a key plank of the Government’s approach to resetting their relationship with the EU. That is simply not acceptable.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Member. I came here today because of the harm that the botched Brexit deal has done to my communities, and because of my fear for what this Bill would do to those communities and the economies in the centre of London. He talks about the frustrating delays in implementing some of the solutions that he believes could make a difference, but I am confused about why he and the Bill’s supporters think that going back so many years, as the Bill proposes, would actually help to make progress on the many issues that I think all Members—even on the Labour Benches—still believe need to be fixed.

The right hon. Gentleman supports the Bill, so will he explain why going back might help us to move forward on some of the areas where we think there needs to be progress?

[Gavin Robinson]

This Bill does not take us back. If we are interested in building trust and resetting our relationship with the European Union, why is it not conceivable that we could get to a place where we respect one another, acknowledge one another’s purity of legal services and legal systems, and recognise the importance of the rule of law and the ability to mutually enforce standards with one another? Why is that so inconceivable?

Why is it possible for the European Union to outline a system that allows goods to move from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland and into GB without any border checks, but not the other way around? Why? Will anyone stand back and ask themselves whether all of this, with the attendant hassle and constitutional impairment, is necessary or worth it? It cannot be sustained, neither practically nor pragmatically.

The impositions are not required. We started this journey in a place of equilibrium on standards. When we left the European Union, our standards and theirs were exactly the same. Mutual enforcement was not mythical then, and it is not magical now. There is no reason why I cannot conceive a solution based on a reset of relations, if necessary, and a rebuilding of trust so that mutual enforcement is the better answer.

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

If the Bill is talked out, as seems almost inevitable given the attitude of Labour Members, the Prime Minister has indicated that he will speak with representatives of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the next few days. If the Labour Government are saying, “Yes, there is an opportunity to make progress and, yes, there are difficulties to be resolved,” does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity in the next few days for the Prime Minister to tell us exactly what he is going to do if Labour Members do not support the Bill?

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

I want to give the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) another example. She will have heard colleagues in interventions, she will have heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) at Prime Minister’s questions and she will have heard me at Northern Ireland questions raise the issue of the general product safety regulations that come into force next Friday. What is the best answer we had from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? “We are in discussions.” What do we hear from Labour Members? “It’s in train.”

Information should have been given to businesses long before next Friday, but have I ever heard a Labour Member say, “Actually, in January 2024, the Conservative Government extended the February 2023 agreement to adhere to the requirements and standards of EU safety markings—the CE markings on goods—and general product safety”? Why are we in a situation where our Government—the last Government, but still our Government—agreed to adhere to EU standards on general product safety, only to find that, come next Friday, it will all be too problematic for GB businesses to trade with a part of the United Kingdom? It is wrong. It should not be the case, and it is not at all satisfactory that we are talking today about the aspiration to have a solution when this comes in on Friday. Businesses should already have the information.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my right hon. Friend not find it even stranger that for products moving from the Republic of Ireland into GB, the Government rushed to find an accommodation? Only last week, the Minister told us that she was totally satisfied that checks away from the border would be perfectly suitable because producers in the Republic of Ireland were getting concerned about access to the GB market, yet our Government cannot find any urgency for facilitating the movement of products from GB to Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is where it becomes thoroughly obnoxious for people in Northern Ireland. They say, “Whatever the constitutional views are, and whatever the Labour position on this and the Conservative position on that, why am I being impinged on? Why am I being treated differently? If a workaround is available that allows goods from the Republic of Ireland into the GB market, why is there not one for me?”.

When we talk about market access and the UK internal market system, we are in principle talking about a marketplace—somewhere to both buy and sell, where trade flows in both directions. However, when Government Members talk about market access, they all too often consider one direction only, and not the implications for businesses in Northern Ireland.

I will conclude with a point about the democratic scrutiny mechanism and the vote that is due on Tuesday. The arrangements are a complete inversion of the commitments that were given in the Belfast agreement. They were brought forward following Boris Johnson’s bedazzlement with Leo Varadkar in the Wirral. The protections that were offered to the people of Northern Ireland were stripped away in haste as a result of that political union. It has left us in a position where, even though cross-community support will not be attained, articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework will continue.

There is a strong argument, which others have made, that we should not countenance that process with our presence, but as I said at our party conference in September and since, we will be there on Tuesday. If the vote proceeds, we will vote against the continued application of the Windsor framework, in the knowledge that if we demonstrate our opposition, we will not leave anybody on other Benches or in the European Union with the chance credibly to argue, “They weren’t even interested enough to vote—they didn’t even turn up.” With our vote and our voice, we will demonstrate our opposition to the continued application of the framework.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for his Bill. It is disappointing that I will not get to make a speech on it; I trust that you will show me a little leniency, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my intervention as I have deliberately not jumped up and down during others’ speeches.

Does my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) agree that those in this House underestimate at their peril the damage caused by the current arrangements? Unionism is reeling at the fact that our mother Parliament has sacrificed and continues to sacrifice Northern Ireland on the altar of political expediency. Unionism has had enough. Businesses and consumers have had enough. They cannot get plants, seeds or trees from GB. They cannot bring in farm machinery, just because it may have British soil on its wheels. They cannot bring seed potatoes from Scotland. All traditions in Northern Ireland—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady has made her point. I call Gavin Robinson.

[Gavin Robinson]

I acknowledge the position that my hon. Friend outlines in her contribution. I wish it was not the case that so few Members will get to contribute. Indeed, I arranged for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) to lead for my party on the Bill—but he decided that I should—because I want to ensure that people get the opportunity to contribute.

Just as we make our point today, we will make it on Tuesday. I encourage other Unionists to vote with us. It will trigger a review that I think will be important; I hope that it will not be dismissed in the way that the concerns being raised today or in the past are being dismissed by Members here. The review will take evidence and suggest how the arrangements may change. The purpose of Intertrade UK and the independent monitoring panel was to provide an evidence base for us to draw on when the review was triggered, but another aspect of the Government’s inability to honour the commitments they entered into back in January and February is that their reluctance and lethargy means that that information will not be available. That is a shame. It is a complete shame that the work was put in to make sure that we could have these discussions in a robust, evidence-based and honourable way, but the information simply will not be available.

I wish the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim well with his Bill. He knows the frailties of the private Member’s Bill process, and we do not know where the Bill will end up, but the issues raised and the principles engaged, and the imperative to keep working at this properly, to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland in our United Kingdom, will not be diminished today, and they will not go away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

No, I will make some progress now.

[Gavin Robinson]

Will the Minister give way to me?

[Fleur Anderson]

indicated assent.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful to the Minister, but could I just cautiously and gently urge her to draw back from the comments she has made about the movement and security around the border? One of the most incendiary things to occur during the discussions with the European Union and the British Government was Leo Varadkar showing a copy of The Irish Times that displayed a picture of a border post that was blown up by the IRA during the troubles, and suggesting that the trade arrangements could lead to the same thing. He was wrong then, and I think the Minister is in danger of stepping into that territory today.

[Fleur Anderson]

I hope the right hon. Member understands that I am talking about the difference between a hard border and a soft border. The Windsor framework enables the smooth flow of trade, which is good for businesses on both sides of the border and also safeguards the Union. The Windsor framework does not damage the Union; it actually strengthens it and ensures that it can continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

As set out in law, whether there is an independent review depends on the outcome of the consent vote that will take place in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government would be under a legal obligation to commission a review if it is not passed with cross-community consent. I would expect the review to focus on articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, but it would be for the reviewer to consider how they conduct it.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I associate myself with the Minister of State’s remarks about Ken Reid. He was a colossus of Northern Ireland politics, and journalism more broadly across the country. I thank her for those comments.

The Secretary of State will know that getting the city and growth deals back on track was good, following the disappointment of the pause that followed the incoming Government. He will also know that there was a commitment in the spring Budget to support a skills and education centre at the Crusaders football club, for £2.2 million. That remains paused. I think the Minister of State has taken an interest in that project, and I would be keen for the Secretary of State to confirm that he will raise it with the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Hilary Benn]

I am aware of the pause that affects the particular project to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Consideration will then have to be given to how that may or may not be taken forward, but I note his interest and I will follow developments carefully.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Secretary of State knows that city and growth deals are about economic growth and ensuring prosperity within Northern Ireland. Is he aware of the concerns among businesses in England, Wales and Scotland, who are saying that, as a result of the general product safety standards emanating from the European Union, they cannot send their products to Northern Ireland? That is in stark contrast to the British Government’s position to maintain standards on CE markings with the European Union. What advice and support can he give those businesses in Northern Ireland who want to trade, and to consumers who want to buy, in their own country but are currently frustrated from doing so?

[Hilary Benn]

Advice is being provided about the general product safety regulation. Many companies already meet its terms, because they are exporting from the UK to the European Union. There are steps that some businesses will have to take, but I hope the impact will be very small, because there is a way to get through it.

Windsor Framework

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Hilary Benn]

I hope it will not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with him. Complaining and ignoring does not get us very far. He anticipates what I am about to come on to: the progress we have seen as a result of the Windsor framework.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for getting to the point where he talks about progress, but I remind him, as he will have heard this morning, that every Ulster MP in Westminster Hall today rails against the fundamental impediment to our constitutional position and the overarching framework that has been imposed upon us against our will. But we worked on solutions and reached arrangements and agreements with the Government in “Safeguarding the Union” about ensuring the movement of goods within our UK internal market, which he supported when he was in opposition, and those agreements need to be honoured. While deadlines have slipped, there is a huge imperative for him and his Government to respond appropriately and earnestly implement the very things that saw a return to devolution in Northern Ireland.

[Hilary Benn]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and he and I have had many discussions about progress on implementing the commitments made in “Safeguarding the Union”. He can see the progress that has been made, and he and I have discussed issues where there is work in progress.

By the way, the original protocol, which had many flaws and difficulties, and the Windsor framework negotiated by the previous Government, which represents a considerable improvement, were both approved democratically by this Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim argues that they were imposed from Brussels, but it was this Parliament that decided the way to reconcile the choices—impossible choices, in a way—that leaving the European Union created. Frankly, I would not have started from here, as I think he well understands, but this is a consequence of a decision taken by the British people, and Parliament decided to put these arrangements in place. To reject the idea that there is an issue that needs to be addressed is not the responsible thing to do, and therefore the Windsor framework represented a considerable step forward.

Police Funding

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered funding for policing.

I wish I could present a more optimistic picture of police funding across our United Kingdom to the House. Unfortunately, that is not the case. No discussion on policing should overlook the contributions of Sir Robert Peel, the founding father of modern policing. Although we have made significant progress since the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Service in London in September 1829, there remain critical challenges that we must address and I fear that, without adequate funding, we are in danger of regressing.

The significance of police funding cannot be overstated, particularly when considering the Peelian principles, which emphasise the prevention of crime and the maintenance of public order. The principles remind us that the true measure of policing effectiveness lies not in the physical presence of police officers, but in the absence of crime and disorder. Adequate funding is essential to uphold those ideals and ensure that our police service can effectively serve and protect their communities.

Where do we stand? I will begin with an overview of the United Kingdom, focusing specifically on the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is with deep gratitude that I represent North Down in this House, though it pains me to acknowledge that my constituency lacks a fully operational, full-time police station open to the public. Not one member of the public can report a crime in a police station in my constituency, because they are not open.

Using Eurostat, we can compare international policing strengths, with England and Wales ranked 29th, Scotland 23rd and Northern Ireland 16th. As of 31 March 2024, our police force stands at 170,500 full-time equivalent police officers. While that marks a 10% increase from 2003, when the Home Office first began its recording of these figures, it still represents a 0.7% decline from the peak numbers of 2010. In Scotland, there are 16,536 full-time equivalent officers, a figure 2% lower than last year and 7% lower than the peak numbers recorded in 2013.

As I come to Northern Ireland, I will pause, as we are in the season of remembrance, and take a moment to honour those across the UK who have made the ultimate sacrifice in police service for us all. I pay tribute to the 300 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, following on from the Belfast police in 1836, who lost their lives, and the 312 officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary deservedly awarded the George Cross, along with their 370 gallantry awards and 712 awards for distinguished service. We remember the 16 members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland who have been killed in the line of duty.

It is with deep concern that I must place on record that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been underfunded since 2010. While the Northern Ireland block grant has increased by nearly 50% since the 2010-11 financial year, reaching approximately £14.2 billion for this financial year, the police budget has unfortunately decreased from £903 million to £892 million. To put that in perspective, funding for health has increased by 89% in Northern Ireland and funding for justice has increased by 8%, while policing has faced a 3% cut. Benjamin Franklin, a founding father of the United States, wisely noted:

“If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.”

In the context of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, accurate planning reveals that there is a significant need for funding, with £166 million required for 2025-26, a further £235 million for 2026-27 and a further £307 million for 2027-28.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and on advancing his argument so expertly. When he acknowledges the projected pressures that police will face in the coming years, does he recognise that the Budget made no reference to the McCloud judgment, to the holiday pay issue, to legacy liability or to the recent PSNI data breach, which amounts to £750 million of unfunded pressures that will put even more difficulty on PSNI, the Ministry of Justice and the Northern Ireland Office?

[Alex Easton]

I totally agree with the right hon. Member: what we have does not even touch the amount of funding that the PSNI needs to find, and he raises the most valuable points.

These figures underscore the urgent requirement to address the ongoing issue of structural underfunding. I acknowledge the £37 million in additional security funding allocated from the Budget, as well as the investment in the Paramilitary Crime Taskforce. While those measures are welcome, let me be unequivocal: they do not adequately address the underlying pressures facing our police service in Northern Ireland.

Don Quixote reminds us that the truth of the pudding is in the eating, so let me now present to the House the stark truth of policing in Northern Ireland. Neighbourhood policing is diminishing; response times for non-emergency calls are excessively prolonged; the capacity to investigate crimes has been reduced; inquiry offices are closing and the ability of the police to support partner organisations is compromised.

However, I am supported by listening to policing colleagues on the frontline, committed to proposing solutions alongside dialogue on those challenges. A comprehensive approach to address those issues includes supporting the business case for maximising the Police College’s potential over the next three years, aiming for 7,000 police officers and 2,572 staff by 2028. It is important to note that those figures remain significantly below the Patten commission’s recommendation of 7,500 police officers. The funding required for the initiative is £8 million in year one, £25 million in year two and £47 million in year three.

To put it bluntly, any viable solution must be threefold. First, the monitoring round must address the £37 million funding gap. Secondly, there must be an increase in the budget baseline to establish sustainable funding. Finally, we need approval of the business case to enable police headcounts to recover to previous levels. It is entirely appropriate for the chief constable of the police service to accurately highlight the current position, and he has my unwavering support, along with that of many others.

There is no doubt that the Justice Minister faces a crucial set of questions regarding the adequacy of the current budget allocation in the light of recent crime rates and increased public safety concerns. First, how can the budget be considered sufficient when community safety, recruitment and training—essential components for maintaining public trust and safety—are insufficiently prioritised? The current funding allocation leaves much to be desired, and as a result the PSNI’s ability to effectively serve the community is hindered. Furthermore, the limited resources allocated for community safety directly impact the PSNI’s ability to perform its duties, which raises the urgent need for accountability.

An explanation is required as to why public safety is not being treated as a top priority, especially when the current funding does not reflect that crucial need. Sadly, it appears that the voices of the public, of the police unions, of community leaders and of political parties, all calling for adequate resources, are not being heard sufficiently by either the Ministry of Justice or the Minister. I challenge the Government to be open to a comprehensive review of policing budgets. That is essential to ensure the PSNI’s mandate, but I must be honest and place on record that they have fallen short in that regard.

It is unsustainable to have approximately only 4,500 deployed officers in Northern Ireland. The reality we face is that the PSNI loses around 40 officers each month due to retirements and departures, while the number of graduate officers fails to keep pace with that attrition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

The need for more funding is understood, which is why I was glad that more money was delivered to Northern Ireland in last week’s Budget. It was good news for Northern Ireland. The Budget delivered a record £18.2 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive for 2025-26—the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution. That includes a £1.5 billion top-up through Barnett consequentials for 2025-26: £1.2 billion for day-to-day spending and £270 million for capital investment. What will be done with that money? It is for the Executive to set a budget for all Northern Ireland Departments and for the Department of Justice to allocate funding to the PSNI. How that funding is used is an operational matter for the PSNI and the Chief Constable.

The PSNI estate—police stations—was raised by the hon. Member for North Down. The allocation of that money and questions of whether police stations are open or not are entirely operational matters for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

Paramilitarism has been mentioned. The effort to tackle paramilitarism is led by the Northern Ireland Executive’s “Tackling Paramilitary Activity, Criminality and Organised Crime” programme, which was established after the “Fresh Start” agreement. The programme is working to tackle the presence of paramilitaries through evidence-based early interventions, targeted law enforcement measures and initiatives that provide direct support to help build safer communities who are resilient to paramilitarism. The UK Government provide 50% of the funding—£8 million a year—for the cross-Executive programme for tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime. As was announced in the spending review, that has been secured through to March 2026.

One strand of this work is the Paramilitary Crime Task Force, the PCTF, which is a multi-agency taskforce including officers from the PSNI, the National Crime Agency and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Over the period from April 2023 to March 2024, the PCTF made 107 disruptions and 83 arrests, charged and reported 115 people and conducted 175 searches. The PCTF seized drugs with a street value of more than £1.3 million and illicit tobacco with a street value of more than £2.8 million, along with 41 firearms and weapons, of which eight were explosive devices.

The Executive programme for tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime has provided PSNI with £5.6 million in 2023-24, and the same for 2024-25. PSNI police numbers have been raised several times—rightly so. A well-staffed and resourced PSNI is vital to the success and stability of Northern Ireland. I am aware that the PSNI restarted recruitment earlier this year, and that the Chief Constable has been speaking to the Department of Justice to discuss funding to allow that to continue. Recruitment and retention are absolutely vital to delivering effective policing. Policing in Northern Ireland, apart from national security, is a devolved matter, and police numbers are a matter for the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable. As of 1 October 2024, PSNI has 6,303 full-time officers. I am aware that the Chief Constable aims to lift officer numbers to 7,000 within three years. That will be challenging, but I understand that he is speaking to the Department of Justice about it and we will continue to support him.

The hon. Member for North Down will be aware of the Executive’s draft programme for government, which was published in September. I note the programme’s recognition that PSNI officer numbers are low, and welcome the Executive’s commitment to grow police officer numbers to 7,500 in line with New Decade, New Approach. As I have said, last week’s Budget delivered the largest settlement in real terms in the history of devolution, including that £1.5 billion top-up through the Barnett consequentials. The money is not ringfenced, and the Northern Ireland Department of Finance will work with Executive Departments to allocate it based on budget pressures.

I welcome the fact that the data breach was raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). In response to the August 2023 PSNI data breach, the PSNI worked closely with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to fully understand the cost implications of its response to the very serious incident. The UK Government granted an initial, non-repayable reserve claim of £15 million after the data breach. That was communicated to the Department of Finance and intended to assist in addressing the challenges to the PSNI budget caused by the data breach. In February 2024, however, the Department of Finance confirmed that the funding was not required and PSNI costs could be absorbed within the NI budget. No additional funding was required from the UK Government, but we continue to work together in ways like that to ensure that policing can continue.

[Gavin Robinson]

Would the Minister accept that that was in relation to the likely fine from the Information Commissioner’s Office? The fine was greatly reduced, but there is no cover or resource allocation for the level of compensation that will be due to the thousands of officers that were involved. That figure is at £240 million.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that ongoing issue, but I will need to conclude now. I agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) that ending violence against women and girls must be a priority in policing. Altogether, it has been demonstrated that the positive steps Northern Ireland has taken to become a more peaceful and prosperous place are ongoing, and reflect the commitment of communities from across Northern Ireland to build a safer place to live and work. The work of the PSNI, alongside other security partners, is a crucial component in the delivery of a safer Northern Ireland. I am delighted that the Government have been able to increase the additional security funding provided to PSNI to allow it to continue to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the leader of the Democratic Unionist party.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

We look forward to a positive conclusion to those discussions next week. As the Minister knows, both representatives from the Mid South West region growth deal and the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal are in Westminster today. Will the Minister acknowledge that, in working with businesses and in trying to encourage greater trade within our own country, the appointment of a chair of Intertrade UK was an important first step, but work needs to start, the terms of reference need to be set and businesses need to be able to engage with that body established to support trade within our country?

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree with the right hon. Member that Intertrade UK needs to get going with its work to encourage investment between all of the regions and nations of the UK. It is very important to set the terms of reference, and we are working with the organisation as fast as we can now that the chair is in their place

[Gavin Robinson]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She will know from discussions with her Cabinet colleagues that decisions have been taken to delay the agreement on parcels, to delay the agreement on customs, and to avoid taking the decision on UK-wide labelling. Myriad other decisions were also made and supported by this House, including Labour Members, that are required to be implemented from the “Safeguarding the Union” document. She will know about the interface between trade and constitutional politics, so I urge her to engage with the Secretary of State, the Paymaster General and others within the Cabinet to get on and deliver what businesses and the people of Northern Ireland need?

[Fleur Anderson]

We are not the only Ministers who came into office three months ago to have faced all sorts of decisions that should have been taken by the previous Government. We have taken up those decisions on parcels and on every aspect that the right hon. Member mentions. He is right to raise them, because we do need to work on them to ensure that we protect the UK internal market and that we create the best possible regime for business.

Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann]

I thank the hon. Member for his point, and I will come to it later when I quote him in regards to the concerns that were raised when Mr Kinahan resigned.

On Mr Kinahan’s appointment, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party at that stage, Dr Steve Aiken, said that it

“will be warmly welcomed by all veterans and the wider armed forces community across all of Northern Ireland”,

that Mr Kinahan would

“be a first-rate advocate for the many thousands here who have served”

and that

“by his appointment we have at long last joined the rest of the United Kingdom in providing that very necessary representation.”

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Having heard the comments of the former leaders of the DUP and the Ulster Unionists, it is important to place on record our appreciation for the work that Danny engaged in. He did not work in a party political way, but rose to the occasion as a veterans-first commissioner and a champion for veterans. Having worked with him throughout his time in the role, I think the hon. Member will come on to some important deficits and deficiencies, in terms of not only how the role was hampered and constrained by the Northern Ireland Office and the appointing Department, but how it lacked the resource that would have allowed the commissioner to engage properly with anything more than about a 10th of veterans in Northern Ireland.

[Robin Swann]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention—believe it or not, I was going to quote him later as well, but he has pre-empted that. Trust me, we are making cross-community representations to the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office.

Moving on from the warm words of congratulation on Mr Kinahan’s appointment, we are here today because, unfortunately, on 5 September—four years after the role was created, and having been reappointed for a second term—Mr Kinahan issued a statement announcing his resignation, which came as a surprise to some. It said:

“I can confirm that I have today resigned from my position as Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner.

Following an open and frank conversation with the Secretary of State, I have sadly concluded that I cannot provide the independent voice that veterans require.

There is a feeling among some veterans in Northern Ireland that they have been forgotten and that they do not enjoy the same protections as their counterparts in Great Britain.

Veterans in Northern Ireland have particular needs and concerns which need to be addressed by the UK Government, which I have made very clear in our discussions.”

In closing, Danny said:

“Finally, I would like to place on record my gratitude to all those who have placed their trust in me and assisted me with my work over the last four years. I will continue to work in their interests where I can.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. This is my first time responding to a Westminster Hall debate for the Government and I am delighted that it is on this issue; my grandfather was from Northern Ireland and served in the British Army, so this debate is very close to my heart. I am so grateful for his service and the service of all veterans.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) on securing this important debate—his first Westminster Hall debate as well—and on his work to improve support for veterans in Northern Ireland over many years, including reconvening the Armed Forces Liaison Forum when he was Minister of Health for Northern Ireland. I know he is deeply committed to ensuring that veterans in his constituency, and indeed right across the UK, receive all the recognition they deserve and the support to which they are entitled. It is a commitment shared by this Government and, I am sure, by all in this Chamber—

[Gavin Robinson]

I appreciate that the Minister is here today and speaks with a personal connection to this story. She will know that the commitments in NDNA were important and represented work done in the Defence Select Committee and through private Members’ Bills to make sure veterans in Northern Ireland had a strong voice, as their counterparts across the United Kingdom do. She should also know that the last number of years have proven very difficult for veterans, with the closure of the VSO and with the feeling that they are not treated the same as their counterparts across the UK. Does she understand that the most important initial step she could take would be to confirm that the NIO will advertise the position of Veterans Commissioner? Doing that now would indicate a commitment to that support.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a half-hour debate. I accept that people are intervening on a very important matter, but I ask Members to be careful and considerate with their interventions in such debates.

Northern Ireland City Deals

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I will indeed be that champion. May I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on assuming the leadership of her party? We all wish her well in that endeavour. I also express our appreciation of the former leader of the SDLP, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is sat next to her. Let us be frank: the truth is that when bad news is forced on the Government, it is unwelcome, whenever it is announced.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know that city deals were talked of for a long time, but it was in 2017 that the Democratic Unionist party got a commitment from Government—a commitment that would not just impact us but be of benefit to everyone in Northern Ireland, creating opportunities for growth in cities and regions throughout Northern Ireland in a phased, programmed, sensible and strategic way. The decision to pause both the Causeway Coast and Glens and the Mid South West region deals was unnecessary, and I think the Secretary of State accepts that. Given that no arrangements were in place to agree the necessary financial requirements, there was no need to pause the deals because of a lack of finance.

As I think the Secretary of State acknowledges, this decision places in jeopardy the matched funding from private investors, as well as the ability to proceed with the food and drug development centre in Coleraine, the Enniskillen bypass, and myriad other important and strategically significant proposals. As we wait until 30 October, it would inject confidence if this Government were to say that they recognise the importance and value of city deals; are determined to deliver on these aspirations, which will be key regional economic drivers in Northern Ireland; and recognise, as I think the Secretary of State does, that pausing these proposals was foolish.

[Hilary Benn]

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s last proposition. As I have already indicated to the House, given the fiscal inheritance, the prudent thing is for the Government to say, “We need to look at a range of things in the round.” I entirely recognise that this decision is unwelcome to many people. The best thing we can do is give certainty as quickly as possible, which would assist, but I entirely understand the practical difficulties that this decision creates in the meantime. I will learn more about that when I meet the chief executives of the deal areas.

The House is united, though, on our shared desire to maximise economic growth in Northern Ireland. This week, we have had a really good example of that with the announcement of the very significant order that has gone to Wrightbus. This is a company that nearly went bust; then investment came in, and it is now helping to deliver the bus transportation of the future from a factory that I and many other Members have had the chance to visit. There are a lot of good things happening in Northern Ireland, and we need to build on them.

Patrick Finucane Murder

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

For one family, this now provides a process, but I am very conscious that many other families will say, “What about us?” That is why we need to find the most effective means to get to the truth, and that is part of the reason, as I have explained, why I decided that we would not get rid of the commission. I have met Sir Declan Morgan a number of times, and I have confidence in his ability to do his work. We have to find practical means of providing answers to all of those families, so that they feel their story can be told and they can get what they have been looking for. The point I wish to emphasise again to the House is that this particular case is exceptional for the reasons I set out in my statement.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

One of the things the Secretary of State did not outline in his statement was that the Supreme Court considered whether it was appropriate not to proceed with a public inquiry, and that the Supreme Court agreed, provided that an investigation could satisfy article 2 compliance. He has said today that the ICRIR not only has his trust and confidence, but has the ability to perform such tasks for other families. So when he rightly says that families across Northern Ireland will ask the question, “What about us?”, so too do I, because the most exceptional circumstance about this is the exceptionality of treatment. Over 1,200 families still have neither truth nor justice, and if the plans enacted last year continue, they will never get justice. I would ask him, in repudiating the ICRIR and suggesting today that it is not an appropriate mechanism for the Finucane family—and I do not besmirch their grief or their quest for truth and justice—but it is appropriate for every other, how can he honestly look victims in the eye and say that there is not a hierarchy?

[Hilary Benn]

There should not be a hierarchy, and the right hon. Gentleman and I shared reservations with—indeed opposition to—the legacy Act because it did cut off lots of routes to justice. In the end, I think families should have the opportunity to avail themselves of inquests and civil cases, but the commission is now in existence. The honest answer to his question is that in this particular case, and this does not apply to any of the others, the Government of our country made a commitment twice—once at Weston Park, and secondly by the then Secretary of State—to establish a public inquiry. I think it is right and proper, the Government in the past having made that commitment, that we honour it, and that is the answer I would give him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment. The reasons for the Government’s decision about Harland and Wolff were clearly set out in the written ministerial statement that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary laid before the House. Harland and Wolff is now talking to its main supporters, Riverstone, about potential additional financial support. We are committed to shipbuilding across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland, and as that written ministerial statement made clear, Harland and Wolff is an essential part of the £1.6 billion contract for the fleet solid support ships.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

4. What steps he plans to take to support public services in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)]

I am delighted to be appointed to this role, and I look forward to working closely with Executive Ministers to see public services transformed in Northern Ireland. I will be meeting the First and Deputy First Ministers tomorrow in Stormont, as well as the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt.

[Gavin Robinson]

I welcome the Minister of State and Secretary of State to their positions. I am delighted to see them in post, and I know they are committed to effective public services and stability of the institutions in Northern Ireland. May I caution that in a number of responses that we have received from the Front Bench, we are having a recurring conversation that the fiscal framework that was announced back in December on an interim basis does not solve the problems we have? Even the stabilisation money that was agreed back in December has already been forecast as necessary to sustain pay in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister of State engage earnestly not only with what the Government—both of this hue and the previous Government—have been saying for the past six months, and recognise that to provide good public services in Northern Ireland we need not only to sustain, but to transform?

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree with the right hon. Member. Money is allocated specifically for transformation of public services to improve service delivery outcomes. In Northern Ireland, three in 10 people are on an NHS waiting list; that number is one in 10 here in England. That figure needs to be transformed for health outcomes.

I will be talking about funding when I meet Executive Ministers, but I will also be talking about other ways in which our doors, and those of other Government Ministers, too, are open. We are determined to work together to transform public services.