Northern Ireland

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is worth making the point that while the Secretary of State is right in his response on the review, which was the subject of the rightful concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), he is also right to focus on the democratic scrutiny and accountability mechanism. That is not before us today, but it has been legislated for and it was a change to the Northern Ireland protocol.

The Secretary of State will also know that in this statutory instrument, there is a proper amendment, being made here in the UK Parliament, to section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which relates in particular to that pipeline. To give a sense of how regulations have been changed through this process, on Tuesday evening when the European Union and the UK Government reached agreement on what was contained in the red lane for rest-of-the-world products, 60 pages or more of legislative text and change were published that show the benefits. Not only has this legislation dealt with regulatory barriers that could be created in the future; as part of the overall package, some of those barriers have already been removed.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I could not have put it better myself. The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable about the subject and has been well involved in the negotiations behind the document and the statutory instruments we are talking about. He is 100% right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 prescribes that parliamentary sovereignty will prevail, notwithstanding section 7A of the 2018 Act. The wording is a bit difficult to read because one has to go through all the enactments to ensure that one has got it right, but it does say “including the Windsor Framework”, so for practical purposes our parliamentary sovereignty subsists. However, I find it incongruous, and rather Lewis Carroll, that we should end up continuing to maintain EU law in relation to Northern Ireland. I could make a long speech about this, but I will not do so.

The fact is that no man can serve two masters. In respect of the wording of the statutes, let me paraphrase the words of Humpty Dumpty: words mean what we choose them to mean, and the question is who is to be master—that is all. This is the problem, this is the dilemma, this is the basis on which most of the controversies occur, and I regret to have to say that it may ultimately be decided, on some day in the future, by the prospect of a referendum. That, of course, is what Sinn Féin have been asking for. I personally believe that we should protect Northern Ireland, and I have always done everything in my power to do just that.

Having said that, I should also mention that my family have been involved in the Irish question since the 1840s in this House—for instance, John Bright and Frederick Lucas, the Member of Parliament for County Meath. I make that point to emphasise that I take this very seriously, and, indeed, I pay respect to the members of the DUP for the way in which they have fought for their interests. There are some measures in the statutory instruments that I can understand as having benefits, but ultimately the question will turn on the issue of whether, given the constitutional framework within which this is being presented, with all the assurances that we are hearing and all the hopeful aspects—which I expect to be delivered—we find that it will be decided by the test of time. We will see whether it works.

There will be continuing arguments and continuing debates, but unfortunately I have to say that, just as with section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, there is no way in which section 8C of the 2018 Act had anything other than the same fundamental limitation as regulations under that section, in that they cannot contradict or restrict the scope of EU law. It has to be said, because it is the honest truth. However, that does not alter the fact that efforts can be made; the Stormont brake may come in and may be able to make changes—I say everything with reservation. I voted against the Windsor framework, because I foresaw that issues of this kind would arise. I pay tribute to all the people involved in trying to mitigate the ultimate impact of the Windsor framework, but the scope of EU law that still remains leaves me with serious concern. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I end by saying that we will be monitoring this and we are concerned— I am concerned. The devolved Assembly is a democratic plus: we cannot issue orders from Westminster to Northern Ireland if the people do not want it. The bottom line is that those in the DUP have a real issue on their hands with Sinn Féin. Be that as it may, I believe they will do everything in their power to maintain their democratic rights.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who is my friend, has outlined his concern about the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. He will know that, legislatively, in 1998 it was settled that the future of Northern Ireland’s place in the UK is based solely on the decision made by the people of Northern Ireland. He will remember that in 2000 Gerry Adams said that there would be a united Ireland by 2016. He will also know that today, in 2024, the Government who will have to decide whether there should be a border poll have declared in the Command Paper, “Safeguarding the Union”, on page 68, paragraph 3:

“On the basis of all recent polling, the Government sees no realistic prospect of a border poll leading to a united Ireland.”

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely glad to hear the hon. Gentleman make that point.

To conclude, I simply say that you can read the crystal ball, but the question is: can you always read the book?

Northern Ireland Executive Formation

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his kind comments. Yes, I absolutely believe that this deal will bring greater prosperity to Northern Ireland. When I was given this role, I was, in essence, given three tasks by our Prime Minister. The first was to help him find a route through the Northern Ireland protocol conundrum, and that became the Windsor framework. The second was to try to get Stormont up and running, so that local people make decisions for their fellow people in Northern Ireland, and I would like to think that we are getting there. The third was to make Northern Ireland one of the most prosperous parts of our United Kingdom; I think we can all agree on that aim.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

On occasions such as this, it is courteous to thank the Minister or Secretary of State for the statement, but may I, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my party, thank the Secretary of State most sincerely for his steadfast endurance in our negotiations, for his commitment to ensuring that we got to this stage, for not giving up, and for resolving the issues that have been an impediment to devolution operating sufficiently and properly in Northern Ireland? He will know that on Monday evening and into Tuesday morning, my party took a significant decision to move forward, on the basis of what we know to be in the Command Paper published today.

Although we were told that the Windsor framework could not be reopened, we have succeeded. Although we were told that there would be no change to the green lane, it is gone. We were told that there would be no removal of barriers to trade between GB and Northern Ireland, but we have removed all checks within the UK internal market system, save for those ordinarily required for dealing with criminality and the prevention of smuggling. We were told that there would be no legal change to the Windsor framework or the EU text, yet—this was part of the process of ensuring trust and commitment—colleagues will have noticed the publication just yesterday of more than 60 pages of legislative changes to text on the European perspective. That will allow rest-of-the-world products and the benefits of UK-wide trade deals to truly be available UK-wide.

We are very grateful to the Secretary of State and to the Prime Minister, who was here earlier, and we are grateful for the offers of support and commitment from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition. We are grateful for having got to this place today. We have turned the impossible into the possible, and are delivering the undeliverable in this Command Paper. We are hopeful for the future, but the Secretary of State will know that our position is predicated on full and faithful implementation and delivery of what we have achieved. Today’s Command Paper and yesterday’s legislative changes were published; in the spirit of the trust that we have established, and given the process that needs to flow, I would be very grateful if he could indicate that tomorrow, subject to what the Leader of the House does, we will see the introduction and passage of the legislation that is so crucial to this programme.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. As I mentioned in my statement, he has been integral to what has been happening over the past few weeks and months. I really do enjoy working with him, and am looking forward to doing so in the future. He mentions a host of things. He is right to say that the Command Paper is clear: we will provide clear legal direction to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and other UK Government authorities to eliminate any physical checks when goods move within the UK internal market system, save for those checks required as part of managing the risk of criminality, abuse of the scheme, smuggling and disease.

The hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone that the deal is about safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the Union. We have set out what that involves. It includes new measures in domestic legislation to affirm unfettered access and Northern Ireland’s constitutional position, as well as new structures, and steps to ensure that the full benefits of the Windsor framework are felt by people and businesses. As is shown by the draft tariff text that he mentioned, we can continue to show the joint solutions that the UK and EU can deliver under the Windsor framework. He asked me a very specific question about the timetable. I am committed to the timetable, as are the Government. Everybody in this House should know that. In all transparency, it is unbelievably important that, with the leave of the House, we get the business changed, so that we can debate those two statutory instruments and they can be passed. They are a fundamental part of the timetable that leads to Stormont’s return.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Without encroaching on the advice that you have just given, Mr Deputy Speaker, am I right to assume that there are three Back Benchers still waiting to speak? If that is the case, I think we can pass the time well between us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As things stand, yes, but one hon. Member left the Chamber and came back in, and another who indicated that she wished to speak has left the Chamber but is entitled to come back in because she heard the opening speeches, as did one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. All I am saying is that I urge brevity. I know that that is difficult, but speeches are currently running for more than 10 minutes, and that is too long.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I certainly do not take those comments personally, because it is a trait among those of us who are of Ulster-Scots lineage that we sometimes add a few extra words or phrases.

I am proud to speak in this debate. Let me first acknowledge the constructive tone adopted by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). He was right to say that should we find ourselves in circumstances like this in the future, we should talk. If I were not willing to follow the constructive tone of the debate, I would gently remind him that at the time when we tried to have those conversations, some were chiding us, encouraging us to take the action that we did and mocking us for not doing so; but I will leave it there.

I am also proud to follow the remarks of my party leader and the leader of Unionism, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who very carefully, clearly and thoughtfully articulated not just where we have been or where we are today, but the aspiration that we have outlined for a number of years. We have been to the electorate, and we have highlighted the difficulties and the deficits within the arrangements foisted on us, but the challenge for us all is to recognise that the prize for restoring Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, for reducing the constitutional harm and for removing the democratic deficit, is the ability to return to a place where Northern Ireland functions as well as it has in the past: a place where people in Northern Ireland are confident of their position within this United Kingdom irrespective of their constitutional outlook, and a place where people in Northern Ireland can recognise that it is through their elected representatives directly and locally that they can shape their own future. It does not matter what passport they hold; they live in Northern Ireland and can benefit from, and do benefit from, a relationship that has spanned centuries on these islands.

My right hon. Friend referred to custodians of the future. I remind Members that our place in politics is to protect and promote our place within this United Kingdom. That is our first and foremost principle. To those who have raised questions in the last number of days, and who will no doubt continue in the next number of days to raise questions or sow discord, let me say this: the Democratic Unionist party is united in the task that is before us.

We highlighted the pitfalls and the dangers of what was proposed to us back in 2019, at a time when others dismissed and demeaned our position. When we asked for change and indicated the consequences that the proposals could have for power-sharing arrangements in devolution, we were dismissed. We were set aside. Yet through our actions, when changes were delivered in the Windsor framework, what we had been told were mythical unicorns suddenly became something that, while being far from rigorous implementation, constituted changes that recognised the problems and brought solutions. The very same people who had ridiculed and dismissed us turned round and said, “Of course all this is sensible and pragmatic, and we should move forward.”

When faced with the choice between religious observance of that which was agreed with the European Union and the importance of devolution, sadly there are those within Northern Ireland political society who chose religious observance of the EU. They lost sight of the prize of power sharing in Northern Ireland, where communities with different aspirations could work collectively together. That is where we find ourselves.

The Secretary of State and I have engaged on this, as he has with a number of colleagues over a considerable period of time, and I commend him for a number of things, including for delivering a speech that had fewer words than are in the Bill before us today. That was a remarkable achievement. But he did not have many choices that were workable, other than to present the Bill today. Of course, he could have brought forward legislation that addressed a budget for next year. He could have brought forward legislation that assumed powers from Stormont to here in Westminster. He could have brought forward legislation that set a regional rate of around 15%. I think it is fair in the context of this debate to recognise that he still may need to bring forward such legislation. While others speculate about the intentions of this short Bill—I have my own views on it and what it should have been—I think it is a recognition that there is still work to be done and that there is a commitment to do that work.

I cannot say where this will end. I know where I think it should end. I cannot say what the ultimate outcome will be, but what I see and hear and read in the papers at home bears no resemblance to reality. My party is at one in our position. We have stood together through worse times than this. Anybody who thinks they are going to come at one member of our party over the coming days and weeks comes at us all, and they do so for their nefarious ends, not for our collective future. The choices will become stark, but let us make a choice on the basis of where we are, not where others who do not wish anything to work think it is. That is the challenge for us, for the people of Northern Ireland and for the people we represent.

In standing in the position that I do today, with nine years as an elected representative in this House and 14 years as an elected representative and as someone who has lived in Northern Ireland benefiting longer from periods of peace than seeing troubled times, I can say that nothing will shake our resolve to get this right. I say that with only this in mind: the Secretary of State has taken the choice available to him today in proceeding with this Bill, and it does not end today. It cannot end today, and our commitment for the future needs to be emboldened further still.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to close this Second Reading debate. At the beginning, I spoke for a whole two minutes, because I wanted to hear what everybody had to say. I was hoping it would not go on quite as—[Interruption.] Quite as well as it did, but some important speeches were made, which I will come to in a moment. Clause 1 states:

“In section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, for “18 January 2024” substitute “8 February 2024”.

It provides for a short extension in time. Clause 2 deals with the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. My two-minute speech was simply about keeping within scope, but we have managed to touch on Scottish independence, public sector pay, leaving the European Union, the Malthouse compromise, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs agenda and reform of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, all within two hours. I shall learn yet another lesson about Northern Ireland debates on the Floor of this House, and just say what I think all the time at the very beginning.

A number of excellent interventions were made in the debate. I will talk about the speeches we heard, but the interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) were all interesting and important. I wish to put on record for the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) that the whole House wishes his uncle well; the hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but it is important that we recognise that we are all human in this business.

I thank all those who made speeches in the debate: the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith); the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson); my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland); the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who gave a fantastic speech and I associate myself with many of the comments he made; the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson); the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who made a characteristically passionate speech—I really appreciate the way in which he put his words and what he said—and, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The stand-out contribution came from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I thank him profusely for the conversations we have had over the course of the past weeks and months. I know that he really does want to get the best deal for Northern Ireland that works for both the nationalist and the Unionist communities, that is based on consent and that means that he can find the conditions to restore the institutions. I know that he and his party believe in devolution. He listed the number of things that he has managed to achieve during his leadership of his party, and he should be and can be rightly proud of what he has already achieved in that space.

The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been threatened for doing the job he should be doing is a disgrace—it is extraordinary. Unfortunately, everyone in this place has to come across such things. The people making these threats are cowards and idiots, and I know that they will not deter him. I have noticed in my time as Secretary of State that the number of followers someone has on Twitter, or X, does not necessarily equate to the number of brain cells they might have or the amount of common sense or decency they display as a human being. Those characteristics are personal and ones that someone can display as a human being. Unfortunately, some people choose to have a different persona when they are on social media and when they are emailing some really stupid things. I promise him that I shall work with him and use whatever power I have to make sure that he does not feel insecure in going about his business properly, because no parliamentarian should feel that. As I said, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

When we gathered to mark the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement last year, we noted that the hard-won gains of the peace process should be honoured by the restoration of the devolved institutions. There is broad agreement on the main substance of this Bill: that our priority must be to continue to restore devolution in Northern Ireland. I was asked about this by the shadow Front-Bench team, so let me say that that is the immediate issue on which I am completely concentrated.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central asked what other legislation there might be. There could be future legislation, but I do not want to be in that place. He asked me to make a statement if things move, in order to keep the House updated. I absolutely guarantee that I will do so, should things move forward. Of course, he would expect me to be prepared for all eventualities, and I will update the House on my plans if it does not prove possible to restore the Executive by the new deadline. But I really do hope that those plans will not be needed.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about public sector pay, and a number of other Members mentioned it. The Government recognise the vital work that public sector workers carry out and they should be fairly paid in recognition of that work. However, the UK Government do not have the authority to negotiate pay in Northern Ireland. I recognise that the uncertainty on pay awards is causing pressure on Northern Ireland finances, which is why the Government put a fair and generous financial package on the table, offering a new Executive a non-repayable injection of help to restore the Executive and manage that pressure.

[Gavin Robinson]

This is not intended to spoil the mood, but the trade unions would be quite upset if we did not take the opportunity to say that they are not asking the Northern Ireland Office to negotiate their pay; they will negotiate with their employers, as is right in the normal course of events. They are asking that the money that was secured and agreed in December be released to their employers, so that they can get on and have the negotiations.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is a complete package that is available for a restored Executive.

I promised at the beginning of this debate to be as brief as possible. I know that we have more work to do in this Parliament on different subjects, but I hope shortly to be in a position where I can return to this Dispatch Box celebrating the return of a wonderful institution of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Practically speaking, this step—to secure Royal Assent on this legislation—is the first step along that route.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Bill considered in Committee (Order, this day)

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I am well aware that time is limited; you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that so too is my capacity for repeating arguments that I have made many times previously. My party believes that this Bill is wrong in principle and that in practice it will not achieve the aims that the Secretary of State believes, no doubt with great sincerity, that it will. We will therefore be joining the official Opposition in voting to support the Lords amendments.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am grateful for the contributions made by Opposition Members thus far. A number of comments have been made this afternoon that relate more to Second Reading than to the stage we are at. It should come as no surprise to those in the Chamber to hear that to us this is an irredeemable piece of legislation. Even though we were highlighting in this Chamber on Second Reading and so on the areas where significant flaws were ultimately going to prove fatal to support for this Bill, the Government entrenched themselves. On a number of discrete issues, they committed in this democratically elected Chamber, where they ignored our requests, that they would proceed with such amendments in the Lords. I find that unsatisfactory, although I recognise that my colleagues in the Lords continue to push on those issues. With Lords Dodds principally among them, they have ensured that some of the commitments given have been honoured. However, that does not change the fact that this is a fundamental assault on justice, with the erosion of hope for victims and of the opportunity to get the answers they seek and the outcome they desire. Those things have been snuffed out by a Government who have entrenched themselves, and I greatly regret that.

This afternoon we have an opportunity, with discrete and sensible amendments before us, as the shadow Secretary of State has said. They were tabled by the Labour party in the House of Lords, and were advocated and supported by Members across the other place yesterday afternoon. This is an opportunity for the Government to salvage at least some appropriate involvement for victims, whereby they can have their say and a sense of the outcome that they seek.

A contribution was made yesterday by Lord Eames, and it is worth repeating. He said:

“Yes, there have been attempts to bring the concept of victimhood into the legislation that is proposed, and yes, the Government can claim that they have made efforts, but, in God’s name, I ask your Lordships to consider the overall impetus of what changes have been made to try to recognise the needs of victims and their families, and of those who, in years to come, when they read what has been said, attempted and failed to be produced, will find it incredulous to understand that the Mother of Parliaments has ignored their crying.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. 343.]

Those words were worth repeating this afternoon because Lord Eames is somebody who has led the Church of Ireland but is in this Parliament as a peacemaker, and who went through an ill-fated attempt to reconcile issues of legacy in the past, in a consultative report with Denis Bradley in 2009. Within this Parliament and within our society, he is somebody who probably buried more people in Northern Ireland during the troubles than anyone else. When he exhorts in such clear terms that there is an opportunity finally for the Government, at this last gasp, to show some recognition of the pain, trauma, harm and pursuit of justice that victims show, the fact that this Government would not accept it is a great shame.

The list of organisations has been given—it was given by a former Secretary of State, Lord Murphy, yesterday in the House of Lords and by the shadow Secretary of State here today—showing the lack of support for the legislation. We will go through the Lobby this afternoon to register yet again our disappointment at a failed opportunity by this Government, who are more focused on what they can get out of this Bill as they campaign for the forthcoming election than on solving the intractable issues that have plagued our society for so long.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), my constituency neighbour, but the content of my speech will be slightly different from hers.

I will not delve into the Committee stage, amendments that were tabled but not brought forward, or amendments that were needlessly provocative and stepped far away from the principles that the party that tabled them purport to stand for, but I want to talk about the Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is the second such budget Bill that has been before this House this year.

When we discussed the original Bill, it was just called the budget Bill, rather than No. 1 or No. 2. We were dealing with last year’s financial position and, at that stage, Members from my party introduced the discussion around need. We challenged the Government about their understanding of need, and we were patronised at that time. We were told, without any sense of irony, shame or knowledge of the facts, that in Northern Ireland we are over-funded and get £1.21 for every £1 that is spent in England.

But still we tried to bring the conversation back to assessed need and the similar process that Wales had to go through over five years with the Holtham Commission. However, there was no sense that the position that we were outlining, identified by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in September last year, was a position that recognised that while our Budget may grow by 3.6%, public spending in England was going to grow by 6%, or a recognition that by the end of this financial cycle households in Northern Ireland would each be £2,000 less well-off than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, and therefore there was a budgetary problem. It has taken from January of this year to now for that seed to start germinating.

When there is a recognition in public discourse that this is a punishment budget before us this evening—this has been described as a punishment budget, which has been ignored by those in power—and no decision is taken to change it meaningfully or beneficially for the people of Northern Ireland, it will hurt us economically. We cannot systemically assess Northern Ireland public finances and know that what Northern Ireland gets is less than what it needs and not recognise that that has a material impact on the delivery of public services. Yet that is exactly what we are discussing this evening. The Fiscal Council has now published and what it says is recognised. I remember the back and forth with the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I was grateful that he took on my request to carry out an inquiry on this issue. He has been on a journey and now recognises that when the Fiscal Council says what we need to deliver effective public services with £1.24, we are getting less than what we need. When that is done year on year, there is a compounding negative impact. It means that every year we are starting with less and that this budget simply has a recurring feature of making sure that public services in Northern Ireland are denied the money that they need to be operated effectively.

I know that repetition is not sinful in this place, but it is worth reiterating time and again that, until the Government embrace this discussion meaningfully and properly, Northern Ireland public services will not be able to flourish. Drastic decisions that are being taken and have been taken will continue to be taken.

[Simon Hoare]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying is undoubtedly true, but does he also accept—I think the Select Committee has been hearing this during our inquiry—that there is a real sense of frustration among many of the professional practitioners about the absence of the delivery of transformational change: delivering public services in a different way; or getting more bang for the buck, to put it more crudely. A functioning Executive in Stormont would lead to some big, bold and brave decisions. I understand that would be difficult for parties across the piece, but trying to deliver public services in the same old way in the absence of transformational change, given budgetary pressures across the public purse in respect of whichever party in the UK, is an opportunity that is missed and is to the detriment of people across the whole of Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson]

The best that can be hoped for in this scenario is that a return to devolved Government means that locally elected representatives and Ministers in an Executive can make the choices based on the information put before them. The hon. Gentleman cannot—nor can I—dictate what those choices should be. The choices have been there for previous Executives, yet I may argue that the wrong decisions have been made. But what I am suggesting in the here and now is what we can control. Not only are we continuing to finance less than what we need, but we are continuing to break parity between the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales.

The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who is in his place, will remember the pay award parity issue that abounded whenever he was embarking on the New Decade, New Approach discussions in 2019, culminating in a deal in 2020. The first nursing strike ever in any part of the United Kingdom was based on that pay parity issue alone. And here we are, just three years later, and parity has broken again. Here we are from the last financial year and we recognise that there is not only a £500 million projected overspend this year, but a £575 million public pay pressure. When we add on the overspend from last year, which was £297 million but now seems to be £254 million, the figure, whatever it is, takes us close to a deficit of £1.3 billion.

I agree with the Secretary of State when he said—I am sure with much thought—that Northern Ireland does not need the sticking plaster of a one-off financial package. Let me be very clear that not one person from my party, or anyone sensible from Northern Ireland, has suggested that what we need is a one-off, one-year sticking plaster to fix a problem that is of this Government’s making. We are asking for a pragmatic and mature reflection on how much it costs to deliver Northern Ireland’s public services, and to get on with recalibrating the Barnett formula to ensure that we can do so. That is what we need. That is not yet what we have. The choices will be there for a new Executive.

The second most drastic thing that I think the Government have introduced into the debate is the notional view that we just need to get on and raise revenue. You have heard it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister mentioned it this evening: a £27 billion budget for the forthcoming year. Take household rates, the biggest household contribution to the public finances that individuals make outside of tax and national insurance, with £1.7 billion raised each year. Can we honestly imagine indicating in a cost of living crisis to our public, businesses and wider society that they should double their domestic and non-domestic contributions to household rates? Doubling them would allow us to get close to where we need to be. No problem. By 2025, we will have £2,000 less than every household in England, but add another £2,000 on, please, to stand still. Get real. Transformation? I have an idea: let us raise money by increasing tuition fees.

That brings me back to when I replied to the hon. Member for North Dorset about the choices that an Executive will have. We cannot determine those, but in the past whenever people were saying that there should be an increase in tuition fees it was for a beneficial outcome. Increase tuition fees and we can get rid of the maximum student numbers cap. Increase tuition fees and we will be able to fund more places so that our best and brightest will no longer have to leave Northern Ireland to be educated in England, Scotland and Wales, or anywhere else in the world. Those were positive benefits from an increase in tuition fees, yet it was never politically acceptable. Now what is on offer is just raising the cost to stand still, or to provide public services when we know that what we get is not sufficient to match the need.

Nobody is asking for a sticking plaster. Nobody can say what the choices shall be. I did not intend to speak for as long as I have, and I want to let other people contribute, but here we are again, with the second budget Bill of the year and the same challenges. It is progress at least that on 5 July the Deputy Prime Minister accepted for the first time, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), our party leader, that finances in Northern Ireland need to be predicated on need. That was the first time that we had heard that. Having been dismissed and ignored in January, we had acceptance of it in July. Yet the challenge is there for the rest of the financial year.

The punishment budget that has been outlined and is being advanced this evening will continue to cripple the effective delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. I have heard nothing from the Northern Ireland Office, or from anyone else around Government, to suggest that they are in the space of turning that around within this financial year. We are halfway through it. We want to see political progress, but the idea that we get political progress only for an incoming Executive to falter because they cannot deliver for the people would be the biggest crime of all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I am very grateful to the Minister of State for his comments. I largely agree with him, but I will point to a certain disagreement on some aspects. I fully recognise that there have been past financial packages and problems with reform not being fully realised, particularly around integrated education, which is a clear example. We have to do better in that respect. From where we are, I do not see any alternative to trying to do that once again and learning the lessons from what happened in the past. I recognise that we have seen additional funding packages from the UK Government—obviously, we had a major uplift in support to deal with covid and its side effects on the economy, and that support was very welcome—but the fact is, as other Members have said, that our expenditure per head is not based on our need, and that fundamental point has to be recognised.

[Gavin Robinson]

I think it is helpful to emphasise at this point that, although the Minister indicated that this budget is exactly what an Executive would have been allocated were they in place, last year it was £322 million less than what an Executive would have needed, this year it is £431 million less than what an Executive would have needed, and the projection for next year is £458 million less. So in saying what he said, has the Minister not confirmed the real problem at the heart of this?

[Stephen Farry]

Indeed. I think we are talking to two separate points in that regard. Yes, the block grant would have been based on the current policy approach from the Government towards the Barnett formula and the assessment of need in Northern Ireland, but what we on these Benches are all saying is that we need to reassess the whole basis of how that is reflected. That is a conversation to be had. I would also take the point a bit further by saying that, if we had had an Executive in place, or indeed if we get an Executive in place shortly, that would be the form by which we could make this case much better to address both the fiscal squeeze and the negotiations on a financial package for Northern Ireland.

To give a human flavour to the scale of the crisis facing our society, I will close with one example of an area of crisis in Northern Ireland: special educational needs. There is a real crisis happening in that regard: the funding available is not meeting the levels of need. As I think all Members appreciate, this is one of the most sensitive areas, and one where Government has a duty to invest in children and ensure that their rights are properly protected. As we meet this evening, that is simply not the case in Northern Ireland. There are multiple failures to provide for children; the academic year has now started, but scores of young people still have not been allocated suitable special educational needs places. That has a major toll on parents and families—mental health issues and financial and career pressures—and on the children themselves, particularly a lack of opportunity, health and safety issues, a risk of regression and a lack of social inclusion. I appeal to Members, from whatever perspective we look at this—the Government in terms of setting the financial parameters, and also those who are still holding out for an Executive—that we need to get back to addressing those types of issues. That is what the coalface is like, and that is what we should be prioritising.

Police Service of Northern Ireland: Security and Data Protection Breach

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will happily find out the appropriate way of reporting, as the hon. Lady suggests. As I have said, I think this is going to have a very long tail, so the ramifications as it plays out will ripple through the system for a very long time indeed.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State to his place. I look forward to working with him. I also thank his predecessor for all his efforts to engage with us.

It is important to correct a number of inaccuracies in the Secretary of State’s response. There was no hidden table but, as is common with Excel spreadsheets, there was more than one field. There was human error, but there were five levels of security to assess what was going out, all of which failed. That speaks to systemic failure within the PSNI. I welcome the resignation of the Chief Constable this afternoon and I think it is important that collectively—politically and in society—we all work together. I hope the Secretary of State will support us in this to instil confidence again in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was such an expert in Excel. I am certainly not, so I am happy to be corrected by him on the detail of that, but I think my statement was pretty thorough and I agree with what he says.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I will happily explain a bit later, when I have finished what I am saying.

Turning now to the role of victims and families, through our extensive engagement with stakeholders we have sought to make the Bill more victims-centred. To achieve that, I am placing the commission, when exercising its functions, under a duty to have regard to the general interests of persons affected by troubles-related deaths and serious injury. The Bill will also make it clear that in exercising its functions, the commission’s principal objective is to promote reconciliation. That is a crucial overarching principle that will embed the need to promote reconciliation in everything the ICRIR does when carrying out its work.

The commission will also be placed under a new duty to offer victims and their families the opportunity to submit personal impact statements, setting out how they have been affected by a troubles-related death or serious injury. The statements must be published if the person making the statement so wishes, subject to limited exceptions that ensure no individuals are put at risk and that the Government’s duty to keep people safe and secure is upheld. We tabled the amendment as a direct result of engagement with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors in Northern Ireland, who maintained it was crucial that victims had a voice in this process. We agree.

The Government fully recognise the need for the commission to have credibility, expertise and legitimacy so that effective investigations can be carried out and information provided to families as soon as possible. On 11 May, I announced the intended appointment of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, as chief commissioner-designate, having obtained input from the Lord Chief Justices of Northern Ireland, and England and Wales, and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, all of whom I would like to thank publicly. To allay further concerns around the integrity and independence of the immunity process, the Government’s Lords amendments place a duty on the commission to produce guidance that is related to determining a request for immunity. That will replace the power that previously rested with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

There are also amendments relating to oral history and memorialisation. We are, I am afraid, never going to agree in Northern Ireland on a common narrative about the past, but we can aim to put in place structures to help all in society, including future generations, have a better understanding of the past, with the overarching aim of enabling people to move forwards. Therefore, our memorialisation strategy will seek to build consensus around inclusive new initiatives to commemorate those lost in the troubles and seek to ensure that lessons of the past are not forgotten. I fully understand concerns raised regarding the need to prevent the glorification of terrorism in relation to the memorialisation strategy and other measures in part 4. As a result, we have added an overarching requirement to clause 48 so that designated persons must have regard to the need to ensure that the way in which the troubles-related work programme is carried out promotes reconciliation, anti-sectarianism and non-recurrence.

We also amended the Bill to broaden the requirement to consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister with a duty to consult organisations that are experienced in reconciliation and anti-sectarianism, and to consult relevant Northern Ireland Departments before deciding on a response to each recommendation in the memorialisation strategy. We added an additional requirement in clause 50 that the Secretary of State must consult organisations that have an expertise in reconciliation and anti-sectarianism before designating persons for the purposes of this part of the Bill.

There are also Government amendments relating to interim custody orders. We have made the amendments in response to concerns raised by Members of both Houses over the 2020 Supreme Court ruling concerning the validity of the interim custody orders made under the troubles-era internment legislation. To be clear, it has always been the Government’s understanding that interim custody orders made by Ministers of the Crown under powers conferred on the Secretary of State were perfectly valid. In order to restore clarity around the legal position and to make sure that no one is inappropriately advantaged by a different interpretation of the law on a technicality, the Government tabled amendments that retrospectively validate all interim custody orders made under article 4 of the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, as well as paragraph 11 of section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. That has the effect of confirming that a person’s detention under an ICO was not unlawful simply because it had been authorised by a junior Minister rather than by the Secretary of State personally.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has made an important point about the R v. Adams case and the disregarding of the Carltona principle by the Supreme Court in 2020, and he is right to affirm the Government’s view that the signing of warrants by a Minister of the Crown was always a lawful act, but why has this taken three years, and why did the amendments originate from the Back Benches rather than the Government? Is the Secretary of State right to describe them as Government amendments? For a great many people in Northern Ireland who thought that this was a welcome step during Bill’s passage, it came rather late.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Well, perhaps it is a case of better late than never. These are Government amendments, but I am the first to admit that amazingly good ideas sometimes emerge from the Back Benches of both Houses of Parliament.

The amendments could also prohibit certain types of legal proceedings—including civil cases, applications for compensation as a result of miscarriages of justice and appeals against conviction, which rely on the 2020 ruling—from being brought or continued. To align with the other prohibitions in the Bill, the continuation of pending claims and appeals in scope would be prohibited immediately from commencement. There is a specific exemption in the Bill for certain types of ongoing criminal appeals, where leave to appeal has already been granted or where there has been a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission by the time of the Bill’s commencement. The exception would not allow for the payment of compensation flowing from the reversal of such convictions, and I want to make it clear that the amendment would not lead to the reinstatement of convictions that had already been reversed.

There are other amendments relating to criminal justice outcomes. The Government’s primary focus has always been on establishing one effective legacy body seeking to provide better outcomes for families. We also want to ensure that organisations such as the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the judiciary are able to concentrate their capabilities on more present-day issues.

It remains our view that the independent commission, when established, should be the sole body responsible for troubles-related cases, but we are also mindful of the concerns raised about the ending of the ongoing processes, especially given the current legislative timetable and the expected timeframe for the commission’s becoming fully operational. Our amendments would therefore ensure that ongoing criminal investigations, ombudsman investigations, the consideration of prosecution decisions, coronial inquests, and the publication of reports will continue until 1 May 2024, when the commission will become fully operational. We hope that the additional time provided will allow such cases to conclude their work, while ensuring a smooth transition between the ending of the current mechanisms and the commission’s taking on full responsibility for outstanding legacy cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We have seven Members who wish to speak. I will impose a seven-minute time limit to make sure that everybody gets in.

[Gavin Robinson]

I appreciate the brevity with which the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) spoke, and the fact that Members from all parties representing Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to speak. I thank the Secretary of State for at least engaging in the debate in a way that is constructive, non-combative and as compassionate as possible, as I believe he has this afternoon. That has been markedly absent from some previous debates on the Bill that were not led by him.

The Secretary of State was right that different victims have different approaches. Victims are frustrated with the continuous obnoxious attitude that it is information that they need. For some that is undoubtedly true, but many others know exactly who perpetrated acts of violence against their family. They know exactly which neighbours in their community are responsible for taking the lives of their loved ones. It is not an answer that they seek; it is justice.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Government for accepting many of the amendments that we tabled last year. He mentioned the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 provisions, and wrongly credited one of his colleagues; that was an amendment tabled by my colleagues and me. The increase in fines is also beneficial to the Bill. The ability to revoke immunity should somebody obtain it through deception, deceit and lies is good—that provision was tabled in the House of Commons. The Government committed to deliver it in the House of Lords, and we are grateful that they did so. The Government also made a commitment on the amendment to clause 21(4) that we tabled in the Commons, and they delivered on it in the Lords.

All those amendments are beneficial, but none of them removes the irredeemable quality of the Bill. I have heard people, particularly in the other place, describe our position as populist, and refer, as the Secretary of State did, to previous efforts. Let me be clear: colleagues who predate my time in this House—colleagues in my party and in other parties represented here—stood against on-the-runs legislation as something that was immoral under the Labour Government, and actively opposed the Conservative Government when it was shown that they had been providing letters of comfort to terrorists. We did so because the Government’s position was immoral.

Today, we say that the Bill is irredeemable not because we are populist on this issue, but because we are principled on it. The quest for justice, be it from last week, last year or 50 years ago, is as important for those affected by the vagaries of terrorism today as it was at the time of their loss. We do not believe that the Government have gone far enough on the provisions regarding the glorification of terrorism. The Bill is about bringing communities together and resolving the issues of the past, not absolving individuals of their crimes and ignoring the memory and hurt of victims.

As I mentioned, I was pleased that the Government resolved the compensation issue related to the Adams case. I am sorry to say that, although they have taken steps to consider some of the aspects of investigations that touch on criminality, and have moved some way in their position in response to Lords amendment 20, for us they have not moved far enough. Whether the Bill and the Government’s actions are compatible with their obligations under the European convention on human rights will ultimately be a matter for the courts, but it does not pass our smell test for what we believe is righteous or just.

That is why we will vote against the Government when it comes to Lords amendment 44. We will vote against the ability to offer immunity to terrorists and to ensure that they never face justice for their crimes, and subsequently to give them the ability to talk openly and freely about their exploits, as those who have already been convicted do. We do not need a crystal ball to guess that people who are unencumbered by the justice system will have the freedom not only to share their experience, but to torment their victims and their victims’ loved ones further. That is the true reality of what will happen, because glorification of terrorism has not been satisfactorily addressed in the Government’s amendments.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, and we could consider introducing a needs-based factor into the Barnett formula for Northern Ireland—it would be a similar mechanism to that implemented in Wales—to put Northern Ireland’s public finances on a more sustainable footing. However, the absence of a functioning Executive has an impact on what can be done to address the systemic issues that Northern Ireland faces. Locally accountable leadership is urgently required to ensure that Northern Ireland has a stable and flourishing economy, and to advocate for reform of Northern Ireland’s public finances. To completely answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, negotiations between the Welsh Government and the Treasury on a fiscal framework and Barnett formula adjustments took over seven years. This is not an issue that could be solved overnight, even with the best will in the world.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for that confirmation that he is at least willing to discuss considering public finances on the basis of need. Of course, the reason why the Holtham Commission process took so long was that it was the first example of the Government having to get their head around need—they had to understand it, and recognise that the public finances should respond to need. Now that the principle is clear, surely he does not believe that it would take as long this time around.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I very much hope that no discussion with a future Executive would take seven years to come to any conclusion. In the meantime, we have a responsibility to ensure that public services and the management of public funds can continue. That is why I have commissioned a range of information and advice from the Northern Ireland civil service on potential measures for raising more public revenue and otherwise improving the sustainability of public finances in Northern Ireland that an incoming Executive could consider. That is the UK Government’s first step in supporting the development of revenue-raising measures in Northern Ireland. It will allow us to better understand the challenges of taking this work forward, and support the Northern Ireland civil service in delivering it. The Government have for many years recognised the unique challenges that Northern Ireland faces. We have provided around £7 billion in extra funding to Northern Ireland since 2014, on top of the Barnett-based block grant.

I am grateful to officials in the Northern Ireland civil service for keeping public services running until an Executive are in place. The Government will continue to support the Northern Ireland civil service where we can, but it is important to note that responsibility for the difficult spending decisions flowing from this budget will ultimately continue to rest with the Northern Ireland Departments in the absence of an Executive. I do not want that to happen, and I encourage the people of Northern Ireland to urge their locally elected politicians to return to Stormont, so that decisions can be taken by those who were democratically elected to do that. As I say, the difficulties that Northern Ireland Departments face are a result of tough decisions not having been taken by elected representatives in Northern Ireland, not just this year, but over successive years. Funding alone will not solve the issues; that will require strong, responsible leadership, backed by a stable, devolved Government. We need the Executive back, so that they can progress much-needed and long-promised public service transformation.

Like others, I welcome the parties’ ongoing discussions with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service. There is a great deal of work going on behind the scenes about what a plan for government, and a budget for government, would look like, and how critical issues will be addressed when the Executive come back—issues such as budget sustainability and better, more efficient public services, which should be everyone’s priority. However, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service has written to me to say that things now need to become more political. In a way, I agree, but if that is to happen, all the parties must confront hard choices and ensure stability, rather than regular political crisis.

We must restore confidence in the institutions and show the people of Northern Ireland and the world what good devolved government looks like. I look forward to speaking with all the party leaders in the coming weeks, and receiving their proposals for the budget and a programme for government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) because, in fairness, she has added a new and useful level to the debate. Hers was a very worthwhile contribution, so I thank her for participating and hope that she shows a renewed and continued vigorous interest in the issues of Northern Ireland.

There have been a number of very useful contributions so far in this debate, if we set aside that from the honourable Healy-Rae from Foyle—the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). We enjoy the hon. Member oscillating from a year and a half ago, when he was spending his time cajoling, provoking, ridiculing and mocking my leader and my party at a time when we were raising serious issues, to today, when he is poking, prodding, encouraging and saying, “Just get back to work”, again ignoring serious issues and not recognising the sincerity with which we have sought to highlight and the aspiration to address the issues that are frustrating the proper operation of devolution.

We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who talked about the imbalance between what was attempted to address the deficiency in democratic accountability on issues agreed in Europe and the lack of provision and the danger associated with divergence on Bills brought forward through this place. This week and last, for example, the Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 has been but one issue that jars entirely with what the Prime Minister said when the Windsor Framework was published.

We can see clearly how that will treat parcels coming to and from Northern Ireland as foreign parcels, and we can see clearly how it up-ends the commitments given to the people of Northern Ireland during the Windsor framework process—lest we forget—when the majority of parties in Northern Ireland said that there were no problems with the withdrawal agreement and that it should be rigorously implemented on the people of Northern Ireland. When the Windsor framework was published, they said it was a wonderful solution, yet here we are even today, and we can see that the issues left unresolved will continue to plague and cause difficulty for the shared aspiration of restoring devolution. I say that at the outset, because it is important to consider again the context of why we are considering this Bill.

When we have debates such as this, Members will hear criticism, and I will not shy away from that. From my perspective, touching on the principle of this Bill and the reason why we are here today, the Northern Ireland Office has not done enough, the Government have not given enough and the people have had just about enough. When I say that they have not done enough, we should listen to the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). He and I do not share the same political perspective on these things, but he highlights accurately that here we are debating a Bill that has not had any pre-legislative scrutiny and that has not been before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

We are implementing and allocating resource to a budget that has not been section 75 screened, and it is having huge and undetermined consequences for the public sector in Northern Ireland and the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. Even if Members are willing, and I am not, to forget about them, it is affecting the ability of our Government Departments to fulfil their statutory functions—to educate children, to care for the elderly, to heal the sick. It is not me saying that, but every permanent secretary who has sought to engage with the Northern Ireland Office and has highlighted how difficult this process would be.

When the Children’s Law Centre, in the most non-party political way possible, writes to me and every other Member of Parliament to highlight just how deficient this process has been, it is amazing to see in the explanatory notes that the Bill is being rushed through because it is urgent. The written ministerial statement was issued on 27 April, and yet there has been nothing in between, knowing that the allocation on 27 April was not sufficient, and knowing at the time that permanent secretaries were saying they could provide their statutory and core functions, never mind extras such as extended schools or support for the most vulnerable members of our society. Let us not forget that that was a choice that the Northern Ireland Office made.

The explanatory notes say that there was no pre-legislative scrutiny, no consultation, and no equalities screening because the Bill had to be rushed, but when will Committee stage be? We do not know. Such a rush, but the Committee has not been scheduled. We hear that we are getting to the stage when things are becoming political. We also hear that there will need to be another Northern Ireland Bill—a Bill that gives the Secretary of State the ability to make decisions on behalf of permanent secretaries.

For the last two months, since the written ministerial statement about the allocation, there has been nothing. There has been no consultation on or scrutiny of the Bill, because it has to be rushed, but we do not know when its remaining stages will be. We now hear that there is need for a third Bill—by the way, a Bill specifically to provide the powers that the Northern Ireland civil service asked for, but that the Secretary of State chose not to include, in the Northern Ireland Budget Bill that received Royal Assent on 8 February. The Northern Ireland civil service provided draft provisions to the Northern Ireland Office, which refused to advance them. Now we hear that there is need of a third Bill, but we all know that there are very few weeks of parliamentary time left before this Session concludes. There will be recess in the summer. There are a couple of sitting weeks in September, but there are precious few weeks left. The Government are playing at this, and the NIO has not given enough.

I remember the debates that we had back in January about the Northern Ireland Budget Bill, and I remember the Minister of State responding, “Northern Ireland gets £1.20 where my constituents get just £1.” I remember crying out in the wilderness back in January about the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, and the difference between what we are allocated and what we need. The only difference now is that more people seem to engage with that argument. The Fiscal Council has revised downwards its figure of how much spending Northern Ireland needs to England’s £1, from £1.28 to £1.24. Year on year, financial cycle after financial cycle, there is a deficit in the resources that we get. There is a compounding negative impact on the ability to deliver public services in Northern Ireland.

New Decade, New Approach was mentioned. That, and some of the industrial relation issues that arose at the time, were about pay parity. Pay for public sector workers in Northern Ireland was not keeping up with that for their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales. Parity was achieved in 2020, yet the rates in Northern Ireland are now growing ever faster apart from those in England, Scotland and Wales.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

indicated dissent.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he knows the figures. In the next financial year, public spending in Northern Ireland will increase by 3.6%; public spending in England will increase by 6%. The disparity between what we get and what we need, and between what we get and what other parts of the United Kingdom get, continues to grow. That compounds the difficulties.

Some £297 million is scheduled to be taken out of our allocation this year and next. We are supposed to be grateful for the fact that it will not be taken out this year, and that the cut will be spread over two years. There is a projected overspend this year of £500 million, and a deficit of £575 million from public pay awards. That is £1.4 billion before we even start. I do not say that to be boring or over-detailed. Do I even care whether the Government agree with those figures? Not really, but people who should share our aspiration for a positive return to devolution when the circumstances are right need to recognise that there is nothing positive about the consequences of this budget—nothing positive at all. I am not an Assembly Member, but I suspect precious few will wish to take responsibility for the austerity and cuts that this Government have provided. That is why I say that people have just about had enough. They are not unfamiliar in Northern Ireland, despite how frustrating it is, with political discord. They understand the challenges in devolved Government. It is not lost on people, when we have just celebrated 25 years of the Good Friday agreement, that, for 40% of those 25 years, devolution did not operate. In fact, the majority of the time that it did operate was when the DUP and Sinn Féin were leading it, but the people of Northern Ireland are not unfamiliar with the frustrating circumstances that we find ourselves in. However, they want to hear a bit of realism.

When the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is not with us today, was batting back and forth with me in January on need and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, he dismissed those points. In fairness to him, we corresponded thereafter—it is not often I praise him, by the way—and he took my initiative. He talked to his colleagues and got Committee agreement to hold an inquiry on these financial issues. The evidence sessions have been useful, highly illuminating and will be in our best interests. That is why I say people want to see realism. They want to see us working together.

Yes, we will disagree about different methods and different ways of doing things, but we should recognise that, when there is a core problem, we need to work on the core solution. When there is a deficiency in how we are funded in Northern Ireland, we need to work to address that. When we need more resource simply to stand still—not to provide luxuries, but to provide essential services that people need and rely upon in Northern Ireland—we will do that collectively if needs be, but the Government should not sit back and wait for some collective ask. They know the facts and they have ignored the facts for month after month.

I am delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that they will now engage in the discussion on need. That is a departure from what the Northern Ireland Office has been saying for months. It is not a departure for Government in policy terms, given what has gone through in Wales previously, and it should not all be one-size-fits-all. We need to ensure that we invest not only in the financial aspects of how we deliver for people in Northern Ireland, but in Northern Ireland itself.

Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claire Hanna]

I rise to speak to amendment 6 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and to make brief comments on a couple of other amendments.

We absolutely echo and share the frustrations of others that we are doing yet another of these Bills in this place. I am struggling to think of a single such Bill—certainly in the three and a half years that we have been here—that was neither a cause nor an effect of Stormont dysfunction, which occupies rather too much time here and limits our potential. We understand the need for interim decision making, but the Bill risks going too far in bypassing Assembly scrutiny. Our amendments aim to address that by guarding against the potential use of graduated responses or the other fairly unedifying stunts that we have seen when the Assembly is being used as a political tool or weapon, and against the cynical use of such Bills to do things that damage public services in the name of reform, as a way to avoid responsibility and scrutiny.

The DUP’s new clause 1(3) instances the possibility of the Assembly functioning in some way alongside these new powers in the absence of an Executive. I want to be absolutely clear: there is, as others have said, no alternative in the here and now to devolution under the Good Friday institutions. People are ready to suspend their disbelief one more time and go back in to make that work, but a graduated response allowing these powers to be deployed to do all the grisly stuff through indirect rule, and turning it into some soap opera where everybody is hopping up and down and opposing the changes, will not be appropriate.

We cannot set up civil servants to instigate and drive controversial issues only to get them out of the way before everyone goes back in. We absolutely need reform in public services, but we need it to be done with scrutiny, not just as a mask for austerity. It needs to be done in a way that builds public trust so that people say, “Yes, you may lose service A, but you will gain service B and C”. Amendment 6 would support and evidence some of those necessary reforms by designing in a role for the Fiscal Council—a body that we have been hugely supportive of—as well as for the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commissions as consultees. Those bodies are truly creatures of the Good Friday agreement. They are there for a reason and they should have a role in this as well, to give them a locus and so that, as I say, it is not used in a cynical way.

I want to address briefly the contradictions in the messaging we are getting about sustainable finances. There is, rightly, a serious public conversation going on about the sustainability of Stormont’s finances and structures. It is absolutely right to tackle the lack of responsibility-taking in our region, which in its century of existence has never enjoyed good governance. It is appropriate that we do that in a genuinely transformative way.

I also want to address the contradiction in what has been said about sustainable services in the light of the punishing and severe budget we face. What is more sustainable to invest in than children and young people, their health, education, future and resilience? The proposed cuts to the extended schools programme, Bright Start mental health support, pathway funds, education authority schools and youth services—alongside the loss of European social funding for Women’s Centre, which provides childcare and many other forms of family support—are the furthest thing from being sustainable. St Malachy’s youth club in the market area of my constituency does a mind-blowing array of interventions with young people, including homework support, citizenship, fitness, nutrition and lawfulness, making them good citizens and getting them ready for the world and the jobs out there. What is sustainable about its finances being cut by over a third, which will undermine all of its work with those young people? We have put off hard decisions for too long, but it is really important that this Bill is not used as a mask for the same austerity that we have had for over a decade, which does not change outcomes and limits the potential of our young people and of our economy, because they are its future.

I want to address a couple of other amendments. Amendment 1 is a vital intervention by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has, crucially, been vigilant on the ticking timebomb of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which has the potential not only to deepen and widen the implications of any sea border for goods and for rights, but to dramatically undermine economic sectors and actors on this island. We have absolutely no interest in doing that, so I hope that the reports that there has been change of direction on that very damaging Bill—like others, we wish to hear about those reports in the appropriate place and to have the opportunity to scrutinise them—are correct.

Finally, I support amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), which is prudent and sensible in addressing the cost of division. It is time to get on. There is endemic division in our schools and communities. It is time to get past pointing at it and to start the process of reform, transformation and giving people a feasible way to live shared and integrated lives.

[Gavin Robinson]

I rise to speak to amendment 5, tabled by my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), our Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and other colleagues. I hope that the Minister of State has considered it positively, and I look forward to hearing that the Secretary of State agrees with it. He will know that it does not any way undermine the substance of his Bill, but that it will be hugely important in assisting him in gathering information as part of his consultation exercise, as we navigate and chart our course through the myriad issues discussed this afternoon relating to dangers to public finances.

I do not think that anyone in the Chamber will disagree that I have probably said enough. The long and short of my aspiration is that the Minister of State, given all the pleasant support he has received from us to date, will look favourably on amendment 5.

[Stephen Farry]

I cannot promise to be quite as brief as my colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), but I will try. Essentially, I want to speak to those amendments that stand in my name: amendments 2, 3 and 4, which are all focused on the issue of financial sustainability. We recognise the line that the Government have put into the Bill, and I seek to encourage the Minister to take it forward in a substantive way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker]

I very much appreciate the contribution everyone has made. Everybody who has spoken in today’s debate is very much seized of the issues and very well informed. They have made their points with great force.

The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) raises the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, so I will turn first to amendments 4 and 5 on relative need and needs-based spending. Provisions in the Bill already allow the UK Government to work with the Northern Ireland civil service on fiscal sustainability for the benefit of people across Northern Ireland, so neither amendment is strictly needed. I do not think it would be right for me to commit the Secretary of State to a particular piece of advice or consultation, but we have of course heard the debate—I listened extremely closely to it—and we are all fully committed to the sustainability of the finances, and to treating people justly and fairly.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Minister knows that the DUP tabled amendment 5 and there is a decision to be taken on whether to press it, or amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), to a Division. If the Minister does not wish to commit the Secretary of State to accepting our amendment or to commissioning advice on the basis of the work of the Fiscal Council, it would be very useful if he would at least commit the Secretary of State to engaging with me and colleagues on this issue, so that when advice is commissioned and he is consulting, we can incorporate this as part of the advice he seeks.

[Mr Baker]

Yes, of course. We would be delighted to engage with the hon. Gentleman. We have already said, in relation to commissioning advice and the draft guidance, that we are very happy to engage with Members of all parties, and I am grateful to him for that intervention.

On amendment 6, on the Executive Committee, we believe—with apologies—that it would be unworkable. The decision-making provisions apply only to functions exercised in the absence of Ministers, so once Ministers have been appointed, they can no longer have any practical effect.

Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I support this Bill as a necessity, without any particular enthusiasm, and I echo and endorse entirely what my hon. Friend the Minister said in exhorting political parties to get back into Stormont to deliver for people. I also echo the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), about the importance of learning from the process of talks and leadership that got us to the Good Friday agreement. We cannot sit like latter-day Mr Micawbers, waiting for something to turn up; we have to try to make the weather. I suggest to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that if conversations are not already being had with Dublin as one of the two capital co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, they should re-inject some energy, pull people in and find out precisely what the issues are and what, if anything, can be done to address them and rebuild trust, in order to get back to serving the people of Northern Ireland through directly elected politicians.

Over this coronation weekend, I learned from our vicar in Blandford Forum a new Henry Ford quote—it was new to me, although possibly not to anybody else. Henry Ford once said that if he had asked the population at the time what they wanted, they would not have said a motor car; they would have said that they wanted a faster horse. Sometimes, we as politicians have to make the weather, and show leadership and shape the debate, rather than merely echo what the base has to say. That requires the vision, the courage and the bravery that we saw from that political class in the mid-1990s, running through to the Good Friday agreement. I am an optimist, and I believe that that spirit of delivery in public service still exists. It is not beyond the wit of this place and the political parties in Northern Ireland to resurrect it and to see Stormont come back.

I think we all recognise that for too long, bold and brave policy initiatives in Northern Ireland have been slightly less to the fore. There has been a tendency to ask for additional moneys from the Treasury, and the Treasury coughing up and providing it through some avenue or another. Everybody is conscious of the unique history of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, and therefore of the additional needs for public expenditure and intervention that are required, which are different from any other part of the UK. However, as we, hopefully, move forward—we discussed this at the Select Committee this morning, and Sir David Sterling certainly echoed this point—in order to deliver step changes of improvement for those who use public services, a greater reliance on match funding from the Treasury needs to be looked at. That means that local politicians in Northern Ireland deliver new streams of money, either through revenue or expenditure savings, and the Treasury provides new money. To just continually provide new money with no concomitant reform from Belfast does not serve any particular purpose, and arguably raises too many questions in the minds of English voters as to why they are not getting a greater share of the public purse than, for example, those in Northern Ireland, because they too readily and easily forget the difficult history.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will remember that back in January, he and I argued the toss on issues of how Northern Ireland is financed. Since then, I appreciate that he took a letter from me. He understood exactly where I was coming from on the structural improvements required for the funding of Northern Ireland and launched an inquiry in that regard. I appreciate those efforts, but I regret that even today he is talking about coughing up on a regular basis more and more money from the Treasury, when he knows from the Fiscal Council that this is not a separate discussion about reform, though that is necessary and important for the delivery of public services. Northern Ireland is structurally underfunded by this Parliament, and it has been for years, with a compounding impact on the ability to deliver public services. Rather than pitch us against his constituents in England, would it not be better for him to reflect on the structural underfunding, the resolve to get Northern Ireland to a more sustainable place with public finances and the need to use a comparator such as Wales, which went through exactly the same process 15 years ago, culminating in a financial uplift 10 years ago?

[Simon Hoare]

Let me answer that point first. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point, and I am grateful to him for being the genesis for the Committee’s current inquiry, which is proving incredibly useful. He is right to talk about the disparity, and perhaps the phrase “coughing up” might not have been the most elegant I could have used, but he knows me well enough to know that elegance is not one of my greatest strengths. I can almost feel a second letter of “I agree with you” coming from him. He will be pleased to know that the one he sent me some months ago adorns the wall of the downstairs loo, as a rare thing of him agreeing with something that I said in this place in a debate on Northern Ireland.

In all seriousness—this is a point we discussed upstairs in Committee—constituents in England, Wales and Scotland are paying for things that residents of Northern Ireland currently are not paying for. While he is right to point to some of the structural imbalances, it does need to be a two-way street. There should not be an opportunity for the continuance of water and other things being outwith the charging mechanisms while expecting additional resource from Treasury to meet that gap. If he has looked at the reports of the Fiscal Council, he will see clearly the amount of money that could be generated by introducing charges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I appreciate being called earlier than I had anticipated, Mr Deputy Speaker. We had a brief conversation earlier, and despite what you said, the prospect of another four and a half hours of debate is probably too tantalising to ignore. Although normally I do not speak for long, I may take the opportunity to speak a little longer this afternoon. [Interruption.] I jest.

Like others, I lament the fact that we are debating this Bill this afternoon and dealing with a Northern Ireland Office that, yet again, I am sorry to say, is missing a crucial opportunity. It is a Northern Ireland Office that has lost any sense of strategic direction; it has lost the ability to engage, understand and resolve some of the pressures that we have in Northern Ireland. I lament the fact that the relationships from which we benefited over the last few decades no longer exist, and I lament, more than anything else, the fact that, while the Bill has been described this afternoon as legislation that closes a constitutional gap—or continues a governance gap—that opportunity has been 100% missed.

It did not need to be this way. The Northern Ireland Office had been actively engaged with the Northern Ireland civil service over the last three or four months, and had drafted provisions for the Bill that would have given the Secretary of State step-in powers and the opportunity to assist with some of the difficult decisions that are facing our Northern Ireland public service Departments. However, the NIO actively chose to leave those provisions out of the Bill. I know that this is not a Committee stage, but because new clause 5 has not been selected, I will say now that we tabled it to highlight the point that the choices that now rest with permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland are unfathomable. The opportunity was there for political direction on the taking of decisions when political direction was required, but those in the Northern Ireland Office have chosen not to take it. They will continue to say what they have said over the last few months—“It is not for us to make political choices”—but that is a political choice that they have made.

When the Government raised the rates in Northern Ireland this year, while still talking about revenue raising and the need for more finance to come from Northern Ireland, they made a political choice. They increased the burden on homeowners, domestic ratepayers, by 6%, and excluded businesses by freezing their regional rate. They made a political choice. When they talk about revenue raising, they know that some £1.5 billion to £1.7 billion a year is raised from revenue. If every domestic and non-domestic ratepayer in Northern Ireland paid 50% on top of their bills that are due next week, that would still not cover the shortfall that faces Northern Ireland Departments as a result of the budget given to them by the NIO.

When that budget was delivered last week, it was delivered in the explicit knowledge of the decisions that permanent secretaries would have to make, but cannot make. Everyone in the Chamber is aware of the legislative preclusions that prevent them from making those decisions. Members know the impact of the Buick and JR80 judgments. They know that the permanent secretaries cannot do that. They had indicated in advance to the Northern Ireland Office—to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State—that the budget that they were handed would mean they would have to take decisions that would conflict fundamentally with the statutory obligations and duties that they have to undertake. They cannot do it.

While the flexibility on the £279 million is useful in one sense, it is hugely dangerous in another, given the damage that it will do through the breach of parity in public pay awards between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Anything that is agreed in the forthcoming weeks and months in England will benefit public workers in England but not those in Northern Ireland, and that gap will grow. The flexibility is useful, but given the direct knowledge of the underspend and the challenging decisions that will have to be taken, it is outrageous that that is the sort of offer that our Departments have received.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Member is saying about the failure of the Northern Ireland Office to address the governance gap, but does he not think it is a little bit difficult for people to hear him say such things when his party has the power to address all the concerns he has been raising if they return to the Executive? While he is right to criticise the Government, surely he should also exercise some self-reflection on the role of his own party, because all those ills could be cured by him and his colleagues tomorrow.

[Gavin Robinson]

I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. He knows it is the biggest falsehood that is being peddled today, and it was addressed earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). If the Executive were up and running tomorrow, the fundamental damage being caused by the budget and the fundamental choices having to be made would still be there, but the resource would not. Departments are saying today that there is an £800 million shortfall in their ability to deliver, and that they will now have to take decisions that conflict with their statutory obligations, and that same choice will be there tomorrow unless the Government say that they will reflect on the systematic and systemic underfunding of the Northern Ireland budget, and will recognise that the Barnett formula must be assessed on the basis of need. Unless that happens, the choices that are there today will be the choices that are there tomorrow.

Let me spell it out. What do we know from the Department of Justice? It is hundreds of millions of pounds short of what it needs. The police alone do not have enough money to cover last year’s shortfall, let alone an additional £35 million shortfall this year. Where can they make the cuts? They can make them through headcount and non-pay. On headcount, we know that devolution was restored in 2020 under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which recognised that policing numbers needed to reach 7,500. In March this year the figure was 6,700, and it is projected to be 6,400 in March next year. That is the sort of choice that is available today to a permanent secretary, and would be available tomorrow to a restored Government.

Earlier today, the Minister of State was answering questions about the cost of living crisis, but yesterday we heard from the Department for Communities about the extent of its shortfall. A third of the social homes that were planned to be built this year cannot be built: 2,000 were projected, and 1,400 will be delivered. No money is available for the new health assessments associated with benefits, and there is not enough money to progress the assessment of benefit applications. That is what has been delivered by the NIO: choices that are there today and would still be there tomorrow if there were a return to devolution.

Then there is the enormous shortfall in the Department for Infrastructure, where the permanent secretary is highlighting her statutory obligations and the money she does not have in order to meet them. So what are her choices? To stop gritting the roads? To stop treating waste water? How often do we hear about the importance of climate issues and looking after our environment? But that is one of the choices available to the permanent secretary in the Department for Infrastructure. Another is to turn off the street lights. I do not think that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State or the NIO is interested in streetlights. The only thing in which they seem to be interested at present is gaslights, because the politics of all this has been about gaslighting people in Northern Ireland. What is psychologically questioning our understanding of how finances work, and telling us that we are overfunded when we know that we are structurally underfunded—standing in this Chamber and saying, “Oh, but Northern Ireland gets 121% of what people in England get”, when we know that that is less than what Northern Ireland needs—if it is not gaslighting? That is the diet that we have had over the past number of months, and it seems certain that that is the diet that we are going to continue to get.

The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council has been explicit. When I talked about the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in this Chamber in January and last year, whoosh, it went straight over people’s heads. It meant nothing. I know that sometimes the figures in these documents are boring, but they are crucially important in terms of the ability to deliver public services for everyone in Northern Ireland.

I represent a constituency that has some incredibly affluent areas, but it also has some incredibly deprived areas where social deprivation is a real thing. Wards in my constituency feature in the top 10 most deprived wards in Northern Ireland. In the Mount ward, at the bottom of my constituency, just off the Newtownards Road, 25% of children are leaving primary school without basic literacy and numeracy skills. Forget the 11-plus—they are going on to secondary school without the basic ability to read, write and count. What has this budget delivered? It has delivered an end to the extended schools programme and an end to free books for babies. Just a few months ago, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee visited EastSide Learning in my constituency. The chairman cheekily asked, “I see those books—the spines haven’t been broken. Does anyone read them?” He was informed that they were brand new books, but the Department of Education is not going to be able to give brand new books to children in my constituency any more. It is outrageous.

The Pathway funding, which is about ensuring the social, emotional and cognitive development of young children before they get to nursery and primary school, is not going to be there. The Department of Education has said that from June there is no money available for such vital developmental early years intervention. Whether it is the Dee Street and the Ballymacarrett youth centre or the Bloomfield Community Association youth centre, all of these interventions matter. The public services that are delivered in Northern Ireland matter, and this budget fundamentally constrains the opportunity to provide for the needs of those children and our constituents right across Northern Ireland. The opportunity was there, and it should be there, to make a difference.

I want to make this point with as much power as I can: we can debate and talk every day of the week about the pressures that exist with the Northern Ireland protocol, the Windsor framework and the impediments to the return to devolution. Whether people agree with me on those issues or they ignore those issues, that is fine; we will continue to work for resolution. But the point needs to be understood that we cannot and will not have sustainable government in Northern Ireland if we do not have sustainable finances alongside a return to devolution.

The idea that any elected representative is going to stand up in government to stand over the dismal budget that has been provided is for the birds; it is not going to happen. I want to see Northern Ireland work. I want to see Northern Ireland as a place where all communities within our Province are at peace with one another and enjoy the benefits of the country that we have the privilege to live in. These issues need to be resolved and that can happen only when the finance is there to deliver positively for those people.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution to the debate and I fully support what he has said about a needs-based approach. Indeed, I think of the work of the Atlas Women’s Centre in Lisburn, in my constituency, which has used Pathway funding to help some of our youngest children to develop the skills they need for mainstream education. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that in seeking to change the way that our public services are funded, it is essential that in Northern Ireland we also recognise the need for the reform of those public services and that part of what we need from Treasury is investment for reform?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

The truth is that the shortfall from last year and the shortfall in this financial year need to be covered—that is the short term. The medium term needs to be about getting reform agreed, and the long term needs to be about sorting out how Northern Ireland is funded and providing a stable way for doing so.

There are huge opportunities. Some people like to dismiss it and some people do not want to listen to it, but the last thing we want to see is a return to devolution where the foundations are unstable. We want sustainable government in Northern Ireland. We want the ability to deliver proudly positive public services for the people of Northern Ireland, and we want to resolve the issues that have created the impediment thus far. There is nothing new in that. Sometimes it takes quite a while for people to hear and listen.

We are getting there. I am sorry that we are having to go through another Bill like this and that opportunities are being missed to deal with delivery for the people in Northern Ireland, through one way or another. We want to protect public services. We want to protect the street lights and end the gaslights. It would be nice to have a debate on these issues where we could talk practically and factually about what the impediments are, which all of us work to resolve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

With the leave of the House, I rise to close the debate, and I thank all those who have participated in it. Once again, we have seen that on the main substance of the Bill there is wide agreement. There is agreement that it is necessary but regrettable, as we continue to seek to avoid the governance gap.

I will now seek to respond to as many points as I can. The shadow Secretary of State raised the issue of some difficult decisions being too much for officials. We recognise that the Bill is an interim arrangement. It clarifies the powers that civil servants need in order to maintain public services in the absence of an Executive. We recognise that civil servants will be uncomfortable taking some of the difficult decisions that are needed. Indeed, it is possible that they will feel unable to take them, but that, of course, is why we need the Executive back. I am aware that we are sounding like a stuck record, but getting the Executive back is what we are seeking to do.

Before I go any further, I will just say to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that I know the Prime Minister would want me to say that he is fully committed to the return of devolution, but that is a point to which I shall return later.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, asked about advice. He raised a great point and I am happy to clarify that it is our intention that the options developed for budget sustainability will be shared with the new Executive, and we hope that the new Executive will act swiftly to implement such measures. Further to various points that he made in relation to direct rule, I am absolutely clear that the Bill does not give us any powers to implement measures. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend—it is just the powers of the Secretary of State to direct that there should be advice and consultations, which would fall away.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who speaks for the SNP, made a speech to which I listened very carefully. I am happy to say that, on this occasion, I did not spot any areas where I disagreed with him, but I shall have to revisit Hansard. I am grateful to him for the manner in which he has approached this debate, and I can assure him that it made a pleasant change.

A number of Members have talked about the budget. I know that if the moment comes that we are forced to bring forward a budget Bill, we will no doubt touch on all of the issues in detail, but I hope the House will forgive me if I do not go into any further detail on that this afternoon. What I will say is that we will have to bring forward a Bill if there is not an Executive, which I and the Secretary of State will regret should that be necessary.

On the issue of funding, the Government have, for many years, recognised the unique challenges that Northern Ireland faces. We have provided about £7 billion in additional funding to Northern Ireland since 2014, on top of the Barnett-based block grant and the Northern Ireland budget. Per person, that is around 20% higher than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. I am well aware of the Fiscal Council’s report, which suggests that, on a needs basis, it should be even higher, but I have to say that 20% extra would go a long way in Wycombe—the streets are not all paved with gold there.

[Gavin Robinson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will, if the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point.

We do need the Executive back, and not because we believe all the problems will go away—far from it—but because we need the problems to be addressed by Northern Ireland Executive Ministers. I am very clear that the road ahead will be long and hard for those Ministers.

[Gavin Robinson]

Does the Minister accept that, within the next two years, the upward trajectory for the budget in England is 6%, but the trajectory in Northern Ireland is 3.6%? Per household, that equates to £2,000 less in Northern Ireland than for his constituents in Wycombe.

[Mr Baker]

I am confident that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that I will not confirm the figures when I do not have them immediately in front of me in the terms that he has put them. As I mentioned in oral questions earlier today, for all of us in this House, and indeed in all the devolved institutions, we do need to engage with the fiscal projections of the Office for Budget Responsibility. There is no doubt in my mind that, for the rest of our political careers and far beyond, there will be a problem with meeting the many demands of age-related spending. All of us will need to rise to that challenge, as it will need, in particular, healthcare reform. The Bengoa report is long since overdue in implementation. I also talked earlier about healthcare.

A total of £600,000 a day is spent maintaining a divided education system. It cannot be right just on a cost basis, never mind all of the social divisions that it leads to. That conversation needs to be had. I have made that position clear. The Government’s position is very clear: we are in favour of integrated education. I know that there will be a spectrum of views on this, but when it comes to funding, we are all clear that the problems that are faced will endure. We are clear that there will need to be a conversation about the Barnett formula—I am aware of the Barnett squeeze—but none of these things will be anything like plausible to solve, in a way that will be acceptable to all sections of the community, until the Executive is restored.