Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is customary to say that it is a great pleasure to follow the previous speaker—in this case the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood)—so may I thank him for the comments that he made about Dáithí’s law, which makes that convention easier to abide by? I agree with him wholeheartedly, and I thank him for his sincere remarks about our former colleague Alex Easton, the independent Assembly Member for North Down. In such harrowing and tragic circumstances, those remarks will be appreciated by him and by all those around him.

I do not think that there is any need to delve into some of the squabbling of the past 10 minutes, but I place on record my appreciation for the comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). He rightly identified the huge failure on the part of the Government to deal with or grasp the issues presented to them in the six months following the September 2021 speech at La Mon in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) outlined clearly, in intelligible terms that anyone could understand, how the protocol was fraying the strands of the Belfast agreement. The more those strands fray, the more likely it is that they will snap.

We should not need a history lesson in this Chamber to know that in New Decade, New Approach an agreement was struck that dealt not only with police officer numbers, but with the fact that Northern Ireland had been removed from the United Kingdom’s internal market. A commitment was given to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom’s internal market. If that commitment had been delivered, we would not be where we are today. If the warning that the shadow Secretary of State has highlighted had been heeded at that stage, steps would have been taken to ensure that we did not end up where we are today.

I had to smile when the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), said that we get fed up with him. He then had more to say, but I agreed too early, so I apologise for that. However, he has stood at the vanguard of those who have dismissed and demeaned the legitimate political concerns that have been raised—not post the Northern Ireland protocol, but during its passage through this House and in all the tumultuous years that led up to that point. It was clear as day: we did not support it in October and November 2019, and we did not support it when we came back in January and February 2020.

It is clear as day that when Northern Ireland is removed from its integral place within the United Kingdom, without the consent of people in Northern Ireland; when a situation is created in which Northern Ireland Assembly Members are no longer able to vote, speak or shape laws that attach to trade; when a huge cost is placed on consumers across Northern Ireland and product choice and availability is removed; when there is an attempt to subvent that at a cost of £358 million over the past two years, or some £460,000 a day, for the trader support service in order to ameliorate the bureaucratic requirements associated with the protocol, with grace periods in place; and when people have the temerity to talk about a cost of living crisis, without recognising the huge costs placed on consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland because of decisions taken by this House, there is a problem.

I am extraordinarily sorry to say that this is the second time that as Members of Parliament here we are having to set a Budget for the people of Northern Ireland. That should not be the case. The issues should have been grappled with much earlier. The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee indicated that civil servants cannot make decisions, but we passed the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 in this House last year. Section 3 of that Act makes it very clear that civil servants are empowered to make a decision even when it has not been put to the Executive, if

“it is in the public interest”.

Am I suggesting that that is an ideal situation? No. Am I suggesting that it could not be better? No. Would we like to be in Stormont, shaping our own destiny? Absolutely we would, but we should not suggest, as has been suggested, that decisions of public importance on life-and-death issues—decisions that are in the public interest—should not or cannot be taken. They can.

That is why I have raised with the Minister of State, on a number of occasions, an issue around Grenfell cladding, as but one example. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) will know that she benefited from Grenfell moneys in her constituency because a building there had an ACM cladding system. In my constituency, buildings have non-ACM cladding, for which the Executive have not yet created a scheme. I am not talking about money that the Executive need to get from Whitehall—they already have it. In March 2020, I got letter from the Finance Minister saying that the money had been reallocated because we did not have a scheme, and yet in one complex alone in my constituency there are 474 apartment owners who know that their building is made from materials that need to be remediated. They also know that, two years ago, the Executive got money from Whitehall to remediate that building. They cannot sell their properties. They cannot get an EWS1 form. They cannot borrow against their properties. They are stuck until the scheme is delivered. We are talking about remediating cladding that is a fire safety issue.

[Mr Steve Baker]

The hon. Member makes his point with great force on behalf of his many constituents. Since last week, when we met and discussed the subject and I wrote to him, my officials have confirmed with Northern Ireland civil servants that a scheme is under development. I know that he will continue to champion his constituents on this issue and I will continue to be in touch with the Northern Ireland civil service on this point. Obviously, we do need to see progress on that.

[Gavin Robinson]

I thank the Minister. I appreciated the correspondence, which he copied to colleagues as well, and I appreciate him looking at this. The scheme that was referred to his officials has been under development for well over 12 months now. The scheme envisages a Whitehall Department—it will remain nameless—which is already administering the scheme in England, administering the scheme on our behalf in Northern Ireland as well. Yet, even though we passed legislation in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022 last autumn, officials are still suggesting that, when the scheme is developed, they cannot do anything because they need the Executive to agree it. I was grateful for the clarity in that legislation last autumn that that is not the case and that it need not be the case. It is in the public interest that officials should advance that in the absence of functioning institutions at Stormont.

I raise that as just one discrete issue to highlight how things must move on. Policies must progress. When money has been attributed by Westminster to Northern Ireland for that specific purpose, when the Executive have accepted that there needs to be a scheme, and when there is a blatant need for people who are trapped in their homes or for fear of fire safety issues, it needs to happen.

I mentioned that this is the second time that we have considered a Budget Bill in this place. I want us to cast our minds back to the last process. In that, the Treasury started off with the new regional rate for Northern Ireland at something extraordinarily ridiculous like 18%. I see that one official who was scarred by that process has returned for a second go. However, 18% was absurd. We had to engage significantly with the Treasury on that. In those discussions with the then right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, now Lord Hammond, it was clear—this is the importance for this debate—that we cannot just keep on with the same funding system for Northern Ireland. I invite the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to have an inquiry on that specific point.

There is absolutely no point in either today setting a Budget and thinking things will get better tomorrow or establishing an Executive and believing that it will all be okay. The Northern Ireland funding system does not work. The Northern Ireland funding system will only get worse. The Minister enjoyed saying that Northern Ireland gets a 21% premium above his constituents in Wycombe, but if we are honest about the figures, his constituents are outbid by a 30% premium for households in London, 20% for those in the north-east of England and 20% for those in the north-west of England. All those individuals do better in funding per household than the affluent south-east of England.

Northern Ireland has a disproportionately larger public sector, even though it has a smaller population, because there needs to be a critical mass to provide services. We have higher levels of deprivation; the hon. Member for Foyle mentioned it, and parts of my constituency, west Belfast and other urban environments are in exactly the same position. Rural deprivation is also disproportionately higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom. That all goes back to the Barnett formula from 1979; the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee should grasp the issue. When we engaged with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a recognition of that, but if someone were to ask the Treasury today whether there is a problem with how Northern Ireland is funded, it does not seem to have any legacy knowledge of that discussion.

Importantly, it was agreed in New Decade, New Approach that a Northern Ireland Fiscal Council would be established to consider how Northern Ireland is funded and the sustainability of our funding system. That has been established and it has published incisive reports that are ignored. If they are not ignored, they are picked up only because people are interested in newsworthy items about Brexit or about the potential for water charges. People are missing the core element of those reports, which is the recognition that, if we do not systematically change how Northern Ireland is funded, the situation will only get worse.

In January 2023, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council considered the long-term projections for the Northern Ireland block grant. It was 29% of the premium that we received in the 1970s and it has fallen sharply since.

[Simon Hoare]

If the hon. Member would like to set out in a short email or letter to the Committee the scope of the inquiry that he envisages and the reasons that underpin it, I will take that to Committee colleagues in the not-too-distant future and see what, if any, progress we can make on it, because he makes a valid point.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

It is what is known as the Barnett squeeze: it started off at 29%, it was 25% in 2002 with the Northern Ireland Executive, and it is currently sitting at 21%. Over the next 50 years, it will be 6%. That 6% higher sounds great, but it is not when we assess the relative need of people in Northern Ireland and the disproportionately higher level of public services. The pay parity issue in 2019 and 2020, when nurses went on strike for the first time in the UK in Northern Ireland, illustrates the point entirely: pay awards were being agreed in England, but the funding was not being sent to Northern Ireland to pay nurses the money that they deserve.

In September, the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council was as clear as it could be when it said that, by 2030, Northern Ireland will have public spending below relative need. The tensions we hear about today, and the pain we experience in individual aspects of public services, indicate that we are quickly getting to the point where we cannot provide the public services that people in Northern Ireland need at the funding levels that we have. In the next spending cycle from 2022 to 2025, Northern Ireland will see a 3.6% increase in spending, but in England, there will be a 6% increase. The squeeze will get worse.

I say all that not to be boring—I do not like economics; I do not find it that interesting—but because it is crucial. In Northern Ireland, the headlines will be, “Parliament rushes through a Budget Bill.” The Bill is a snapshot in time that crystallises what has happened over the last 10 months, determines what will happen for the rest of the financial year and sets out projections for the next six months. It misses the fundamental point, however, that unless there is a total and earnest recalibration of how Northern Ireland is funded, the situation can and will only get worse. With or without an Executive, and with or without a protocol, this will only get worse, and public services in Northern Ireland will stall. They will stall and get to a point where it is irretrievable. As an elected representative who believes in raising issues that are of huge importance to the people I have the privilege of representing, I cannot let this evening pass without raising those fundamental issues.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on this matter. At the outset of my speech, I also refer to the very kind comments made about our colleague Alex Easton. In the course of today’s events, he has sent a little text message thanking colleagues for their kind messages. The unbreakable heartache he must be going through will be unfathomable to most, and we leave him in the care and grace of his God and saviour at this time.

Turning to the less solemn issue of the Budget in Northern Ireland, which this House is passing, I chided the Minister earlier that no doubt he would say that, if we had a functioning Executive up and running in Northern Ireland, the Budget at Westminster would not be necessary and everything would be much better. Legislating for the Northern Ireland Budget Bill at Westminster is of course a mark of the failure of the Government to create the conditions to help restore the Executive. The Democratic Unionist party cannot do that on its own, despite the childish comments from some that, if the DUP just got over the protocol, this thing would be sorted out. If it were that easy, most of us agree it would have been sorted out, but it is not, because there is a problem here that has to be addressed.

It is now two years since the protocol came into effect and the Government have still failed to fix the problem of the protocol. I remember the first debate in the House back in the new year, in January, after the protocol had come into effect. I said then that within a week it was clear that the operation of the protocol would be an unmitigated disaster for Northern Ireland and we should move immediately to trigger article 16. I was told that that was premature and, “Don’t be silly, that cannot be the case.”

It has taken two years for the penny to drop. Among the architects of the protocol, even Leo Varadkar in recent days has indicated his regrets at signing up to it. Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern was in the House at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee today and again said that this matter has to be resolved. Thankfully, the chorus has started to change. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East is right to single out the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for, I think for the first time from the Dispatch Box, making it clear that Unionists have actually got a point here, and sooner or later that point has to be addressed.

Six months after I gave my comments in 2020, in a Command Paper, the Government accepted that the

“combination of serious economic and societal difficulties, along with the obvious diversion of trade, would justify”

triggering article 16. That was 18 months ago. We are in what is called the can-kicking phase of the protocol’s existence, with the can just being kicked down the road and nothing actually being done, when all the evidence clearly suggests things should have been done years ago. They were flagged up. There was no excuse not to do them—they were flagged up and should have been done years ago.

A further year on, with no substantive action having been taken and following the understandable and inevitable collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive, the Government introduced the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, claiming the legal justification of necessity. In international law, the doctrine of necessity requires “grave and imminent” peril, yet a further six months and more have passed and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill appears to be stalled in the other House.

I know the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, and indeed others, want the DUP to put hope over bitter experience and take this Government on trust and restore the Executive before the protocol has been fixed, but the Minister of State will know that it is not going to happen. I have referred to his comments on 23 October when he set the standard; it is a very good and high standard and it has to be met. The Government have got to deal with Unionist demands on the protocol. Those are not just my words but the Minister’s words, and I appreciate his echoing them. There is no point in the Government’s complaining about legislation for a Northern Ireland Budget in this House given that they have failed to address the problems of the protocol over the past two years, when they have had ample opportunity to do so. I hope they will address them now.

I do not criticise the Government for legislating on this matter. I want His Majesty's Government to govern. I do not want them to manage; I do not want them to hold the ring until something better comes along. There will be things with which I disagree and there will be things that I oppose, but it is the Government’s job to govern for our region of the United Kingdom when devolution is not in operation. I therefore do not criticise the Bill on that point of principle, but I believe it has taken far too long for the Government to act, and as a result the public sector finances in Northern Ireland have continued to deteriorate. We need to address that as a matter of urgency.

The options do not get any better if the inevitable is delayed. The time and the personal political credibility of the Government were wasted when they were playing around saying that there would be another election. That was the time for them to act immediately. They should have acted when the leader of my party pulled the First Minister out of government, but it is not a matter of 20 days or so but a year since that happened. The Government have had a year in which to do something about this, not just since the election but well in advance of it. A great deal of time was wasted over that year when the Government were not grappling with the issue.

As my colleagues have already pointed out, devolution of itself does not generate money, with the exception of the rate take. It is important to guard against the idea that an Executive would be an answer to many of the serious challenges faced by public finances. That is not abrogating responsibility; it is a statement of fact. We should not pretend that the Executive is a solution to all our problems. The mere fact that devolution does not produce money is one indication of that. Ironically, spending in Northern Ireland will probably be higher this year in the absence of an Executive—because the Secretary of State was able to secure flexibility from the Treasury—than it would have been if the Executive had been in place. This comes at the cost of next year’s Budget, which I think will be a worry for many people.

There are three points that I want to leave with the Minister. First, the Budget does not deliver on NDNA commitments. As some of my colleagues have already observed, NDNA spelt out the need for a sufficient increase in resources to allow the number of police officers to rise to 7,500, but the Budget does absolutely nothing to achieve that. In passing the cultural legislation, the Government placed reliance on the purported implementation of the NDNA agreement, but the Budget flies in the face of that approach when it comes to policing, which is something that will affect everyone in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, the Budget fails the children of Northern Ireland. It is one thing to set a challenging Budget at the beginning of a financial year, but it is quite inappropriate to impose damaging and undeliverable cuts in the final months. I think that all Northern Ireland Members—and, I hope, the Government—have received copies of a letter that was sent jointly and uniquely, for the first time, by the chief executive of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the chief executive of the Controlled Schools’ Support Council, a chief executive in the Irish sector, the chief executive of the Catholic Schools’ Trustee Service, the chief executive of the Governing Bodies Association Northern Ireland, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education, and the chairperson of the Transferor Representatives Council. That letter spells out very clearly that the authors

“question the lack of parity”

between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. They ask:

“Why is the education of a young person in NI valued less than those in England, Scotland and Wales?”

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) went into that in some depth. He has significant knowledge, having for a long period headed the section that set the exams in Northern Ireland. I am delighted for Scottish kids. They get the equivalent of £7,600 per pupil. In Wales it is about £6,600, and here in England it is £6,700. Northern Ireland gets £6,400. There is a significant decrease in the moneys available to help children in Northern Ireland, and that crisis is not addressed by the Budget that this House and this Government are presenting to us this evening.

[Gavin Robinson]

To add to that, I outlined the difficulties of the squeeze over the next three financial years, which will see £2,000 taken from the spend of every household in Northern Ireland. That is almost 10% in public spending off every household in Northern Ireland over the next three years.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. It is clear that this Budget and the squeeze that he identified—set by this House—leaves the Northern Ireland education system facing a funding crisis that will affect every child and young person, not just this year and next year but for years to come.

The third point I want to leave with the Minister is that this Budget makes next year’s Budget even more difficult. I touched on that in my earlier comments on being able to get money out of the Treasury. Though it was not highlighted in the Secretary of State’s November statement, this Budget is balanced only by robbing from next year’s Budget. That will make it even more difficult for any new Executive to agree a Budget, given the cost of living crisis and wage pressures. In the absence of reforms or additional funding, it is difficult to see how next year’s Budget will be credible at all.

At the outset of his comments the Minister thanked the various permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland for taking on a very difficult task. It should be pointed out that the various permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland have described this Budget as grotesque. They are not happy being left to carry the can. We find ourselves in a constitutional netherworld where the Secretary of State dips in and out of devolved responsibilities formally and informally in a manner that is frankly unacceptable. That has been referred to by former senior civil servants as an affront to the democratic process.

Although Parliament has the right to legislate for Northern Ireland in the devolved field, it is only in very narrow and carefully defined circumstances that it has the power to take executive decisions. We have seen the Government taking legal powers to intervene in areas such as abortion law and the implementation of the protocol, but not to tackle hospital waiting lists or Dáithí’s law, as raised by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), to allow Northern Ireland’s new organ donation laws to take effect.

Many will question the political morality of the choices that the Government have made and the right to do that, but it is equally unacceptable, in the absence of direct rule, for the Minister to make Northern Ireland civil servants answerable to him. Direct rule is a legitimate choice for the Government to make in the absence of devolution. It is not a choice that we are asking them to make, but indirect rule where the Secretary of State seeks to wield power without taking responsibility is not acceptable. It puts civil servants in an intolerable position. They are expected to make the cuts but do not have the authority to bring forward the reforms. I go back to my first point to the Minister: govern, do not manage. That is the job and that is what should be done. I hope that the Government will act now. There is an old saying that if you break it, you fix it.

By signing up to the protocol, the Government broke the institutions first created by the Belfast agreement. Rather than asking Unionists in Northern Ireland to do the politically impossible, the Government should face up to their own responsibilities. The Budget will pass this House tonight, but very soon the constitutional no man’s land must come to an end. Either the Government should fix the protocol so that new arrangements can be supported by Unionists as well as nationalists, or they should take responsibility for decision making in Northern Ireland in a way in which they can be held accountable properly and thoroughly by this House.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker]

In speaking in favour of clause 1 standing part of the Bill, I do not propose to go through the Bill clause by clause and elaborate on its purpose, because the Secretary of State has not long done that during the debate on Second Reading. I also sense that Members have already spoken to the content of many of the amendments, so I propose to conclude my initial remarks now and then come back to the amendments in detail at the end of the debate.

[Gavin Robinson]

I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and those of my party colleagues. I have a sense from the way in which some colleagues have gathered that they are interested in an accelerated conclusion to proceedings, but I know that nobody would want to deny us the opportunity to talk to important matters that affect the Province and governance in Northern Ireland.

I suspect that the conclusion to our consideration of amendment 13 will be positive and allow Members to retire gracefully from the Chamber. Until we get there, however, it is important to say that I hope that Members were able to discern on Second Reading that there is agreement across the parties on the content of a whole range of amendments—some in scope, some out of scope —tabled for Committee. A number of the amendments are remarkably similar in intent and import. Whether we are Members of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party or the Democratic Unionist party, there is common ground to be had among all of us in this Committee stage and in other areas that fell outside consideration. If there is any encouragement to be taken from these proceedings, that should be it.

Amendment 13 is important, given that what we have in governance at the moment is suboptimal. There are ways in which we can enhance the governance oversight and democratic accountability of decisions taken through this Bill. We are asking that the Northern Ireland Office consider incorporating and involving Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly in the decisions taken and in notifying us accordingly. That is the import of amendment 13.

[Mr Baker]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

I know that the Minister has considered amendment 13 and that he has published helpful guidance, which he may wish to address now.

[Mr Baker]

Yes, we published the guidance as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was making his opening remarks. I draw the House’s attention to paragraph 15 of the draft guidance, which says that records should be kept of decisions that have been taken by officials. It goes on to say:

“A monthly summary report of decisions taken using the Guidance should be prepared by NI Departments and shared with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will promptly make these reports available to Parliament.”

We will be very happy to append “and MLAs”, and I hope that the guidance, as we aim to amend it, meets the aims and intentions of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

[Gavin Robinson]

We are almost there. I am very grateful to the Minister for that clarification. Clearly, the guidance says that the reports will be made available to Parliament. In our normal understanding, that would mean laying those reports in our Library. If we are incorporating MLAs, I think it would also be appropriate for relevant MPs who have expressed an interest in the passage of this Bill and who are from Northern Ireland to be able to get access to those reports. That means making them available in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and to the Northern Ireland Assembly and relevant representatives.

[Mr Baker]

Absolutely no problem. We will implement that as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

[Gavin Robinson]

Dame Rosie, you can see that there is a willingness and desire to move things along. I am very grateful to the Minister and to the Secretary of State for their engagement. That is a helpful clarification on the guidance.

As I mentioned tangentially during an intervention I made on Second Reading, a number of amendments that were tabled fell outside the scope of the Bill, but I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will engage with us and colleagues across the House pragmatically over the next few weeks, because these issues are not going to go away and need to be resolved.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Committee.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The trial is certainly being watched assiduously by my officials and me. However, this Bill is about the restoration of the Executive in Northern Ireland—something that is very important indeed. Unfortunately, the time has come for the Government, and indeed for hon. and right hon. Members in this House, to take action in response to the governance gap that has emerged in Northern Ireland, and that is what this Bill seeks to do.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State outlines his disappointment that we do not have functioning devolution in Northern Ireland and I share that disappointment, but he knows acutely why the Government are not functioning in Northern Ireland. Instead of sharing his disappointment, can he tell us why, in the three weeks since the duty to call an election—or the past 10 months—there has been no fundamental, sincere or considered progress on resolving the Northern Ireland protocol?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am afraid that it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that. He and this Government are absolutely not commenting day-to-day about the talks between this Government and the European Commission. As both the Foreign Secretary and I have set out at the Dispatch Box, we will continue not to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his point with great clarity and force, but I think he encourages me to stray a little too far from the Bill on this occasion. If I recall correctly, I have replied to him on the question of veterinary medicines—whether through a parliamentary answer or a letter, I forget. I think I have signed off a reply, but I will check.

Officials are continuing to hold technical talks, but the reality is that there is still some distance between us, even though some of our technical solutions are relatively close. I say to Members on the Labour Front Bench that we need to continue to show resolve. Anyone watching this debate will see that a great degree of consensus has broken out on all sides. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, the Chairman of the Select Committee, referred to our bromance, and although I have to tell him that he is not actually my type, people might like to observe the good will that exists in all parts of the House. We all want to get the protocol resolved so that we no longer have to talk about it, get the Executive up and running and move on to providing the good government that the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

Before moving on to other contributions, I want to join Labour Members in thanking the PSNI, particularly in the difficult circumstances it has recently faced.

With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do not think that his visiting Belfast and holding multi-party talks will be a silver bullet. We can see plainly what the obstacle is to the formation of the Executive, and we need to focus our efforts on the European Union. I should just say that the Prime Minister’s attendance at the British-Irish Council in Blackpool was the first such attendance by a Prime Minister since 2007, and I am grateful that he had the opportunity to meet the Taoiseach.

The Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, made a point about the normalisation of politics, which elicited an interesting response from the leader of the DUP, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. We have to be extremely clear that we are always going to uphold all three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the right hon. Gentleman set out clearly that that involves the consent of all communities. During my short experience of being in Northern Ireland, I have heard from the public there—and from a number of Members here, including the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna)—that people are clearly in the market for normal political government that concentrates on public services, and that there is a desperate need for that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee for making that point.

The role of the Irish Government was brought up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I want to be absolutely clear that we are not considering joint authority, nor will we. We have kept the Irish Government apprised of our plans to maintain public services in Northern Ireland in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers. The Irish Government share our commitment to devolution and the Good Friday agreement. We are pleased that we have begun to transform our friendship and relationship with Ireland, and we will continue to do so.

A number of Members, and particularly the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), raised the position that officials will find themselves in. We recognise that civil servants should not ideally be put in a position where they need to take political decisions themselves, but we simply cannot bring forward this further extension without taking measures to ensure that some decisions can be taken in the meantime. We believe that the Bill provides Northern Ireland’s civil servants with the clarity they require in order to take the limited but necessary decisions to maintain the delivery of public services during this period.

[Gavin Robinson]

I want to raise an important amendment that was tabled but not selected for consideration in Committee, on the Grenfell remediation scheme for non-aluminium composite material cladding. The money was distributed and then reallocated in Northern Ireland because the scheme was not in place. There are ongoing discussions with Whitehall. This is a public safety issue and, given that there was a fire in Belfast’s Obel Tower just two days ago, it needs urgent attention. Can we remove party politics and, if we are not going to get traction with this Bill, at least have a commitment from the Minister and the Secretary of State that they will turn their urgent attention to this?

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government care very much about this issue, as he does. This is a good moment to say the Bill is absolutely not taking powers for this Government to direct what happens in Northern Ireland on any particular policy, which is a good reason to come on to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), whom I congratulate on her victory in providing abortion in Northern Ireland. Before the Bill completes its passage through the other House, we will have commissioned services in Northern Ireland, but the Bill does not give Ministers of this Government the power to direct what is delivered by the Northern Ireland Department of Health, which will find that it is compelled to commission abortion services, but many of the questions she raises will be properly decided in Northern Ireland. That still relies on the Executive reforming to get the work done. We will commission services and, of course, the Secretary of State and I will continue to take a close interest in how those commitments are carried through and delivered.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) raised the issue of Sinn Féin MPs, and he talked about a figure of £10 million, which I do not recognise, so I would be grateful if he provided a breakdown so that I can consider what he said. Sinn Féin MPs are not paid salaries, because they do not take their seats. If we were to treat MLAs similarly, we would presumably reduce their salaries to zero, which is not our intent. We will have an evidence base when the Secretary of State makes his determination, and that evidence base is not likely to recommend the complete removal of salaries. We have chosen, for good, technical reasons, not to connect our measures to pensions. Of course, other measures, such as allowances, will continue.

Northern Ireland Elections

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the pace and sincerity with which negotiations and talks will continue in the coming weeks.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment that there will be no consideration of joint authority. May I mildly castigate the Northern Ireland Office for the 48-hour hiatus when it left that question hanging two weeks ago, with no clarification given? It is a welcome commitment given on the Floor of the House today. If he is extending that commitment into considering the three-stranded approach within the Belfast agreement, was he as bemused as I was to see the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic last Monday indicate that any reforms would have to involve and be predicated upon the agreement of the Irish Republic? The Secretary of State knows that is a breach of strand 1. Does he accept that to facilitate the Irish Government having such a role would represent the joint authority he has just ruled out?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to admonish my Department. I think he will find—this is a problem that politicians have—that I did stand outside the Northern Ireland Department and knock back joint authority within a few hours of it being mooted, but I had also said a couple of other things that seemed to catch the public’s eye rather than that. Our focus is on ensuring that the institutions in Northern Ireland are able to deliver on the priorities of its people, which means that our first priority must be restoring the Executive. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a stable and accountable devolved Government and we will continue to work tirelessly to secure that objective. I hear what he says about other commentators. He will understand that there is a massive international focus on what is going on in Northern Ireland. I, like him, intend to ensure that all strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement continue to be agreed to.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to platform Unionism and more than happy to voice the Unionist opinion, which comes clearly to me from my constituents in Strangford. At the end of the day, we will hear the Minister respond and probably be disappointed—we know what he is likely to say. However, I hope he will listen intently to what we have to say. We are looking for parity under the Bill, and we do not see that.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will set out our aspirations in the amendments we have tabled. Those amendments are about getting back to what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. On Second Reading, we heard time and again that the Bill was all about honourably introducing what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. It is not. The three model Bills published at that time differ fundamentally from what we have before us this afternoon. Despite the bonhomie and friendly assurances, the Government have an opportunity to embrace amendments that take us back to what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Government to embrace what was agreed and to not set aside what was agreed for the sake of political expediency and at the behest of others?

[Jim Shannon]

I will make that point very clearly. My hon. Friend is right. That is our plea to the Minister. He and I entered this House together in 2010. We were good friends from the very beginning and we still are, but in the spirit of our good friendship, I suggest that we need some understanding of our point of view, and we are not convinced we have that at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I thank you for your chairmanship of the Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker. At this point in the parliamentary consideration of this Bill, I rise in sorrow rather than anger. When I spoke on Second Reading, I departed somewhat from my colleagues by not only trying to embrace the overall impact and ethos of what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach but asking the Government to come back to what was agreed two years ago. When New Decade, New Approach was agreed in 2020, it was the foundation, the bedrock, for the restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland. It included not only the provisions, aspects of which we see today, but a commitment on legislating to protect the UK’s single market, yet here we are, with no progress on the main issue. This is destabilising, ensuring that we do not have functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland. Another departure, another stepping away from the basis of what restored our Executive two years ago, and that grieves me.

When we went through the Bill in detail, not only on the Floor of this House but in private meetings with officials over the last 18 months and with the Minister this week and last week, showing exactly how the Bill departs from what was agreed, we were met with indifference or with a response that indicated, “We hear you but we are going to do nothing for you.” I was pleased to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), mention the totality of the relationships involved in the Bill, but the Minister talked about joy for one community.

I know that Members have stayed in the Chamber not to hear my contribution but because of what they expect to come. We cannot support this Bill. We cannot support the departure from that which restored devolution just two years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) indicated that this would be an issue that we as a party would have to revisit, but although we consider—regretfully, sorrowfully—that the proceedings around this Bill have been a charade, we are not going to put the House through the charade of a Third Reading vote. This is an issue that we will have to come back to, because the fine balance that was there two years ago has been shattered by this Bill.

Northern Ireland Residents: British Passports

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head in a succinct way, which I hope to elaborate on over the next few moments.

The Irish Government took action because they regard citizens on the island of Ireland as Irish citizens, if they choose to be so regarded. Unfortunately, our Government have not done the same. There are those who are resident in Northern Ireland, and have been for decades, who must be able to do the same for a British passport as those who choose to be Irish can do for an Irish passport, yet they are not permitted to do so. We have an open land border with more than 280 crossing points along its 300-mile length and we are all familiar with the issue in relation to the protocol, the EU and all those things. Over decades and for generations, communities and families have traversed this open border for business and socialising. For that reason and because of the common travel area, successive British Governments have indicated that they do not mind which nationality people prefer to have.

According to UK law, anyone born before 1949, when the Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth, who wishes to become a British subject can do so, but anyone born after 1949 cannot. That means that if someone were born in the Republic in 1950 and the day after their birth moved to live in Northern Ireland, became a UK resident, grew up and became a UK taxpayer and UK voter—in one famous instance they sat in the British establishment of the House of Lords—they would still not be regarded as a British citizen, because they were born at the wrong time. People born a few miles across the border are disadvantaged in this way. They have to go through the same naturalisation process as people coming from the other end of the earth in order to be regarded as British citizens. This has obviously created angst and annoyance.

We now have a tale of two passports. One is a passport of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which people like me cherish and will have for as long as we live, as will our children and grandchildren. The other is of the Irish Republic, which some people in Northern Ireland are forced to have because they cannot have the passport they associate with their sense of identity, allegiance, loyalty and belonging. They are British, but they are forced to have an Irish passport, because they of an accident of birth a mile on the wrong side of an open border.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned on the issue for many years. Does he agree that it has been clear throughout the peace process and indeed stretching further back that the British Government have been incredibly generous to those who want to take Northern Ireland out of the Union and have made Northern Ireland an incredibly accommodating and welcoming place for them? Does he agree that they have been generous on citizenship and dual identity and such issues, but when it comes to supporting those who believe in the Union, choose Northern Ireland as their home and who have been British citizens for the majority of their life, the generosity does not stretch that far?

[Mr Campbell]

My hon. Friend’s comment is very appropriate and accurate. In fact, many draw on the contrast of how our Government treat those who want to break up the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland compared to those who would prefer that we remain, because we are, in the words of what is more than a cliché, better off together.

The issue at the moment is that some people have an Irish passport because they need it to travel, but they would prefer to have a British passport. The Home Office in effect say to them, “Just naturalise. Just pay the £1,330 to get what is your right.” If they go on to the Home Office website—I hope the Minister can read this paper even from this distance, as I have enlarged it—the first page reads:

“Check if you can become a British citizen”.

They already are! That is what they demand. That is what they have been for decades, and then the Home Office says to check if they can become a British citizen. There is nothing more insulting or demeaning than to have that on the Home Office website. It tells them, “Well, of course you can avail yourself of British citizenship, now trot along and fill out the necessary form. Then apply for the passport and you will get one.”

Meanwhile, the neighbour in the house next door—or, in some cases, family members who were born at a different time—may want to have an Irish passport and may never even have visited the Irish Republic. They simply go along to the post office and ask for an Irish passport application, fill it out and attach the necessary fee, and an Irish passport comes in the post. The Irish Government have declared that they are prepared to recognise those people as Irish if they choose to apply for a passport. We want our Government to do exactly the same.

People have chosen and demanded to be regarded as British because they have lived here virtually all their lives—in some cases, for 60 or 70 years. They should not be forced down the route of applying for citizenship and going through the naturalisation process, which applies to people who come from thousands of miles away. That is particularly true when the same Government say repeatedly to everybody in Northern Ireland, “We accept that it is a diverse place.”

Successive Governments have repeatedly said they accept that many people regard themselves as British—I hope they will remain so—while some regard themselves as Irish. Each United Kingdom Government here in Westminster say that they accept those people’s right to be so regarded—except when it comes to the symbolic matter of owning a passport. What greater symbol is there of a person’s sense of belonging and nationhood, of who we are and what we are, than a passport? It describes who someone is and, if they are overseas and get into difficulty, to whom they should go for assistance. However, these thousands of people are regarded differently.

I understand that the Minister is Minister of State for the Northern Ireland Office, and that this is primarily a matter for the Home Office to resolve, but I hope that he will acknowledge in his response the hurt and anguish that people have felt over many years. I hope that he can relay to the Home Office the fears, views and demands of people who want this insult rectified.

Successive Home Office Ministers have come to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and tried to defend this, saying that they do not regard some of these people as the people of Northern Ireland, even though they have lived there all their lives. This is indefensible and it cannot be sustained. I hope that the Minister will take action with his colleagues in the Home Office, whose responsibility it is primarily to respond. I hope they will deal with the matter satisfactorily for all concerned, because there is nobody in Northern Ireland who objects to this proposition.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to address this issue, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)—my hon. Friend, if I may say so—for making his case so articulately. His constituents will certainly know that he has made their case with great force and passion, and I have understood it clearly. There is a point to be made about the difference between identity and citizenship, but I want to ensure that I spell it out accurately with reference to my notes, so I will come back to it.

On the issue of the Union, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am defiantly and ferociously pro-Union. Equally, under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the Government are obliged to participate impartially, which may sometimes create tensions. I want to make it clear to everyone that I am pro-Union and this is a pro-Union Government.

On passports, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I slightly playfully point out that although I am somewhat known for my pro-Brexit views, I have not troubled to update my passport. I still carry an EU passport, which may surprise some. I want to put that on the record. I know that many people will share with the hon. Gentleman the passionate belief that our passport is a great symbol of who we are. However, personally, I am defiantly independent of the state, Government Minister though I may be. For me, my passport is an administrative thing, not a definition of who I am. I gently make that point to illustrate that perhaps not all of us feel exactly the same way about our passport.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Minister is entitled to consider his passport whatever way he likes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) mentioned a Member of the House of Lords. To encapsulate the absurdity of the position that my hon. Friend has outlined today, if the Member he mentioned went through the naturalisation process, he would have to demonstrate that he could speak English and he would be invited to Hillsborough castle for a citizenship ceremony governed by a lord lieutenant. The very same man was the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly for eight years and has been in the House of Lords for many years. If that does not encapsulate how absurd the requirement to go through the process to obtain a British passport is, I am not sure what else could.

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Member makes his point with great clarity, of course. However, I observe that in public administration there are quite often moments, particularly around transitions and edge cases, that look absurd on the face of it.

Before I get on to my notes, I will make two points. Representing Wycombe, I have observed that geography is very different from what it used to be. The internet has shrunk the world immeasurably, and many of my constituents are closely in touch with events and people thousands of miles away, so geography has a slightly different meaning these days. I will also pick up the point on hurt and anguish; if I have learned one thing in my few weeks as Northern Ireland Minister, it is the decades—possibly centuries—of hurt and anguish that have built up on one another. I do take those issues very seriously, knowing how deeply felt they are. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has spoken with great passion, and I know he sincerely means everything he has said.

Turning to matters of law, the right to apply for and hold a British passport is wholly contingent on the holding of British citizenship. It is perfectly possible to remain a British citizen even if someone chooses not to hold a British passport, or if they acquire and hold another passport. The people of Northern Ireland are guaranteed specific protections under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and they are considered by the agreement to be

“all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.”

The two birthright protections of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement guarantee this group the right to identify and be accepted as British, Irish or both, and the right to hold both British and Irish citizenship. The protections recognise the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and do not apply more widely. The UK Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and those provisions are given full effect in law, which provides for British citizenship to be conferred at birth.

In that context, non-British nationals living in Northern Ireland would need to obtain British citizenship in order to receive a British passport, just as they would anywhere else in the United Kingdom. I think that is the heart of the matter. I have heard clearly the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. It is the difference between identity and the administrative and legal status of citizenship.

[Mr Baker]

I certainly do understand the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman is very articulate and once again makes his case with great clarity. However, I have to tell him that unique circumstances in those matters apply in a great many places in the UK, including in my own constituency in some number. They are not the same unique circumstances, by any means, but I am gently trying to make the point that there are large numbers of people in the country who would claim special circumstances. The Government are under an obligation to deal fairly with everyone in the UK. The hon. Gentleman will remember some of the unfortunate circumstances of the Windrush affair, and there are other people who have had various difficulties. There are people in my constituency who, although they were born elsewhere, have lived there longer than I have been alive. They may or may not have British citizenship or a British passport, but I am glad to represent them.

Let me turn to some of the specific points that the hon. Member for East Londonderry made. He said that there are 40,000 people resident in Northern Ireland who were born in Ireland after 1949, and there is a sense of unfairness that they are made to apply for naturalisation. He enlarged a piece of the website that I could not quite read, but he made his point with some force. The crux of the matter is that an Irish national can naturalise in the same way as any other long-term resident who now considers the UK their home. I appreciate that at the heart of the sensitivity is the fact that people who identify as British, who were perhaps born not far from the border, but on the other side of it, are being told that they need to naturalise. He made the point clearly that for those who are British but were born on the other side of the border, this is a matter of utmost sensitivity.

The Government are treating those people—from an administrative point of view, they are not British citizens and they need to naturalise—in line with other nationals who reside here in the UK. We are glad that they feel at home here. We are of course glad that they identify as British—that they choose to be British—and we welcome them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of our noble Friend in the other place. In order to ensure that we treat everyone in the UK fairly, they need to naturalise to make their nationality align with their identity.

That is the key point, and it is a matter of administration and law—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I know that that is unsatisfactory to him, but we do not want to assume that all who identify as British necessarily wish to align their nationality. He might well ask whether it could be made easier and quicker for people of Northern Ireland who were born in Ireland to apply for naturalisation, but the requirements are made in statute. Irish nationals would enjoy more favourable provisions for naturalisation should they wish to apply.

One might ask why the Irish-born people that the hon. Gentleman represents have to naturalise at all. Under the common travel area, Irish people do not need to naturalise to reside in the UK. The common travel area provides that British and Irish citizens have the right to enter and remain in the other state without requiring permission. That is provided for in law, which the hon. Gentleman knows very well. They can make the decision to become a British citizen when they are ready to do so, as with any person who wishes to become British.

I think that the hon. Gentleman wants me to make specific commitments, but I have to disappoint him. The Government are very clear on the need to treat people fairly right across the UK. If we were to make special exemptions for the people he recognises as being on the cusp of a border, we would find ourselves in some considerable difficulty administratively.

[Gavin Robinson]

In many ways, the Minister is arguing against himself. He knows that he does not have the space to concede in this debate. Whether people are a mile from the border or at the very south of Ireland, the principle remains the same. The entirety of the Republic of Ireland is legally treated differently from any other country in the world, with the common travel area, the lack of immigration controls and no restrictions on working or living in the United Kingdom.

Will the Minister reflect on the fact that in the last four years, His Majesty’s Government have blurred the lines between citizenship and identity? The shoe was on the other foot, but a Northern Ireland resident, and therefore a British citizen, who wanted British citizenship for her partner was uncomfortable with the notion that she had to denounce citizenship that she did not want. She is, in identity terms, an Irish nationalist, and she objected. She lost the case in court because the Government argued robustly the distinction between citizenship and identity. However, the British Prime Minister ordered a review into the matter thereafter and wanted to show generosity of spirit, given the complaints. All we are asking is that the Minister and this Government do exactly the same thing for people who are notionally, emotionally and in every other way practically British.

[Mr Baker]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman makes his point with great passion and clarity. The Government welcome people’s choice to identify as British. We welcome the choice that people born in Ireland can make to apply for a British passport, and for non-British citizens to become British citizens. We recognise that the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is all the stronger for its rich diversity in all aspects, whether people travel to Great Britain from the southernmost parts of the Republic of Ireland or from far overseas. For all its diversity, the United Kingdom is improved. Britishness is perfectly compatible with Irishness and Northern Irishness, just as much as Englishness, Welshness, Scottishness or, in my case, Cornishness.

The Belfast/Good Friday agreement rightly understands the highly personal nature of decisions around identity and citizenship, and the exercise of those distinct birthrights. It affords the people of Northern Ireland the freedom to make their own choices on identity. To reduce Britishness to the passport that someone holds in our United Kingdom would overlook the freedoms that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement rights enshrine and a fundamental truth of the strength of the Union: that Irishness and Northern Irishness readily coexist and compliment Britishness. That is a fact that we all ought to celebrate.

Hon. Members have made their points with great clarity. I will certainly reflect on what they have said, but they will understand that the Government’s policy is as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The former leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party, Dame Arlene Foster, recognised in January 2020 that this is a “fair and balanced” package that has been agreed by all parties. I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am delivering on the agreement, as the Government promised.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am listening intently to the Secretary of State, and he is right to quote the former First Minister but wrong to associate this Bill with what was agreed in January 2020. In this Second Reading debate, I hope he will listen with an open mind to the concerns that my colleagues and I will raise about the Bill’s departure from what was agreed.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am always happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I had not intended to speak until perhaps the very end, so I am grateful to be called so early. I am delighted to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She very clearly and very fairly outlined some of the serious concerns that we have raised and will continue to raise, and which show the dangerous departure that the Government have adopted from what was agreed in NDNA.

There was an old television advert for Harp lager starring Colin Murphy, a comedian in Belfast. The question he posed in it was, “Is your glass half empty? Is your glass half full? Or more importantly, what’s in the glass?” It is through that prism that I shall approach my contribution this afternoon.

It is incredibly easy to be caught by arguments of the past around the Irish language and continue to stand in its way; and our most recent history will show what impact that had on good government in Northern Ireland, on progress in Northern Ireland and on showing respect for one another. I do not want to repeat that process; I am incredibly comfortable with what was agreed in NDNA.

The lengths and efforts that went into that negotiation were not only important in the wider context of social cohesion in Northern Ireland; they were important for our political progress at that time. Should somebody have an interest in the Irish language, which I do not, should somebody want to engage in a language that is of no interest to me, that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to take it further and build on the support that is there under the Belfast agreement for the Irish language and for Ulster Scots tradition—the Government support that is there, encouraging people to explore and build upon a flourishing language—that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to engage with Government Departments, if they want to write to a Government body and get a response, that is not something that will ordinarily trouble me; that is not something that I will be overly exercised by, and that is not something that I think we should be overly concerned about.

I think of the political aspirations that were outlined for year upon year, and government denied in Northern Ireland for these quests—they were not achieved in NDNA. In fact, Conradh na Gaeilge, one of the organisations that championed the cause of what it described as a “stand-alone Irish language Act” summarily failed, and Sinn Féin summarily failed in its negotiations at the time of NDNA. It wanted a stand-alone Irish language Act, but did not get it. It is not in New Decade, New Approach, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted a commissioner with unfettered powers; it did not get it. It was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted an imposition on what would otherwise be equality legislation in Northern Ireland to provide for quotas in employment; it did not get it. It was not achieved: it is not there in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted the Irish language imposed on me, on my neighbours and constituents, and residents throughout Northern Ireland through road signs and everything else, but it did not get it. It was not negotiated in NDNA, it was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. From that perspective, I can take some comfort from what was agreed.

That is before we add in the counterbalances and the support for Ulster Scots and, for the first time, Ulster British. Why is it, if we look through the prism of a glass half full, that Unionists do not stand back and say, “For the first time, rather than being faced with having our culture and identity stripped out of buildings, civically or otherwise, throughout Northern Ireland, this is a legislative vehicle to enhance the Unionist and Ulster British tradition in Northern Ireland?” That is something that I support and welcome; it was secured through the NDNA negotiations, and through the provision of the commissioner for identity and the Ulster British commissioner. Those are good things. The provision of, and the agreement to provide for, the Castlereagh Foundation—providing Government-supported academic rigour to the case for the Union for the first time—is a great thing. It is something in the Bill that I welcome, and something that it was important for us to get agreement on at the time of NDNA.

But then, we get to the last part of the prism that I started with: what is in the glass? During the three years when there was no Government in Northern Ireland, I was incredibly frustrated by this faux argument about whether there was a stand-alone Irish language Act or not. It was totally irrelevant. The question is not, “Is it one chapter of a bigger book, or is it a book itself?” but “What does it say? What does it do?” However, that debate rarely featured in Northern Ireland society during those three years. Yes, the Scots have Scots legislation and the Welsh have Welsh legislation, so why can the Irish not have Irish legislation? That is a fair enough question, but the Scots legislation is not the same as the Welsh legislation, and neither is the same as the provisions in this Bill. They are different.

So, what is in the glass? What does it do? The fundamental error that Members will hear about from me and all of my colleagues this afternoon is that the Government have taken what was agreed through negotiation between parties in Northern Ireland, corralled, encouraged and spearheaded by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and decided to deliver in a one-handed fashion through this Bill aspirations that were not agreed at the time of NDNA. That is a fundamental disaster.

Within the Office of Identity, as the former Secretary of State will recall, it was important that no commissioner could proceed with their agenda for the year, their budget-setting process, or what they intended to do in their annual reports without the consent of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—the Executive Office. For the Secretary of State to assume the power to do whatever he wants anyway, not just in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive but even in the presence of one, is an incredibly foolish approach to Northern Ireland politics. When we have an agreement that has been painstakingly thrashed out for years, whether it was officials in the Northern Ireland Office or former Ministers who thought it was a good idea to assume that power themselves through this Bill, it was a fool’s errand. That point will be discussed in Committee.

[Stephen Farry]

Given the argument that the hon. Member is making, would he explain why it was that over a two-year period when the Assembly and Executive were functioning, no effort was made to bring forward legislation within the Northern Ireland Assembly at a time when all those issues could have been addressed in the correct forum, rather than them defaulting to Westminster?

[Gavin Robinson]

Coronavirus. I am not sure whether the hon. Member was aware, but there was a pandemic in our country and around the world, and normal government was set aside in the interests of public health and public safety.

The Bill even envisages a situation—I think it is one of the subsections of clause 6—where an issue has been raised with an Executive Minister and brought to the Executive, but agreement has not been found. Sorry? Leaving aside our own personal political aspirations for this or any other Bill, where the Executive collectively decide not to do something but the Secretary of State, at the request of a one-sided aspiration, can decide to supersede them, what is the point in devolution? The presentation of the Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill makes it incredibly difficult for somebody who can stand here and openly and honestly say that he thinks the agreement two years ago was worthwhile, and should have been reached. It is causing support to crumble, because what was agreed is being set aside for things that could not, and would not, have been negotiated or agreed at the time.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the Secretary of State then brings himself into the quagmire of disagreement in the Executive, and will increasingly find himself—as has happened on a number of occasions when legislation has come to Westminster—put under pressure by one particular political party, with all the threats of “If you do not act in the way that you are enabled to act and we want you to act, there will be consequences”?

[Gavin Robinson]

It is the antithesis of democracy; it has applied to a couple of other issues over the last number of years, and here we see it again. The Secretary of State and his colleague the junior Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), will today—as they did yesterday and will do tomorrow—implore that devolution be restored in Northern Ireland. That is a laudable idea, and I would like to see it, but the Minister cannot stand up today with a straight face and say, “I would love to see devolution restored so that we can get on with these issues, even though I am proposing through this Bill provisions that would mean that when you do not do what we like, we will do it for you anyway.” That is not the way in which we should proceed.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I will deal with that point more fully later on, but I put on record on behalf of the Government that we have absolutely no intention whatsoever of behaving in that way, as is the long-standing position of the Government. We have no intention whatsoever of leaping in to use powers; they are all for the last resort, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows.

[Gavin Robinson]

If there was—and I cannot doubt the veracity of what the Minister says about the intention the Government may have—there is absolutely no need for the power in circumstances where the Executive is functioning. There is no need for the power in circumstances where the Ministers who are responsible for these issues are in office. If what he says is genuine, that should be an amendment that I trust he will engage with fully.

[Sammy Wilson]

Would my hon. Friend accept that, while it may not be the intention—and we accept the word of the Minister in his intervention—the reality is that once the power is in this Bill, there will be pressure, when somebody does not get their way, to go to the Secretary of State and demand that he or she exercises those powers, and if they do not then there could well be consequences? That is the whole point: put the power in the Bill and someone will expect it to be used.

[Gavin Robinson]

Now, and if not now, probably more purposefully in the future when circumstances change, personnel change and Government change. It is a road down which this Government should not have trod.

I started by indicating what I believe was right in the NDNA. I am culminating, having canvassed on the issues where I think the Government have erred in the presentation of the Bill, and it cannot have our support if it remains in this state. The Government have got themselves in a position where, having engaged with parties across the spectrum and with various aspirations, that is now crumbling, and I think that is hugely regrettable. I do not want that to be the end to this process, so I do hope that after Second Reading there will be a willingness to engage in a way that there has not been over the past four, five or six months, when officials and Ministers have ignored, baulked at or just fundamentally disagreed on what they think the Bill means and what we believe it means. We cannot proceed on that basis.

In asking whether the glass is half full or half empty, and highlighting the question of what is in the glass, I want to be in a position where we can raise a glass to the provisions in this Bill. It is the same position I was in when I stood in this Chamber, worked on and brought through—having brought in a private Member’s Bill myself—the provision about the statutory duty for the armed forces covenant. I brought that forward myself, we got it into the NDNA and it was delivered by this Government. Similarly, other provisions were secured in the NDNA, and we want to see them delivered. So I hope that we will be in a position where we can raise a glass, with a fully functioning Executive, to the progress that has been made. However, given the way the Government have brought forward this Bill and are advancing the aims of it, I am sorry to say that I do not see that happening any time soon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gavin Robinson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Farry]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Belfast East first.

[Gavin Robinson]

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) might like to intervene. She was not demeaning or dismissing anybody who has campaigned for Irish. In fact, many of the campaigners who have campaigned for Irish language provision will equally acknowledge that their aspirations have been dampened and harmed by the irresponsible and politically naive approach of those who have indeed weaponised the Irish language.

[Stephen Farry]

The comments that were made are on the record and people can see them. However, we are in danger of getting ourselves into difficulty if we over-focus on the particular points that have been made by some republican activists about the Irish language. That is not where the vast majority of people are. I note that the hon. Lady did not give way during her comments, but nevertheless, I am happy to.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

We believe that the commitment made by the Government of the Irish Republic was a stand-alone commitment to bring forward their own legislation to have a means of resolving some of the unresolved cases to the benefit of all, to aid the process of information recovery and reconciliation across the island of Ireland and the totality of these islands. We could rehearse—although I do not think that it would be particularly helpful, because the hon. Gentleman and I both know the arguments that would be deployed—why we have come to the conclusion that the process around Stormont House and the bodies that are in place will not, in our judgment, deliver what we seek, which is to help those who want to find out what happened to their loved ones. We have been open in saying that this is a movement beyond Stormont House, because the Government believe that this will be a better way of getting that information and trying to aid the process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

The prohibition created by clause 33 will not apply to criminal investigations that are ongoing on the day when the legislation enters into force, where those investigations are being carried out for the purposes of a criminal prosecution commenced before that date. The police will continue to conduct such investigations until the related criminal prosecution has concluded.

Clauses 34, 35 and 36 set out, for those granted immunity, that no criminal enforcement action may be taken against the individual in respect of the serious or connected troubles-related offence or offences for which immunity has been granted, while those who committed crimes should not be able to obtain something for nothing. They will not mean that individuals have immunity for any other serious or connected troubles-related offences in which they may have been involved. Those who do not acknowledge their role in the troubles-related events and incidents will not be granted immunity, and will remain liable to prosecution should sufficient evidence exist or come to light. If immunity is not granted, criminal enforcement action could be taken in respect of the offence. If the commissioner for investigations thinks there is enough evidence that an offence has been committed, the ICRIR can refer a case directly to the relevant UK prosecutor. The ICRIR will be fully equipped with the necessary expertise and full policing powers so that it can carry out robust investigations for the primary purpose of information recovery, as well as being able to refer cases directly to prosecutors if there is evidence of an offence for which someone has not been granted immunity.

Clause 37 contains general and saving provisions applying to troubles-related criminal investigations and prosecutions. Clause 38 and schedules 8 and 9 state that any new civil claim brought on or after the date of the Bill’s introduction will be prohibited once the relevant clauses come into force, two months after Royal Assent. Troubles-related civil claims already filed with the courts before the date of the Bill’s introduction will be allowed to continue. We want to deliver a system that focuses on effective information recovery and reconciliation measures, getting as much information to as many families as possible.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that if a prosecutor has not made a decision on a file prior to the enactment of this law, the prosecutions will not proceed. That has caused huge concern among the families who have engaged with Operation Kenova and the more than 30 live files that rest with the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. There is an amendment on the table tonight that would allow the Government to accept that the cases that are with the Public Prosecution Service could proceed irrespective of when that decision is taken. Can the Minister confirm that he wants to see a conclusion to the Operation Kenova process, and that he wants to see justice for the families who have engaged so honourably and thoughtfully throughout this time?

[Conor Burns]

I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, and the view that he takes. I have acknowledged from this Dispatch Box, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that some of these decisions are finely balanced and difficult, but the Government want to see a single body dealing with the cases and with getting the information to families, and that will mean that at some point there must be a date on which we stop other processes and roll everything into this one body. I will talk about that in more detail a little later, but the point is that the powers that this body will have at its disposal will be greater than some of the powers available to other bodies—for example, inquests—and we think that this will be a better way of proceeding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Conor Burns]

I will give way to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and then to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I will then finish, and then the Committee can consider the clauses in detail.

[Conor Burns]

I entirely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and I entirely understand what he says about the range of views within victims’ groups, and even within individual families, about how they want to approach this. In a sense, there is no right or wrong thing to do here. These are matters of judgment, and the view that the Secretary of State and the Government have come to on how we proceed is that this gives a chance for a degree of reconciliation that is not delivered by the existing institutions.

For those who take the view that the hon. Gentleman describes and want to be cut off from the process and freed from thinking about it, often because what happened is so intensely painful to them that the pain of connecting to the events and to the losses is overpowering, we totally and utterly respect that. No one will be compelled to participate in an oral history or a remembrance of an event if they do not want to, but for those who do, it will be there. We will set it up as I have described, involving victims’ organisations and the cross-sectoral, cross-community advisory panel, to try to make it as inclusive and as embracing as it can possibly be.

Rather like the information recovery body itself, however, the success or otherwise of the memorialisation process will be judged only when it is up and running. It will be judged only when people can see what is happening and can make a judgment call on whether we have achieved, in the institutions we are creating, the objectives we set ourselves and the chance for greater reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

While the Minister took issue with the comment from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), it proved his salvation, because it allowed him to completely ignore the point that the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) was making: irrespective of whether people believe the Minister or not, they will not engage in the process. We have seen victims’ groups say they will not engage in the process. We have seen organisations that represent republican terrorists indicate that they will not engage in the process.

As the Minister concludes his remarks, I say to him that on Wednesday he had the opportunity to accept an amendment that would have removed the pitifully low fine for non-engagement if notice was served—three days of the Minister’s wages—for something more substantive and meaningful, and he was against that amendment. He knows there is no encouragement or inducement to engage in this process. He knows there is no consequence for lying as a result of the process. He knows that, even if somebody stays outside the process and is prosecuted, the sentencing regime will be reduced from two years in prison to zero years in prison. On each and every one of those points there is an amendment that the Government could engage with to make sure that the process works, yet still they are against them all. Why?

[Conor Burns]

I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and the points he makes. What I will say to him from this Dispatch Box, from the Government Front Bench with the Secretary of State beside me, is that these points have been made incredibly powerfully by the hon. Gentleman on the Floor and reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

The hon. Member for Belfast East is correct that the amendment on the fine for non-engagement was on the Order Paper last week. That question and the question on sentencing are things that—I think I am allowed to go this far—there are active conversations about internally. This is the Committee stage of the Bill, and the Bill will leave the Committee and will go to the other place. We are very carefully listening to the validity and strength of some of the arguments, but we must ensure that we get the Bill technically and legally right.

Mr Evans, you referred at the beginning to the fact that we will return later today to a manuscript amendment, at another stage of this Bill’s progress. That manuscript amendment is based on an amendment last week that we worked closely with the Opposition and other parties to get right, and we will table it tonight to achieve that. Just because we are not accepting an amendment as drafted this evening, or indeed last week, it does not necessarily mean that we have closed off interest in considering that in more detail to see if we can build on the ideas that the hon. Member for Belfast East has and improve the Bill further at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but as he said, there cannot be an equivalent. So what do we do? The situation is grotesque. There are no winners here at all, but as he said, there cannot be that mechanism on the other side. All I would say to my hon. Friend—Northern Ireland Members probably do not consider me that these days, but they are my friends—is that while I totally understand why they go on to a narrative about “We must have justice for this particular murder, and that one”, which everyone agrees, they must also accept that the price of that is the experience of people such as Dennis Hutchings, who they have stood up and spoken against as well. The two things cannot co-compete in this space.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to give way in a moment.

At some point we have to decide where the balance lies. If we constantly go over this saying, “Justice, justice, we will get there in the end”—0.1% chance, and the experience of all these veterans going to court in Northern Ireland has been an absolute joke; I am sorry to say that it has reflected very poorly on everybody in Northern Ireland. These veterans are going through the last 10 or 11 years of their life under this, and dying alone in a hotel room in Belfast. It comes at a price, and my hon. Friends have to be honest about that price and whether it is one worth paying, for the majority view, in getting at the truth and trying to understand what happened at that time, and bringing some sort of peace to the families.

[Gavin Robinson]

I would love to say that I am enjoying the hon. Member’s third Second Reading contribution. He knows full well—he sat on the Defence Committee, as did I—that the consequences and problems that we highlighted were repeated in investigation after investigation. The option was there for his Government to embrace the argument about what is required under article 2 of the ECHR and how the state has discharged that duty through a previous investigation, but his Government did not want to engage with that. They could have embraced that in a way that would have supported veterans and others. That is honesty. That is an honest position to hold, but his Government did not have the bottle to do it.

[Johnny Mercer]

I was in the Government, and I left the Government. Look, lots of discussions on legacy have taken place over the years. I sat on the same Committee as the hon. Member, and he raises a fair point, but it comes back to the same argument. This is where we are now. If the Government will accept his amendments, they will do and, if not, they will not, but if that means that we do not engage in this process—this is the last chance—that would be a huge mistake.

The last time that happened—this is the problem with what the hon. Member just said—was with the Historical Enquiries Team. I sat in a court in Belfast on the murder of Joe McCann when Soldier A and Soldier C—two soldiers, one significantly older than the other—gave evidence. One of them had a reasonable memory—the other did not—and gave a cohesive account of what happened to the Historical Enquiries Team, under the auspices that it would not be used to prosecute him, in order to bring some peace to the McCann family. Five years later, he sat in court with that evidence being used against him. That is why this process is needed.

[Gavin Robinson]

They weren’t prosecuted.

[Johnny Mercer]

They were prosecuted. Soldier A and Soldier C ended up in court in Northern Ireland—I was there—and the evidence that was attempted to be submitted was from the Historical Enquiries Team.

[Gavin Robinson]

rose—

[Johnny Mercer]

I will give way, because I am the only speaker on the Government side and I think that we want to have a debate. I do not want to bore anyone, though.

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Member knows that that prosecution collapsed, and rightly so. The court was hugely critical of how what was presented as new evidence had only a new cover letter on top of it—there was nothing new in the evidence—and there was a direction of no prosecution.

[Johnny Mercer]

That is my point: the fact that it got there and those two soldiers went through that process for nine years of their lives from 2005 to 2014. The wife of one the soldiers died during the process. That is why we need this process. A lot of this could have been done better over the years, but we are where we are.

I have a concern that people in Northern Ireland will not engage with the process and that victims and other groups will not come forward. That is a legitimate concern—I can see that campaigns will be run to try to get people not to engage. The only people who will lose out will be the families in Northern Ireland. For some time, they have been taken on journeys that, at times, were unfair on them. That is not a popular thing to repeat given the side of the argument that I come from, but some of the practices have been unfair on them.

Finally, I turn to glorification, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to listen to Opposition Front-Bench Members on that. I know that there are provisions in legislation—[Interruption.] Not about crime but specifically about the glorification of terrorism. We must be very careful that those cowards who got up in the morning to murder women and children for their political aims are given absolutely no opportunities to glorify what they did. We must double down and ensure that there is no gap in legislation where those people could take advantage of their crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is quite right.

The Minister said that the Bill is not about equivalence between terrorists and those who bravely fought them in Northern Ireland, but the truth of the matter is that it is. The mechanism open to terrorists is the same as the one that those who were in the security forces have to use. There is equivalence here. No matter how the Government try to twist on this one, I believe that the Bill does a huge disservice not only to victims but to those who fought bravely and sacrificed in Northern Ireland—the very people who many Government Members have rightly sought to defend as constituents, and who have been unfairly dragged through the courts not once or twice but, in some cases, three times. Yet the mechanism open to them is the same as the one open to terrorists. That does those people a disservice.

The victims, the security forces and the people who suffered through the terrorism in Northern Ireland have all had a disservice done to them. If some of the amendments that we are debating were accepted, that at least might ameliorate some of the deficiencies, but it would not make the Bill acceptable.

[Gavin Robinson]

I follow on from my right hon. Friend’s point about the frailties of the Bill. We have been consistent in our position that it is a corruption of justice. For me and my colleagues, one of the most disappointing things about the process is that here we are, on day 2 of Committee, and we should be discussing the merits of amendments that try to do what is in the best interests of people who have suffered through years of conflict in Northern Ireland, but all we get from the Government is that they cannot—or will not—accept amendments; they refuse.

I heard the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) indicate his support for our new clause 3, which looks at sentencing issues, and I have heard warm support from Labour, the SNP and others around the Chamber about the merits of our amendments on glorification. Yet still there is this intransigence. We, the representatives democratically elected to come to this Chamber and make laws that actually work for the people we represent, are told that it is really not our business because the amendment might involve a write-around or bureaucracy, so we should just leave it all to the Lords.

What are we doing? What have these two days of scrutiny been for if our scrutiny amounts to nothing? It is even worse when people in the Chamber accept the very points that we are making but say, “Ah, but our hands are tied. It would be far better if Members of the House of Lords dealt with it.”

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree. Please will the Government accept the amendment that would stop the glorification of terrorism? That glorification is wrong, and we should not agree to it. I urge the Government—my own side—to accept the amendment, because it makes absolute sense.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very pleased that I gave way to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have appreciated all his contributions on Northern Ireland issues over the years.

The amendments that the Committee is considering were tabled in advance of the sitting last Wednesday. Discussions about legal applicability, drafting and getting it right could easily have occurred over the weekend, exactly as they did with respect to amendment 115, but I am sorry to say that there has been a lack of willingness to engage thoughtfully and productively with the amendments that have been tabled. It is no use telling us that addressing them cannot be done tonight and will have to be done in the other place, when we have demonstrated over the weekend that it is possible. From listening to the concerns of victims in Northern Ireland and those who represent veterans’ organisations, the police and the Army, we know that there are aspects of the Bill that we can improve—and yet, try as we might, all we face is stiff Government resistance.

[Johnny Mercer]

If some of the amendments are accepted, will my hon. Friend be minded to vote for the Bill?

[Gavin Robinson]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman has listened to my contributions throughout these proceedings. We voted against the Bill on Second Reading because we believe that it is a corruption of justice. We will vote against it on Third Reading because the same corruption of justice will apply. The hon. Member represents a very bespoke view, or one-sided view, of the issues.

[Johnny Mercer]

That is unfair.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is not unfair; I think that it is absolutely appropriate. I do not say it as any criticism or to malign the hon. Gentleman. He and I take an interest in veterans’ issues: we have both served on the Select Committee on Defence, and he has been a Defence Minister and has served this country honourably.

I represent victims in my constituency. I represent people who have been blown up, bombed and maimed by their own neighbours in their own community. I represent families who walk the streets of Belfast and know that they are walking past the perpetrators who took their loved ones’ lives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore accept that when we say that the Bill is a corruption of justice, we mean it. When we table scores and scores of amendments, we are trying to make the Bill better, but that does not make it just.

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend says that I represent one side. I have never argued for anything other than fairness in this process; it is disingenuous to claim otherwise, and he knows that. I have only ever argued for fairness—and yes, that includes veterans who did the bidding of this House for the freedoms and privileges that Members on the Opposition Benches enjoy. Yes, I want fairness, but I have never been one-sided. I ask him to think again about that.

[Gavin Robinson]

I listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he heard what I had to say in response. If he wants to ask me the same question again, I will give him exactly the same response. I am not impugning his character, but I hope that he can accept where we are coming from.

This corruption of justice can be made better, but that does not make it just. This corruption of justice before us tonight can be improved, but that will not unpick the ban on the coronial court system or unpick the ban on prosecutions in this country, and it will not change the fact that a victim would not be able to sue the perpetrator of their crime. That is all in the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that the amendments that we have tabled can bring the Bill to a place where we can support it, he is sadly mistaken.

We have raised amendment 112 in earlier exchanges with the Minister. I understand his point about deadlines, but Operation Kenova and the Public Prosecution Service’s live cases need to proceed. If we were to have an engaged exchange, we would probably agree that the Public Prosecution Service needs to move on with its decision-making process. However, now that the Government have established Operation Kenova to look into the actions of Stakeknife—Freddie Scappaticci, the head of the IRA’s internal investigations unit and an agent of our state—and now that the Public Prosecution Service has 30, 32 or 33 live prosecutions, they need to be concluded. The amendment would allow a conclusion to that process even if the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Surely the Committee cannot be saying that through a process to look at legacy and reconciliation, we will just sweep Operation Kenova under the carpet. After all the years, all the evidence and all the engagement with victims and families, I hope we will not say that the Bill will conclude that process. If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, I hope that it will be considered in the other place, and I truly hope that the Public Prosecution Service will get on with making a decision.

Amendment 107 is about the practical, simple ability for a court that is considering a conviction to take into account the fact that somebody has been granted immunity through the process. It seems to me very simple: if someone is granted immunity, they will stand before any subsequent court for any subsequent criminal activity and the courts will think that they have a clear record. Surely that cannot be our purpose. There should be a sentencing consequence for somebody who is now a repeat offender, albeit that they have immunity—somebody who has continued to engage in criminal activity post 1998. Should the courts not have access to that information? Should it not be available for the purposes of sentencing? The amendment says that it should.

Amendment 120, to which I hope the Minister will respond comprehensively in his closing speech, is connected to new clause 4. It specifically addresses the memorialisation project. How can we have a memorialisation project and a reconciliation project if there is no preclusion of glorification? The amendment would place a duty on the designated persons compiling the memorialisation project

“to ensure that no memorialisation activities glorify the commission or preparation of Troubles-related offences.”

What practical opposition could the Government have to that amendment? If they want the process to work and if they want it to be about reconciliation, surely they should impose on the people they are engaging to do the work a duty to preclude glorification.

I turn to amendment 110. The Northern Ireland Office and the Government have already accepted that an innocent victim is somebody who has not been harmed by their own hand. There are perpetrators of violence in Northern Ireland who have injured themselves while trying to kill others, but who purport to be innocent victims. We have gained significant traction with this argument; when it came to the troubles-related pension, the Northern Ireland Office accepted that an innocent victim is somebody who did not harm themselves and was not culpable for their own offence. Michelle O’Neill refused to allow the administration of the pension scheme, but the Northern Ireland Office accepted that interpretation of what an innocent victim is, so why is it not being replicated in the memorialisation project? It is simple—it is a rehearsal of a policy that the Government have already agreed—yet there seems to be some intransigent reluctance to accept it.

[Johnny Mercer]

I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, but a lot of what he says supports the view that he is his own worst enemy when it comes to getting the Government to accept his points. I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and others clearly do not want any glorification of terrorism, and so forth, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) comes forward with arguments that are clearly on one side, that does not deal with the situation as it is—not as we would like it to be, but as it actually is, for example in making sure that the investigations the first time round into people such as Dennis Hutchings were correct. We have to deal with the situation as it is, not as we would want it to be for individuals.

[Gavin Robinson]

I say to you, Mr Evans, that I have absolutely no idea what that intervention was about, what point the hon. Member was trying to make or whether it related to what I was saying or to his earlier contribution.

[Johnny Mercer]

I will explain.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am happy to give way—but I mean, really!

[Johnny Mercer]

What I am saying is that my hon. Friend is outlining individual cases and is putting across his outrage that they will not be reinvestigated ad infinitum. That is the point that he is making, and it is what he has said a number of times. Have I got that wrong? He has said it a number of times. My point is that if he continues down that byway while saying that the process should have been ECHR-compliant the first time round, we end up in a situation where the UK Government have to act unilaterally.

[Gavin Robinson]

The point that I was making was about the definition of “innocent victims” and the memorialisation project. The point that the hon. Gentleman is making relates to what he said during his own speech. He said that you cannot on the one hand say that there needs to be justice for victims, and on the other hand say that you stand with Dennis Hutchings. He either refuses to accept or fails to grasp a point that we have discussed over a number of years. There should be no repeated investigations when the state has discharged its article 2 compliance. It is as simple as that. The reason there is an investigation, the reason the coroner’s court looks at a case again, the reason a prosecutorial service considers evidence again, is that they are being told that there is new and compelling information. There is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

No, I want the hon. Gentleman to listen, because he does not seem to understand the point. From 1973, when there was a change in investigations, when the military stopped investigating themselves and incidents were investigated by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, those investigations were compliant. We asked the Government to accept that that was the basis on which we could move on in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that analysis—the one with which he agreed when he was a member of the Defence Committee—he could look at the Stormont House agreement that all the parties in Northern Ireland sat down and discussed and then accepted. So there is a second view.

[Johnny Mercer]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gavin Robinson]

No, I will not give way at this point. When the hon. Gentleman stands up and says that there is no point in talking about what has been, and that this is all we have in front of us, I hope he genuinely recognises—and I say this not in fury but in sorrow—that this is not the way to deal effectively with the trauma of legacy and our past.

[Johnny Mercer]

My hon. Friend talks about compliance with the European convention on human rights. The critical point is that some of these specific allegations and prosecutions, which have been tested in court, came after 1973, and have been tested on the basis that those investigations were not ECHR-compliant. Conservative Members would love all of them to have been ECHR-compliant; the problem is that what my hon. Friend has just said—that from 1973 onwards they were all ECHR-compliant—has been proved in court to be untrue.

[Gavin Robinson]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman failed to heed the necessity for the House to grasp the argument and to legislate on the basis of that argument: to legislate on the basis that, when an investigation has occurred in the past and was compliant at the time, we should move on. That is why we would have been legislating. There were some who did not like that because it would apply equally across the board, and the hon. Gentleman will remember that argument as well, but the Government never grasped it.

I am grateful for what Members have said about new clause 3, and I listened carefully to what the Minister said about it in his opening speech. He will recall from Second Reading that both the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I mentioned this proposition, which concerns sentencing. Members who had the patience to listen to all our contributions will have learned that the passing of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act meant that anyone who had been convicted previously was to serve only two years in jail, and that anyone who was subsequently convicted, but convicted of a pre-1998 offence, would only ever have to serve a maximum of two years. It did not matter how many people you shot, or how many people died as a result of your explosives; you would serve no more than two years in prison.

Buried in this Bill, in schedule 11, is the provision that those two years required to be served in jail should be reduced to zero. That would mean zero for anyone prosecuted after the passage of the Bill, irrespective of whether they refused to engage in this process or honestly offered victims’ families the truth. We have been told that we need to swallow this process so that victims get the truth, yet if someone engages in this process dishonestly, or refuses to engage at all, the maximum consequence will be zero time in jail. There is no consequence for snubbing families. There is no consequence for snubbing victims. There is no consequence for lying through your teeth, or avoiding the process altogether.

If we can accept that the run of this process is that those who engage honestly and honourably could be granted immunity, surely the opposite has to be that for those who refuse to give families the answers, those who refuse to help them with reconciliation, there should be a consequence. That is why we are saying, 25 years on from the 1998 Act, that it needs to go. If someone has been offered an open door and the prospect of immunity through this process and giving the truth, surely there must be a consequence for lying or abusing the families of those who lost their lives.

We never supported the Belfast agreement for this very reason. I know that that is not a view shared unanimously by Northern Ireland representatives, and it is not something that we need to fall out about this evening, but we did not support it, while others accepted it as a price worth paying. However, 25 years on, if people are not prepared to give, through this process, truth and justice to families who need it, and to be honest about it, there must be a judicial and sentencing consequence.

[Conor Burns]

The last few moments have demonstrated the truth of what I have said on both days on which we have discussed these provisions: these are contested and very difficult proposals for some people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, throughout these islands.

I just want to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman what I said earlier, with the Secretary of State sitting next to me on the Front Bench, and to make two very brief points. The first is this. We believe that, when the body is created, the fact that it will be led by an experienced judicial-style figure and will be complemented with a team of people who are expert in investigations makes it highly improbable that someone could come forward with a false account, because it will also have access to the vastest array of information available to any body operating in this area hitherto. However, we accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about incentivisation for people to come forward and engage with the body, which is why I gave the undertaking earlier that we would look at the question of the financial penalty for non-engagement.

As for the question of why we are simply not accepting the amendments as they stand today, I think we demonstrated over the course of last week, and over the weekend, that when we think that the intent is sincere and it meets the objectives of the Government in the Bill, and also, critically, can command the greatest possible consensus across the House, the Secretary of State and I, and the Northern Ireland Office, will engage with Government lawyers to look at that. Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman in relation to the specific amendment that he is currently discussing that we are committed to going away and talking to legal teams to see where we can achieve some movement. We want to have a constructive dialogue with parties across the House to see how we can address this as the Bill progresses.

I also understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the other place, but we act as one Parliament, and the objective for the Government is to secure the right outcome wherever we may do it in the course of the Bill’s journey.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I hope he accepts the point that I made earlier—that all the amendments that I am speaking to this evening were available last Wednesday, and that the same thrust and energy that were dedicated to amendment 115 could have been engaged in respect of a number of these as well. I recognise that that has not happened, but I hope that the fact that we are not focusing on them this evening does not mean that attention has been lost on the issue of the notice requiring the provision of information. These are not the same rigorous powers that the police have. There are no powers of arrest, for example. However, there is this notice, and provision for a fine of up to £1,000 if it is not complied with. A £1,000 fine is pitiful for someone who was an active terrorist, who tried to destroy peace and democracy in Northern Ireland, who has never engaged with truth and justice and who does not want to comply with this process. They could be fined up to £1,000—it really is so inconsequential.

There are amendments that were discussed throughout last Wednesday and this evening, and I hope the Government will engage with them. I have mentioned amendment 120, which would place a duty on people involved in memorialisation to ensure that there was no glorification. New clause 4 deals with those who are granted immunity and then go on to glorify terrorism. We accept that section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 provides an offence of glorification of terrorism, but that is not what the amendment proposes. The amendment not only replicates section 1 but indicates that, if someone had previously benefited from immunity through the ICRIR process, new clause 4 would make it an aggravating feature if they had immunity and then ultimately glorified terror.

We will support Labour’s amendment 114 on this, although we do not think this should be solely confined to profit. Labour Members like to focus on profit sometimes, and their amendment is very much focused on profit from glorification. There is more to this than just making money; it is about the ruining of lives and the retraumatising of individuals in whatever guise, and profiteering could be one of those.

I shall turn now to new clause 5. Mr Evans, you will note that I did not start my contribution by saying I was not going to say very much. I can be accused of many things, but hypocrisy is not one of them. New clause 5 deals with revoking immunity, and I want to thank other Opposition leaders and Members for indicating their support for this. It would be hugely controversial and hugely damaging to the reconciliation spirit of what is proposed in the memorialisation strategy if, having assessed somebody, we gave them immunity from prosecution for their heinous crimes, only for it ultimately to be shown that they had lied throughout the process. If there is no way to revoke immunity, the whole system will collapse. There will be a crisis of confidence in the system. There needs to be a mechanism, whether through the panel during the five years it is in operation or through the Secretary of State thereafter, whereby immunity can be revoked. In the same way, when people were released on licence after 1998, licences could be revoked. It would be anathema to anyone who believes in reconciliation to allow a situation where individuals were granted immunity for their heinous crimes on the basis of a subsequently demonstrated and proven lie.

I know that others will wish to contribute on the range of amendments that we have tabled. I have highlighted just seven of them this evening. We have had engagement from the Minister specifically on new clause 3. I am grateful and welcome that. I hope that he will have something more positive to say about new clauses 4 and 5 and some of our other amendments when he sums up the debate.

[Stephen Farry]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). It is not often that the Alliance party and the DUP find agreement in this Chamber, particularly in the current context, but there was certainly a lot I would concur with in his remarks. I would also concur with a lot of the interventions from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). There is an important lesson in that, which is that, despite everything else that is happening in Northern Ireland, there is at least a degree of unity across the Northern Ireland political parties in expressing significant concerns about this legislation.

Before getting to the other points I want to make, I want to start on a more positive note. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), mentioned Paul Gallagher, who was shot and partially paralysed in a loyalist gun attack in 1994. I want to put on record our congratulations to Paul Gallagher on achieving his PhD at a ceremony at the weekend, not least because his research involves legacy. He has been both living it and researching it for almost 30 years.

The first point I want to make is about the word “reconciliation”, which appears in the long title of the Bill and is referenced throughout it. Reconciliation is very much in the DNA of the Alliance party; it is what we are fundamentally about. That said, we are concerned about the way in which the term “reconciliation” has been used in the Bill. Reconciliation was a core principle of the Stormont House agreement, and the implementation and reconciliation group was set up as a separate structure that was envisaged under Stormont House. Reconciliation was taken seriously in that process.

--- Later in debate ---

Hon. Members will understand, when those families left those farms, leaving their farmhouses in wreck and ruin, their machinery lying in the field and their land untilled for years, that I want justice on those people in the Garda Síochána and those in positions of power in the Republic of Ireland who gave sanctuary to those who carried out murders across all of Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a strong point. When he talks of people who committed crimes in Northern Ireland and fled our jurisdiction, he will know that on Wednesday amendment 98 was put before the Committee and tested by the Committee. He will also know that we said that for this legislation to allow somebody who ensured no justice for their victims to come home and retire with a level of dignity would be abhorrent. However, 271 Members of this House voted for that. What would he say to that?

[Jim Shannon]

I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment over the amendment that he put forward. It grieves me deep in my heart when I think of those things, and I thank him for reminding us all in this House—those who are here and those who are not—of what it means.

There is an undoubted element of apparent collusion of those who were then, and possibly are now, in power. The question must be put: will the Garda Síochána and the Republic of Ireland Government be under an obligation to finally do the right thing when it comes to the victims—both Protestants and Catholics, including my cousin Kenneth and his friend Daniel McCormick—and release the information they have regarding the murders, disappearances and the alleged active role of the security forces in the Republic of Ireland in protecting and giving sanctuary to perpetrators and murderers?

Many of those people have hidden there for years. The murder of Lexie Cummings is a supreme example of that, because the person who did it ran across the border and is now an accepted politician in a certain party in the Republic of Ireland and holds a fairly high position. How does the Bill address that disgraceful element of the troubles, which people are all too quick to forget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

Clause 20(2) makes very clear the obligations of the body to look at the totality of the information available to it, not solely to rely on the testimony—the account—of the individual who is appearing before it. As I just reiterated, it will be led by a judicially experienced figure. The team that that person will assemble will comprise people who are expert and professional and have had careers in investigation and information retrieval. They will be able to look at biometrics and other things as well. We therefore think it is highly unlikely that the commission could be duped by somebody who has come forward, particularly given that, as I said, there is an obligation in the Bill on institutions of the state to provide full information.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Minister is making a fair point, but it is not the right one for what we are considering. He is talking about the process of assessing the veracity of what is said, and neither I nor the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) are saying it would be incapable of assessing the veracity of what is put forward. We are asking him to consider the consequence for lying. Just as people lie to judicial figures in every court throughout the land, what is the consequence for lying? It is not about whether the assessment of whether they are telling the truth is right, but what is done when somebody does lie.

[Conor Burns]

The consequence for lying, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the first instance is that if the body determines that the account is false, the body will not grant immunity. I was referring to the amendments he has tabled to incentivise people to come forward and participate with the process, both in terms of the sentencing and the financial stuff, and I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that we have undertaken to take that away and look at it.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns]

The unimaginable tragedy and grief that people in Northern Ireland experienced is understood, as much as it is humanly capable of being understood by those who did not go through it. I am sorry that I could not attend the hon. Gentleman’s meeting last night. I received the email to my parliamentary email address; I was travelling back from Northern Ireland and did not return to Westminster in time to come. I would have been delighted and humbled to come and meet those people who came to Westminster, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met victims’ families and victims groups across Northern Ireland in the process of getting the Bill to where it is.

One of the reasons why my right hon. Friend and I have taken the time that we have taken, as we have both said, is to get the Bill right, and to make sure that what we are proposing will work. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) is absolutely right that the test of the Bill will be when the information recovery body is up and running and functioning—when people can refer cases to it and when the British state transfers to it the documents that we have at our disposal. The test will be in the delivery of that body for victims and families.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Minister is outlining to the Committee that he wants to get this right. It is a fundamental part of scrutiny in this House that the Committee is meeting on the Floor of the House today and will meet again on Monday, and that scores of amendments have been tabled to get this right. I had a meeting with the Secretary of State on Monday, and we discussed amendments. He knows from Second Reading that there is no consequence should somebody choose not to engage in this process, and for those who do engage, there is no consequence for lying. Those amendments are before the Committee today, and the Government can engage with them. Will they accept some of them? Is there any update from the meeting on Monday?

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I have listened carefully to what the Chairman of the Select Committee has said. Ultimately, it will be up to the shadow Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team to decide what to do. I share my hon. Friend’s affection—

[Gavin Robinson]

On a point of order, Dame Rosie. For the sake of clarity and for the benefit of all Members, may I ask you to confirm that there will be a Report stage? I have listened to these exchanges, but given the timescale that we have for the Bill’s remaining stages on Monday—given that the second day of the Committee stage will end an hour before the moment of interruption—and given the likelihood of many Divisions, I expect that there will not even be time for a substantive Third Reading, let alone a Report stage.

Just in case people fall into the view that there will be enough time for a Report stage and the opportunity to table further amendments, I must express my view that that will not be the case on Monday. But I ask you, Dame Rosie, for clarification.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Report stage is currently scheduled for Monday. As I understand it, amendments would need to be tabled at the close of Committee stage on Monday, as manuscript amendments. I hope that is helpful.

[Gavin Robinson]

Further to that point of order, Dame Rosie. In principle there can be a Report stage, but in practice, if the Committee stage runs until an hour before the end of proceedings and there are Divisions—four, potentially—there will be no time whatever for a Report stage or a Third Reading. We cannot predict what will happen with Divisions, but I am asking for confirmation that a set of circumstances could arise whereby no effective Report stage would occur.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Obviously it is difficult to predict what would happen on the day. In such circumstances, Members can all agree that they wish to allow enough time for Report stage by means of shorter speeches or fewer votes. On the other hand, I understand that it is also possible for the business managers and the Government to table a Business of the House motion that could perhaps give specific protected time to a Report stage, but that would be a decision for the Government. Again, I hope that that is helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

We have not made the degree of progress that we should have done, but the progress that has been made is transformative for the families and those impacted by the crimes of the time. The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that it is a small number, as if it is inconsequential, but I urge him to look at two things. For a start, there is the work of the Kenova investigation, undertaken by Jon Boutcher. With the Stakeknife investigation, it is currently looking at 220 murders—220. There is substantial progress. Is the hon. Gentleman going to put his hand up and make the gesture for “small” when we talk about resolving 220 murders?

There will not be justice for everyone, but families and victims are not naive. They know that not everybody will get a prosecution out of this, but they might get the results of an investigation done to criminal standards. This is the kind of thing that gives families a sense of justice and enables them to start healing after the damage that the troubles have inflicted on them. I do not accept the premise that because the numbers are small and do not match the scale of the challenge, this is not consequential.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for taking that line in response to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). Twice now he has said in Committee that we cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good, and yet today we have amendments from the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues, amendments from me and my colleagues, amendments from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and his colleagues, and amendments from the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) and those elsewhere in the Chamber. That is the process. We cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good, but today is about making the Bill better. Rather than ignoring the amendments because we cannot achieve everything, surely the purpose of Committee is to try to get as much of this right as we can.

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the tone and the content of what the hon. Member says.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is not wrong. My personal view is that we need to do a little more to ascertain that proof. It may be that the word of one individual may not be enough to grant them immunity; independent evidence and independent corroboration over a period of time may be needed to secure that immunity.

[Gavin Robinson]

First, the panel will already have to make an assessment of whether the information it has been given has been given truthfully, to the best of the person’s knowledge. Amendment 97 simply says what should then happen should it decide that that information was not given truthfully, to the best of the individual’s knowledge. It would not have much to do; it would already have made the assessment, and the file would then just go to the PPS.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the exact provision, in clause 20(4), I believe, which sets out that the panel does not need any information other than that which is given to it by P, and then to have a read of subsections (1), (2) and (3). I think that there lies the answer to the question he is raising—subsection (4) could simply be deleted. An amendment has been tabled by my party and the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for that precise purpose.

[James Sunderland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Minister is now in his place and I hope he is paying heed to what we are saying, because these are all tweaks to the Bill that I feel we could make.

Let me return to clause 18 and ask, first, what defines an acceptable level of engagement. How do we specify it? Nothing in the Bill defines what level of information someone needs to give in order to qualify for immunity, and I think that needs work.

Secondly, Where a person is deemed a subject of interest, and perhaps is assessed as being a current threat, is there a case for their not being granted immunity? I believe that there is a bit of work to do there, and that this may be possible.

My third point is that we should perhaps legislate so that if a person is convicted of a post-1998 terrorist offence, the offence they were granted immunity for can be taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing for other offences—I know that that is tricky and divisive, but it is worthy of consideration.

My last point on clause 18 is about what happens if the person’s account is found not to be true to the best of their knowledge and belief. We discussed amendment 97 earlier. If it is proved that the information given is completely false, perhaps immunity could and should be revoked. I know that the Minister will cover this issue later, but I think there needs to be a bit of work on what happens if there is compelling evidence that proves that the information given at the time was not true. In my view, therefore, clause 18 needs work.

That may not be possible, but I have outlined some suggestions to the Minister. My next point relates to clause 20, which is entitled “Determining a request for immunity”. In forming a view on the truth of the person’s account, the immunity requests panel will not currently be required to seek information from a person other than P. I reiterate my previous point that the threshold for the provision of information by the perpetrator is already very low and subjective. What change might we wish to make? Perhaps there should be a requirement that corroboration is sought before any immunity can be granted.

On the issue of prisoner release, the Bill states:

“Schedule 11 makes provision about prisoner release under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.”

Paragraph 5 of schedule 11 states:

“If a fixed term prisoner is released on licence under this section, the prisoner’s sentence expires”.

The key point is that the existing early release scheme provides that if a person’s application for early release is successful, they must serve the minimum term under their sentence before being released. Paragraph 5 replaces and repeals several provisions of the 1998 Act, potentially removing any minimum sentence. That virtually removes any incentive for a perpetrator to engage with the process. I therefore urge the Minister to look at that provision.

There are other areas that are not covered in the Bill, and we may come to them later. First, there is no legislation on the glorification of terrorism, or to enable those who flout such legislation to be held accountable. The issue is not provided for at all in the Bill, and that may require further work.

We may also need a better UK-wide definition of a victim or survivor of terrorism. In addition, there is the tricky issue of reparations for the bereaved. I know that that is difficult in law and difficult politically, but perhaps we could look at it in due course as part of the reconciliation process.

Perhaps we could even conduct a review in due course of how this legislation evolves and how it works in practice. Is the truth and reconciliation process working? Are people coming forward? Perhaps we need to build into the Bill a clause whereby we can legally review these issues in due course, with a view to tweaking what goes through Westminster.

This is a very difficult issue and this is a difficult Bill. I commend Ministers and everyone involved, particularly in the Northern Ireland Office, for getting this far. We now have something on the table that needs to go through. Time is short, and I recognise that the Bill will come back to the House on Monday, but I urge the Minister to consider what I have said over the weekend.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who has engaged continuously with Northern Ireland issues since his entry into the House in 2019. We are grateful that he has shown such an interest. His speech allows me to make an initial point for people outside this place who do not understand how we operate. Today we are dealing with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, and on Monday we will deal with parts 3 and 4.

The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when it comes to the requirement for an amendment that allows for the revocation of immunity in circumstances where somebody has lied; one on the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 so that there is an inducement for people to engage in the ICRIR process rather than stay outside; and one on the glorification of terrorism. While there is a discrete amendment on the glorification of terrorism today, we will debate new clauses 3, 4 and 5 on Monday, and they deal with all those points. I do hope that, after hearing what the hon. Member for Bracknell has had to say, colleagues throughout the Chamber will not only look at those new clauses and the thrust behind them, but encourage the Government to look on them favourably when we debate them on Monday. They are demonstrable and positive changes that would make this Bill better.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is back in his place. Perhaps I was a little hard on him, especially after he suggested that he was going to support some of my amendments. I genuinely believe that I would not have wasted my time over the past number of weeks, with colleagues from across Northern Ireland, in the preparation of amendments to make this process better if none of those amendments had the prospect of success today.

It is disappointing that, even when we hear positive noises not just on amendment 115 but on a range of issues that have been put before the Committee today to make the Bill better, we really get zero traction. It is very frustrating.

[Mr Baron]

Let me put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. He was not too hard on me. Having served in the Province a few times, I am used to the Belfast way of things. What I would say, though, is that we are all, in good faith, trying to improve the Bill. We must remember that there are further stages, but I hear what he says.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Member.

This Committee stage highlights the fact that there is a strong body of opinion in Northern Ireland that this Bill is irredeemable, that it should not progress and that it has no support among politicians or victims’ groups in Northern Ireland. The SNP spokesperson right crystallised that opinion, and said that his party had decided not to participate in amendments.

I stand here as a member of a party that has tabled scores of amendments in the hope that we can get this Bill to a better place. But I recognise that, for many at home, this is not a comfortable place to be. Without reiterating the comments made on Second Reading, I say that this Bill, whether it will affect a small number of people or a large number, is a true corruption of justice. The very idea that, under schedule 11, as the hon. Member for Bracknell read out, somebody prosecuted for heinous terrorist offences would serve no time in prison whatsoever for a prosecution arising either because that person has chosen not to give any information to victims’ families and stays outside the process, or because they engage in the process in an untruthful and dishonest way, is an affront to justice.

[Johnny Mercer]

How would the hon. Member describe the 1998 agreement that let murderers out having served two years? Would that be a corruption of justice? Would that be an affront to justice? And—

[Gavin Robinson]

Absolutely. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let me make this point: we are not going to get unanimity of opinion on that issue from people in Northern Ireland. The Democratic Unionist party did not support the Belfast agreement. One of the strong reasons was the corruption of justice and the denial of rights to victims who saw the perpetrators walk the streets.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, because she will take a different view, and I want to be respectful of that different view. Then I need to move onto the amendments tabled for this Committee stage.

[Claire Hanna]

It is fair to say that, over the past couple of years, there have been a lot of new converts to the Good Friday agreement. Will the hon. Member concede that although the issue of prisoner releases was a very difficult pill to take for every single person in Northern Ireland, it was done with democratic legitimacy —in a referendum that more than 70% of the population voted for—and those people were in jail after due legal process?

[Gavin Robinson]

People were in jail after due legal process. Not only did we have that corruption of justice then, but we have had subsequent corruptions of justice on the provision of on-the-run letters, on letters of comfort, and on attempts to make sure that people get an amnesty or immunity from prosecution. Here we have a further iteration.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

I will not give way at this stage if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I am deviating from the amendments and I recognise that we do not have much time.

We should be encouraging people in this process to give information, and we do that not by removing the consequence of avoiding the process, but by ensuring that there is a consequence should they not engage.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made reference to Mrs Iris Moffitt-Scott, who gave an interview this morning on “Good Morning Ulster”. She asked that the Government not trample on victims. She said that today, on the 39th anniversary of her husband’s murder. Her husband had no affiliation; he was a farmer cutting hedges, and had just delivered his four-year-old child to the bus for the first day of school when he was murdered in cold blood. There was no reason for his murder other than pure, base sectarianism, and she is just asking today that the Government not trample on her and other victims like her.

[Ian Paisley]

I think in my earlier intervention I may have said that he was a part-time member of the UDR, but I was wrong in that. He certainly was not—in fact, reports at the time record his family saying he was a friend for all, a man with friends right across the entire community. There was no justification. His local canon, I think, indicated that the only reason he was murdered was that he was a member of the Protestant community. It was a straightforward, dirty, evil sectarian murder and it must be called out as that. As my hon. Friend will know, for those of us who grew up through those days—I was 17 at the time; he is slightly younger than me—our days were punctuated by the sounds of those bullets and bombs going off. Our news bulletins were punctuated by the soundtrack of the troubles. Unfortunately, this legacy Bill does not bring that soundtrack to an end.

[Gavin Robinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that.

I have made reference to some of the substantive amendments that we will consider on Monday. I want to raise a series of amendments that I hope are not controversial, which representatives from across Northern Ireland would be able to accept, and put them forward in the hope that the Minister can offer some positivity. Then we will get on to the substantive amendments that I think will form part of our considerations later on.

An innocent victim: we know what that is. It is somebody who has been injured through the troubles through no fault of their own. They have not engaged in illegality; they have not gone out to damage, to murder, to kill. They have been injured. The Government accepted that definition when they published regulations around troubles pensions. There is an opportunity, which we can come back to on Monday when we talk about memorialisation, for this Government to provide a legal definition of an innocent victim.

There has been a debate about immunity. The legislation talks about its being general immunity, and that has caused concern for victims. The Minister, through engagement and with the NIO, has been very clear that it is immunity specific to an event, but covers the generality of offences during that event. The immunity attaches to the incident and not the person. I think the Minister should take the opportunity to clarify that and look at whether that can be strengthened through amendment.

I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Bracknell on clause 20 subsections (1) to (4). Subsection (4) is unnecessary. It suggests that the panel does not need to take information from anywhere other than the person before it, but subsections (1) to (3) suggest all the relevant information that the panel can and should take into account in making its determination on an individual incident. Clause 20(4) should be removed.

Amendment 97 is one that I hope hon. Members will engage with. An assessment must be made of whether the individual perpetrator who is giving information to the panel has done so truthfully, to the best of their knowledge. If they lie, if they seek immunity and spin the process out, playing with victims and their families, there is no consequence for them whatsoever. At the very least, amendment 97 would see a file issued to the Public Prosecution Service.

Amendment 119, which I referred to, is about the glorification of terrorism. The last thing we should do, if we are truly interested in achieving reconciliation in Northern Ireland, is to offer someone immunity only for them to go out and talk positively or proudly about their heinous exploits. That would be a fundamental outrage. We will never get reconciliation in Northern Ireland if we empower people to rub salt in the wounds of victims and their families there.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the point he is raising is based on evidence that we already have of where, for example, members of Sinn Féin who engaged in a prison break-out in which an officer died went around boasting about the part that they played in that break-out? He is not making a theoretical or an academic point, but a very real point that we have to make sure is addressed.

[Gavin Robinson]

Yes. It is appalling—sickening—that people organise events and dinners, fundraise, sell books and write scripts for movies, then benefit on the backs of the blood of our neighbours in Northern Ireland. That is not appropriate.

I ask Members to consider amendment 98 very seriously indeed. This process is about providing answers to families who do not know all the circumstances of their loved one’s demise or who was responsible for it. That is a significant subset of legacy cases that are yet to be resolved in Northern Ireland. There are, however, other cases where the family know exactly who was responsible and know all the circumstances, and furthermore the state knows who is responsible and has sought the perpetrator for investigation and prosecution. Then what did the perpetrator do? They stood up and walked across the border and evaded justice. In amendment 98, we ask the Committee to accept that there are no circumstances in which we can provide a process that would grant immunity and allow somebody who has evaded justice, skipped the jurisdiction and made sure that loved ones had no answers the opportunity to come back to Northern Ireland and retire with dignity. That would be an affront to democracy and to justice. I hope that Members will look at accepting amendment 98 on such runaways.

[Jim Shannon]

One example of that, as this House already knows because I have said it before, is Lexie Cummings. He was having his lunch out at a shop in Strabane and was murdered—shot in the back of the head. The person who did it was apprehended by the police, who took him to court. They made a mistake in the subpoena that they handed out and got it wrong. While the subpoena was being changed, the person escaped across the border. He is now a very prominent member of Sinn Féin, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) knows very well. That is an example of where the system has fallen down. My family, who are relatives, want to see justice for him in court. He has an on-the-run letter, which makes it very difficult for us as a family to comprehend and deal with issues, knowing that justice is not seen to be done and because we know who the perpetrator is.

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that Members will look on amendment 98 favourably.

Finally, because I recognise that time is short—here we are, three hours in, before we get a Northern Ireland voice, but I appreciate the interest in the Bill—I turn to amendment 115. There has been considerable attention on amendment 115 during the Committee stage. My colleagues drafted our own amendment to exclude sexual offences from immunity. It was not as good or as strong as the Labour amendment, and, in truth, it was in the wrong place in the Bill, so we did not table it and signed amendment 115 and new schedule 1. We did that because we want to get to the end point. We are not interested in the politics, but we want to make sure that on such a wedge issue that engages issues of compassion and controversy, and affects communities right across the board in Northern Ireland, we have our name on that amendment, and we want to see progress on it this evening.

I have already highlighted the frailty of the argument that we could leave this issue until Report. I have heard that we could change the programme motion. Here we are with a programme motion that has already been extended once, at the end of Second Reading for this Committee stage, and I am the first Northern Ireland MP to speak when we have been debating the Bill since 20 minutes to 3.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he was saying a little bit earlier? We obviously disagree on the Good Friday agreement and the need for prisoner release, but I think we both recognise that those prisoners were released on licence. A licence is capable of being revoked and has been on a number of occasions. If this Bill went through, would that get rid of that, so that those prisoners would then be totally immune from going back even on licence?

[Gavin Robinson]

I know that some from Northern Ireland did not take technical briefings on this Bill, but sadly I did and had to listen through them. Schedule 11, where we are talking about moving two sentences down to one, could lead to a circumstance where, were somebody prosecuted outside of this process, they would have a conviction on their record and would automatically be on licence for it. It is not that they would not be on licence—they would—but they would serve no time in jail whatever. We need to incentivise this process, and that is why I have talked about new clauses to be debated on Monday, which would ensure real terms and a real-life consequence for not offering truth to victims’ families.

I was talking about amendment 115 just before I was derailed. The Government have a huge opportunity to respond to what has been said this evening. This is a hugely important amendment. We talk about some amendments being inconsequential, and I accept that this one would affect a very narrow subset of legacy cases, but that does not make it any less of a touchstone. It genuinely is, and it has the support of our party. I am sad to say that there is no Northern Ireland Office representation in the Chamber at the moment. They are not here, and I genuinely believe that they had better be outside getting an agreement over this amendment so that it does not need to be pressed to a Division this evening.

[Mr Baron]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

I will give way in turn to the hon. Members, and then I will conclude.

[Mr Baron]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is assured when I say that a number of others are making representations to those on our own Front Bench on a number of the amendments being discussed. One hopes that people are listening, which I suppose reinforces the point that we are trying to move in the same direction here and improve the Bill.

[Gavin Robinson]

I accept that and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Simon Hoare]

I want to add to the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), if it is of any help. To the best of my knowledge, conversations are taking place within Government and with the official Opposition to try to resolve this issue before we get to the moment of interruption. Principally that is because of the strong case that has been made by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), by colleagues and by the shadow Secretary of State, which I hope a number of us on the Government Benches have helped to augment.

[Gavin Robinson]

I do not want to sow discord or break the prospect of agreement, but I will say this to those who are outside talking about an amendment that we have signed, but who are not talking to us about that amendment: it is not just the first signatory who can ensure it proceeds to a Division. I hope there is an agreement on that amendment, but as signatories to it, should there not be an agreement, we think the Committee should divide on it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend not find it rather strange, given the debates in this House over the past week about the lack of response from the police and the courts on rape victims, the way in which so few rape cases are being brought to court, and the commitments that Ministers have made, that there is even a debate or a discussion about those who use their paramilitary positions and power to cover up rape having their crimes overlooked?

[Gavin Robinson]

I have to give way to seniority, but my right hon. Friend makes the point incredibly well for me, and it needs no further explanation. I am grateful for the time of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

There has to be a landing zone. We are never going to reach an agreement that allows us to adhere to those standards. The hon. Gentleman’s point about trust in the state is valid. When it comes first to opening the books—I have experience of this not only as a Minister, but when I served in secret organisations, and I know there is an attitude or appetite to overclassify things and so on. Families have really felt the brunt of that over the years, and if I was part of one of those families, I would be deeply mistrustful of the state. I totally get that, and the Department must work harder to bring that integrity to the process.

However, I do not think we should throw away what is probably the last chance to get this right—well, “right” is not really the word, because we are not going to make it right: we are not going to bring anybody back. But we have to get to a space where we can deliver something for victims and veterans. We talk about prosecutions, but there have been no successful prosecutions of security force personnel since the Good Friday agreement. That is a fact.

What these victims are looking for is not there. If it was there, I would be the first to champion it. People such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) are absolutely repulsed by those who think that uniform is a place where they can commit crime. The idea that we would not want people who have done those things to be held to account is for the birds. People who promote that—I see it in Northern Ireland about me all the time, but I never respond to it because it is totally false. Nobody wants those people convicted more than those who served there and adhered to the standards, showing extreme courage.

[Gavin Robinson]

I would be keen to hear which amendments the hon. Gentleman is supporting. He wants to get this right, but does he understand that one consequence of the Bill at Royal Assent is that, unless a decision has been made to prosecute by the Public Prosecution Service, the prosecutions lapse? There are 32 or 33 actual active files with the PPS as a result of Jon Boutcher’s Operation Kenova. Unless a decision is made now, or before Royal Assent, the prospects of live files will disappear.

[Johnny Mercer]

That is a good example of technical details in the Bill that need work. Aspects of this do need work. I think I have spoken individually to everybody on the other side of the Committee who opposes the Bill, and I agree with their technical changes to it. The idea that immunity cannot be revoked, or that there is no real compulsion to get involved because of jail sentences—I do not agree with that. At the same time, however, I am not going to say, “Don’t vote for this Bill”, because this is it; this is as good as it gets. There is an opportunity coming down the line, when the Bill goes to the Lords, when things such as that will happen.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He and I have parsed the course on this issue and the myriad alternatives within legacy over many years. I served on the Defence Committee with him during the 2016-17 inquiry, and the later inquiry whose findings were published in about 2018. We do not agree, and I am not sure that his synopsis of the views of those four academics was entirely fair; but I will return to that later in my speech.

Before I proceed, let me say that I thought the contribution from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) was the most powerful that we are likely to hear this afternoon. I think that it was motivated not by prejudice or political aspiration of one hue or another, but solely by the right hon. Gentleman’s emotionally charged and personal experience in Northern Ireland. It was rooted in principle, and I thank him very much for it.

I have been thinking back to a debate that we had in Westminster Hall about proposals for legacy, and I was reading some of the speeches in Hansard this morning. I recalled a radio interview that I had heard on the morning of that debate. Alan McBride, a victims’ campaigner from Northern Ireland and a victim himself, was talking about a day of reflection for victims in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. He said, “When we were thinking about a day of reflection in Belfast, we tried to find one day—one date—when nobody died.” They could not find one. They could not find a single day in the calendar when somebody had not been killed in Northern Ireland. They chose 21 June, the summer solstice, because that day heralds a new dawn, that day heralds a new season, that day heralds warmth and aspiration.

When it comes to our party’s approach to the issue of legacy—and, in fairness, the approach of the majority of parties in Northern Ireland—we cannot detach ourselves easily from victims, or their experiences, or their hurt, or the lingering fears and doubts that pervade our society. I know that it is easy for others in the Chamber to take a more “singular” view—a singular constituency-based view, or a single veteran’s view—but we cannot do that. A principle that we have applied throughout the myriad decades of consideration about legacy has been one that keeps open the hope of justice, no matter how easily those who have spoken today have tried to detach us from it. It keeps open the pursuit of justice, of recognition by the state that what happened to people’s loved ones was wrong. It is the principle that natural justice and the rule of law in this country still matter, still count, and should still run through our system. That is something that we have attached to every proposal that has been brought before us.

There is a second principle. I do not attach this to other parties, but we have never wanted to see an equivalence between people who lived innocent, peaceful and wholesome lives and were cut down in their prime as a result of terrorists—or those brave women and men who stepped forward and stepped up to protect all of us and give us the freedom to stand in this Chamber and political chambers throughout Northern Ireland, and to stand up for what is right and what is true—and those who went out to destroy and wreak havoc in our society.

I am afraid that on those two principles, this Bill fails. I take no joy in saying this. I know that there are Members in this Chamber wo are thinking, “For goodness’ sake, Northern Ireland legacy again, can they not just agree?” We do all agree in Northern Ireland that this Bill is wrong, that this Bill will not command support, that this Bill drives a coach and horses through the pursuit of justice, although I take no pride in that.

We have been through the discussions about a statute of limitations. I chided the right hon. Member for New Forest East earlier about his revisionism—perhaps his fair rehearsal—of the approach of the four academics, but I said it fondly, because I have huge admiration for him. He is right to say, and the academics were right to say, that should anything be brought forward, principled and detailed, as a statute of limitations, it would have to apply equally; but the landscape in Northern Ireland is not equal.

We always advanced the argument that no one who broke the law could escape the law and no one who deserved justice should evade justice. When those who served our state and put on the uniform of our brave armed forces—whether it was the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or other organisations—were involved in incidents that led to a killing, there will have been an investigation. We know that, post-1973, those investigations were article 2 compliant. We have always advanced the argument that where our state can demonstrate that it has discharged its duty, we should be able to move on: no reinvestigations, no trauma and no fear of that knocked door, because the state has done what is required of it under the European convention on human rights. For whatever reason, however, there were too few within the system of government that wanted to embrace that argument. I say that the landscape was uneven in Northern Ireland because when the state was involved, an investigation duly followed, but I am afraid that when the state was not involved, there were far too many deaths for which there was no investigation. That is how that principle could have been applied.

There has been mention of two years: the Good Friday agreement, the early release of prisoners and a maximum sentence of two years. Explanations have been bandied about today, including, “That’s just the way it is”, “That was proposed by the Labour Government”, “It was passed by referendum in Northern Ireland” and “It was ultimately put through this Chamber”. I will not be shy in saying that I found it obtuse and offensive then, and I find it offensive to this day. Two years—that is all. If you have served it, out you go. That is not justice. There were no cheerleaders for that proposal in Northern Ireland. Some accepted it as a compromise as part of the Good Friday agreement, and others did not.

How many times have we heard in the debate this afternoon that two years is not what we are talking about here? Read schedule 11 of this Bill; it will not tell you that the Bill removes those provisions. It will not be two years in jail; it will be nothing—no jail time whatsoever, whether someone engages in the process, seeks immunity from prosecution and tells the truth, or they do not. If someone sits outside the system, if they offer no answers for relatives of victims and their loved ones and if they decide that this process and this Bill are not for them, it does not matter because the British Government seek our support in this Parliament for legislation that reduces their time in jail to nothing. Who could be proud of that proposal? Schedule 11 does not even spell it out, but those are the ramifications of the Bill. Engage or do not engage—it does not matter; you will serve no time.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that these provisions are not something remote in the sense that they apply only to incidents that occurred in Northern Ireland, but that in fact the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 apply to terrorist incidents that occurred in Great Britain and elsewhere? They include the murder of British citizens in this city, in Birmingham, in Manchester and, indeed, in many of the constituencies represented by Conservative Members. Those Members need to understand that this injustice does not just apply to the people we represent; it applies to every single family in this United Kingdom whose loved ones were cut down in cold blood by terrorists, and that that capacity remains in this country to this day.

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree, and I hope that the point is not lost.

No intended time, and no consequence. With no consequence to not engaging in this process, there is no inducement to engage in it. I heard the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—who has been fair in his contributions on the legacy issue over many years—ask what it is that people want. Do they want time served in jail or do they want answers? There is no single answer to that question— there are many victims. It has been said today that people just want to know the truth. There are victims the length and breadth of Northern Ireland who know exactly who killed their loved one, and they see the perpetrator walking freely through their town on a daily or weekly basis. As they walk the lonely path to the graveside to see their loved one, the person they know to be responsible for their loved one’s death walks free through the streets with their family. That person still walks and there has been no effective investigation.

To bring the question into this House, how often do Members walk through the double doors into the Chamber and look at the plaques right above? There is commonality between each of those three plaques, because each gentle man stood for election to this House, each gentle man believed in democracy and the rule of law and each gentle man was murdered by terrorists related to the Northern Ireland troubles.

Rev. Robert Bradford was murdered by the IRA at his constituency surgery in Belfast South in 1981. Airey Neave was murdered in his car by the Irish National Liberation Army with an under-car booby-trap bomb in 1979. In 1981 Ian Gow was murdered by the IRA, again with an under-car booby-trap bomb. They were our colleagues and predecessors who stood up for democracy in this country, but they were cut down in their prime. What else connects them? Nobody has been made accountable for those crimes. The perpetrators have evaded justice.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Is he aware that the chief suspect for the murder of Airey Neave in the precincts of this House is currently operating a bar in Spain? He has eluded justice and, under the provisions of this Bill, will never have justice served upon him.

[Gavin Robinson]

That is exactly why I raise these issues. I want hon. Members to know that this is not just about cold cases that have never had a prospect of success in the courts. There are people out there today who are guilty of the most heinous crimes during the Northern Ireland troubles, against our state, our citizens and our neighbours across the communities in Northern Ireland and throughout Great Britain. They have evaded justice, they have fought extradition and they have squirrelled themselves away into the Irish Republic and, under the political offence exemption, have stayed there. Some of them live in the United States of America, and our Government have sought their extradition because they know they are responsible and they want to bring them to justice, yet they stay in their safe havens. And some freely walk the streets of Northern Ireland in exactly the same position.

Those perpetrators of violence, be they republican or loyalist, will be able to sleep soundly in their beds once this Bill is passed. They will know that they never have to spend a day in jail. They know that the focus will be on state cases for which there is information that will naturally run through the information recovery process. They will not engage in this, and there will be no consequence for their not doing so.

I say with as much respect as I can in the circumstances that the idea that our Government and this Parliament will pass legislation that allows perpetrators of violence who have evaded justice to retire in dignity is a disgrace, and retire they will. This Parliament has considered on-the-runs legislation in which our Government, at a request from the republicans, were going to pass measures saying that those who were on the run and evading justice could come home and get away scot-free. It was going to be passed by the Labour Government until Sinn Féin realised that it would apply to soldiers, too, and pulled its support.

After the on-the-runs legislation, we had the letters of comfort. I am glad the Secretary of State ruled out the application of letters of comfort today, but John Downey walked free from court as a result of letters of comfort. They were not issued by the Conservative Government; they just came to light after 2010. John Downey is responsible for the Hyde Park bombing that killed 11 service personnel and seven horses working alongside them. When he stood in the Old Bailey, he produced a letter that said, “You’re not currently or actively sought for investigation.” This Parliament has a history of bidding for the wrong people in my view. Our view will always be based on those who have suffered the most in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that the Government have got the impression that we will not be with them on Second Reading of the Bill, but the issues are far too important for us to say that we cannot have any part of it and therefore not engage. I want the Government to hear us loudly and clearly that we will be tabling amendments, and we will seek as much cross-party and cross-community support for those amendments as possible. I hope that if we do that in the spirit of good will and co-operation, the Government will engage in these thoughtful considerations about sentencing and time served, because getting a conviction, being out on licence and having all the freedoms that people enjoy while their victims do not is simply not sufficient. We need to rule out the ability of people who have actively evaded justice, and who the Government have sought through extradition proceedings, to come home and retire with dignity. I hope that we will get a willing ear, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this debate because I have had a long interest in Northern Ireland. I served in Northern Ireland in 1975. I remember the billboards at Christmas saying, “Seven years will have been too much”. To be honest with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hated every moment of it. I did not ask or volunteer to go there. I did not want to be doing something that I did not think I was ever trained to do, although we did carry out training. It struck me as a real problem.

I also want to say one other word about it, because often it is bandied around that political parties over here do not really get it. The Conservative party has lost a large number of people to terrorism—in the Brighton bombings alone and in other killings. We can see their coats of arms up on the wall in the Chamber. My predecessor, Norman Tebbit, has had a lifelong period of pain. His wife was disabled. She is now dead sadly, God rest her soul, and she put up with a lot as a result of her husband being in politics. The sadness is, as he leaves politics now, that he bore that all the way through. After the Good Friday agreement, he had to watch those who he knew had done it walk away. They walked away under the agreement that reduced everything to two years, and the pain he and his wife must have suffered was enormous—I know it was. I speak therefore with a certain amount of humility, as much as I speak about my own service.

The truth is, I want to talk about one particular person. Captain Robert Nairac was a good friend. He was passionate about going to Northern Ireland as a Catholic. I am a Catholic myself, and he thought that he could do something over there to help and that he would understand it. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) served with him as well. The truth is that Robert was captured. He was taken, he was tortured, we understand, and we think he was eventually executed after attempting to escape, but we do not know the full circumstances.

The sadness of all of us who have watched is that we want to know what happened. We want to get some closure. We have never understood what happened. Where is he buried? His parents went to their graves never knowing where he was. They could never go to that grave and say some words over it. That is the reality of where we are today and the point is that many people already suffer because of it.

The truth is that I do not love this Bill. I think that it is, in many senses, imperfect—as it will be—and it has problems and difficulties, some of which were related earlier. The question that we need to face is what we are really after. If we want justice in terms of prosecution and, if necessary, eventual incarceration, we need to deal with the reality that we no longer have that, because two years for murder most foul is not justice. It cannot be justice.

So do we want the prosecution to raise information? The problem is that many prosecutions are taking place against people about whom there are huge numbers of records because they happened to be servicemen and women. That is why those cases can be taken up—because the Government have all those records. Those who committed terrorist acts, however, where there is little information and little willingness to do anything about giving evidence—they may have fled the country—will remain a mystery. I talked about Robert Nairac, but I have no idea who committed that murder or how many were involved in his final demise.

All I can say is that if the Bill is about knowledge, the system at the moment is imperfect. If it is about punishment and prosecution, the system at the moment is imperfect. So what are we going to do? I understand that the Bill is a process and I think it is a genuine attempt by the Government to try to find a way that allows the families of victims to at least know and understand what happened.

My point is that things will have to change if we are to see any of this happen. On that, I have a small comment for the Opposition. I understand their position, but I wish that they had said “Maybe” rather than “No”, because we now engage in a process. The question is whether we can get some of those things right during that process. That is the point. There was an exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) about exactly what we want to achieve at the end of this and whether it can be made to achieve it. That comes down to a couple of issues, which I will deal with now.

First, we have a problem in the reconciliation process. To allow someone to just come in and say, “As far as I can recall, this happened and that’s my lot,” and for them to be told, “Well, that’s okay. Now you can go away and you’ll never be prosecuted for it. It’s alright. Don’t worry.” does not work for me, and I do not think it will work in the process. It must be much more interrogative and individuals must be cross-examined about exactly how far their knowledge went.

Secondly, I would like the commission to decide whether we are going to go ahead with this regardless of whether it considers that, on balance, the individual has told the truth and deserves any kind of immunity from future prosecution. In other words, that needs to be tightened up a great deal. If families of victims are to have any faith in it, they will need to understand that there was due process.

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman touches on a good point, because the commission would consider what the individual seeking immunity says and whether it is truthful, but under the Bill it is not allowed to consider any other information. Does it not strike him as odd that it has no ability to challenge the rigour or integrity of what it is told?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I understand that. As I said earlier, with all humility to my colleagues from Northern Ireland, I start from a position of trying to find a way through. That is one of the problems with the Bill. If it is about knowledge, we have to meet that requirement somehow in the Bill, because it is not happening out there. For all the talk about prosecutions and knowledge, few of those who carried out those heinous crimes have ever ended up in the courts or will ever end up in the courts, so how can we manage to make that happen?

Another part of the problem is those who do not co-operate. I worried about the two-year issue in 1998, because it seemed unfair and not really justice. If someone blows somebody else up; murders them; or takes away a family’s father, brother, sister or whoever or a member of the armed forces who was there to protect them, they should, after committing such a crime—murder most foul—face the fullest penalty.

I understand the compromise that was made at the time—I understand that. Many of us had to bite our lips, but we understood it. My point is that if we are going to open the door on the one hand to those who would entertain the possibility of coming to speak the truth, we must also say that those who do not will face the full penalty of the law for murder most foul: “You will not be given an exemption. You will not end up with only two years. You will face a full prosecution if you are not part of this process. In other words, either you co-operate, you face the interrogation and you actually come out as having told the truth, or else you go down the other road back into the justice system and you face full prosecution.” To some degree, that would at least give balance. It would at least give an idea that somehow the process not just sought the truth, but punished those who refused to participate in that process.

I end simply on the basis that the process will never satisfy everybody. I know that, and I know that families will feel very hurt by this process so far, but I think there is a way through. The one thing that has characterised, in many senses, this House over Northern Ireland has been somehow trying to find a way through the thicket of the different positions that people take. I for one think that the process of trailing veterans—where the information is there, they had given evidence previously and they have been fact-faced at interrogations—should not go on, because it is terrible and belittling, and at the same time creates real problems for them at home. We want to find a way to settle that, but I do not want to settle it on the backs of those who still await to find out what happened.

If we can find a way through on this Bill, imperfect as it is at the moment, that would be worthy of the effort. I would encourage the Opposition to engage as much as they possibly can, because this is too important an issue to divide on in a very political sense. I want to see closure: I want to find out what happened to my friend Robert Nairac, because it troubles me every single day and I never got to say goodbye to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman and Captain Nairac served together, and that is the important thing to put on the record.

I want to put something from a different point of view and to speak about the victims. In the middle of all this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred to it—it is important to focus on that. I do not want to speak as Jim Shannon the Member of Parliament for Strangford; I want to speak as the cousin of Kenneth Smyth.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is important for the House to recognise that sometimes politicians talk about how powerfully these things affect us, but it is fair to say that from my hon. Friend’s contributions throughout the years he has brought a great deal of personal empathy and emotion to these issues. I make that intervention, and I will talk perhaps longer than you would normally permit in an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will look for a nod from my hon. Friend whenever the time is appropriate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. If the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would like me to come back to him after the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), I am happy to do that if at any point that is what he feels.