Violent Disorder

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. One of the most troubling things that we saw during those days of violent disorder was people feeling fearful to be out on the streets because of the colour of their skin. That should never happen in our country, which is why we do have to challenge racism and extremism wherever they are found. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is bringing forward measures under the Online Safety Act 2023 that will require social media companies to take action where there is criminal content. There has been considerable concern about criminal content remaining online, and we need the social media companies to take responsibility for that.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Welcome to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I agree with the Home Secretary’s condemnation of violence. Indeed, I suspect her unwillingness to open up this statement is because she wants the voice of this House to be one of condemnation of violence. She is right about that, and she will know that the streets of Northern Ireland faced the same difficulties as those in England over the course of the summer. Almost 20 PSNI officers were injured on our streets. They benefited from the mutual aid support from Police Scotland during that time.

The Home Secretary is not responsible for policing in Northern Ireland, but she is responsible for immigration policy throughout the United Kingdom. May I ask her at some stage to indicate to this House and to the country what steps she will take to repair the damage wrought by the last Government through the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, which, for the first time, specifically do not apply in Northern Ireland, following court judgment, because of the Windsor framework. We no longer have a uniform immigration policy in this country, so may I ask her as Home Secretary to tell us what steps she will take to address that?

[Yvette Cooper]

I join the right hon. Member in condemning the appalling violent disorder that we saw on the streets of Belfast and in Northern Ireland and in welcoming the support from Police Scotland and the mutual aid that took place. He raises important issues about immigration policy. I am happy to debate those and to talk to him directly about them as it is important. There is a whole range of areas where reforms will be needed. An important debate needs to take place around border security, the asylum system, the way immigration rules operate and so on. Those are all reforms that this Government want to bring forward, but, quite simply, it is important that no one should excuse the violent disorder that we saw as somehow being related to issues about policy. Lots of people have really strong views about immigration policy, but they do not pick up bricks and throw them at the police.

British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Just yesterday, I was asked by a constituent what relevance or role a Back-Bench MP has. God love that woman, Mr Deputy Speaker, because not only did she get the full precis of my contribution this afternoon, she got all the intricacies of the processes and the procedures and the hoops that we go through to make an impact —but make an impact we have. We cannot overstate the impact of such Bills—not only those that have progressed to Third Reading today, but those that I have had the privilege of hearing about and contributing to over the last number of months—or their importance to the lives of ordinary people in our country. Although there is not an awful lot of awareness of this process, or, indeed much coverage of it, I appreciate that it is there and the role that we play as Back-Bench MPs in making a difference to our country.

The British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill has been long in duration and in gestation. The Library was able to dig out initial references from 1985, I think, when the issue was first brought before the House of Commons. Here we are today, and I hope—if the House consents to Third Reading and we can get on to the Bill’s subsequent stages in the other place—we will have an opportunity to make a difference for the 31,000 citizens within Northern Ireland who would benefit from this. Across the United Kingdom, more than a quarter of a million citizens could take the opportunity to benefit from what I have described throughout the parliamentary process as the final piece in a long constitutional jigsaw.

To go into some of the history, just for completeness, for the last 224 years the island of Ireland and the island of Great Britain have been one. They were connected in 1800, commenced in 1801, through the Acts of Union, and the lives of our citizens have been intertwined ever since. In 1921, when the island of Ireland was partitioned, the rights of citizens across the island to attain, hold and cherish their British citizenship pertained. The Irish Free State held dominion status within the British empire and anyone born within the Irish Free State was still entitled to, and many enjoyed, British citizenship. That came to an end in 1948 with the British Nationality Act and the creation of the Irish Republic in 1949, and it was from that point that people who were born in the Irish Republic but subsequently moved to the United Kingdom—who spent the remainder of their lives living, building families and working in the United Kingdom, and from my perspective in Northern Ireland—have been unable to enjoy the same privileges that were open to our forefathers.

We often talk about the clash between identity and citizenship on these islands, but the one piece of the puzzle that has been absent since the Good Friday agreement, when individuals with an Irish identity living in Northern Ireland were free to attain Irish citizenship, is that the same has not been true for those born in the Irish Republic who live, work and enjoy being in the United Kingdom. That is the essence of this Bill.

In order to bring that alive, let us consider my colleague in the other place, Lord Hay. He was born in Donegal in 1950, 15 months after the creation of the Irish Republic, but has lived almost his entire life in Londonderry, in Northern Ireland. He has been a public servant in Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom for almost 50 years. He joined the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1988 and became its Speaker in 2007. He stepped down as Speaker in 2014 and became a legislator in this place. He is a peer of our realm, but he does not have British citizenship.

The idea that somebody like that—someone who has lived almost their entire life in our country, contributed to it through public service, worked and paid taxes here, and positively changed lives in our country—should have to apply for naturalisation, ignoring the history of the intertwined relationships between our two islands, should have to satisfy a “Life in the UK” test and prove that he can speak English, when he is sitting in our Parliament, legislating for our country, really does highlight the nonsense. Now, I will not be dragged into questioning the ability of Members from far-flung parts of our community in Northern Ireland to speak English—the Londonderry accent is not the same as the Belfast accent, but it is English none the less.

Lord Hay provides a really good, tangible example of why this situation is a nonsense. We know that anybody born within our islands benefits from the common travel area. We know that anybody who holds Irish citizenship is free to work, study and vote anywhere in the United Kingdom, and they can benefit from education and healthcare in the United Kingdom. But the final piece is citizenship. They are not the same as somebody from another country in a far-flung place, simply because of our intertwined relationships and our history.

So from 1985 the parliamentary efforts to redress this issue have continued. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) was elected to this place in 2001 and has been campaigning on this issue since 2001. Lord Hay, having joined the House of Lords in 2014, has been campaigning on it since 2014. Now we have the opportunity to put that final piece in the jigsaw.

As I have indicated, 31,000 eligible people in Northern Ireland and 260,000 eligible people across the United Kingdom could benefit. When I started the private Member’s Bill process, my focus was on assisting those in Northern Ireland, predominantly from the three counties of Ulster that are no longer in the United Kingdom, who have moved across the border. In fairness, the Conservative and Unionist Government further opened the door and said that this does not need to be constrained to Northern Ireland, and that it should apply across the United Kingdom. I have never been resistant to that, but I recognised the constraints on private Members’ Bills, so I am delighted that we were able to expand the extent of the Bill in Committee so that it applies across the United Kingdom to over a quarter of a million people, including the London Irish and many interspersed throughout our communities and constituencies. It is a great boon.

Throughout the parliamentary processes on this aspiration, we have benefited from significant cross-party support, not just from the Conservative party but from the Labour party. I am grateful that Labour has been in lockstep with us on every opportunity that I have had to raise the issue.

Andrew MacKinlay, a great friend of Northern Ireland and the former Labour Member for Thurrock, addressed this point in 2009:

“we have an opportunity, which the House will probably not have again for some years, to right a wrong, provide parity of treatment for people who are Irish…and allow them to identify with their Britishness.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 220.]

He was right. The House was unable to land the opportunity in 2009, but 15 years later we can seize this wonderful opportunity.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee issued a report in July 2021—HC 158—that considered all of these issues, took evidence from Lord Hay and concluded that a citizenship test for individuals who, like him, find themselves in this situation would be not only “irrelevant” but “offensive.” I am glad that the Government have taken heed of that approach.

There has been continual discussion of fees during the passage of my private Member’s Bill. There is absolutely no reason why somebody who was born in these islands and who already benefits from all the entitlements from which you and I benefit, Mr Deputy Speaker, should have to pay £1,580 to benefit from citizenship of a country to which they have contributed all their life.

The Government are well aware of my position that there should be no need for anything over and above the cost of a passport but, in fairness to them, I recognise that it is not part of this Bill. A fees order would have to be made separately and subsequently, and the Government have been very proactive on this issue and have been very open to a discussion that would consider something far short of what is required today. I am grateful for their engagement with me in that regard.

No citizenship test or “Life in the UK” test; a considerably reduced fee; and an opportunity for us, as a nation, to embrace our nearest neighbours—individuals who are part of our families and our lives, but for whom the process required of them is just a step too far. Nothing about this Bill is coercive, but it opens the door to a wonderful opportunity for us, as a nation, to recognise our nearest neighbours and bring them closer still. People have been campaigning for this for 40 years, and there have been many false dawns in Parliament. In 1998, the Belfast agreement missed the opportunity to redress the balance when Irish nationality was offered to those in Northern Ireland who were born or naturalised as UK citizens. We had the opportunity to afford the same courtesy to those on the other side of the border.

I am delighted with the way the Home Office has engaged on this issue. The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border has been a joy to engage with over the past couple of months. I am sorry that he is not here today to see the final stage. I suspect that he is sorry too, but he has a most able substitute today, the Minister for Security, who has thoughtfully engaged on these issues around Northern Ireland, Ireland and the United Kingdom for many years—someone for whom we have huge regard. So if ever there was somebody to be here on behalf of the Legal Migration Minister, I am delighted it is the Security Minister and he is able to respond on behalf of the Government.

This is a great and wonderful opportunity for the people of our islands to unify, to strengthen bonds, and to get official and national recognition of the ties that bind us together; something that does not need to have discord and has not had discord. I mentioned Labour earlier. I should have mentioned that the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), my constituency neighbour, was pleased to be a part of the Bill Committee. She has been totally supportive, as has the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) from the Alliance party.

If I have the leave of the House, I will probably have a few more thanks to offer, but having an opportunity in this way to progress, most substantively, a 40-year campaign is so wonderfully appreciated. I hope many across our country will benefit from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, this will be just a list of thank yous from me, and I thank you for your expert chairmanship. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged and picked up the baton incredibly well—I appreciate it—and I thank the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who has been great in his engagement. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), for his comments.

Anne-Marie Griffiths from the Public Bill Office has been very forgiving, given that I have continually asked questions that she has probably answered on four or five occasions. I appreciate all the assistance from the Public Bill Office. The Home Office officials have been incredible in their assistance, expertise, guidance, encouragement and support, so huge thanks go to Mr Darlow and his team. I thank James in my team for keeping me on the straight and narrow.

I thank the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). I could not explain to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the stress associated with organising private Members’ Bills Fridays, which she outlined for me, but you might ask her later on. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) for her comments, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), to whom I am grateful for remembering the Westminster Hall debate and our interactions with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).

The hon. Member for Christchurch wishes to follow my Bill with the Second Reading of his own, so with that, I shall sit down.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I say directly to my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with him on this. I will come back to his specific points, and I hope I will address his very concern, perhaps in response to the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and others spoke powerfully and directly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham rightly talked about the UNHCR and the EU. How galling it was to see that, the very day after the UNHCR advocated in the Supreme Court that Rwanda is not safe, the UNHCR itself sent 168 refugees to Rwanda as part of hundreds and thousands under a scheme that is already up and running, and supported and backed by the EU to the tune of millions of euros. We need to hear more of that, so I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised a specific point that I want to address head-on. This Bill will apply in full in Northern Ireland, in the same way that it applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is explicit, it is on the face of the Bill and will always be the case, reflecting that immigration policy is a UK-wide matter. I want to be particularly clear that nothing in the Windsor framework or the trade and co-operation agreement affects that. Where people have raised concern is on the rights chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which I want to be clear does not affect any clause in this Bill in any way.

I think I have time to address the specific concern that the hon. Member for Strangford raised. It is important to be clear that the 2005 procedural directive is not within the annexes of the Windsor framework.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing those points as clearly as he did. He will acknowledge that although he has addressed them in his closing remarks this evening, the Home Office published legal advice yesterday that did not touch on any of those points. May I ask him to take steps in the coming days to go further and update that legal advice in a way that encompasses the points he has just raised, in order to assuage the concerns of the House this evening?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I give the hon. Gentleman this commitment: I will continue to work with him on the points that he has raised? I need to be careful about legal advice, as a former Law Officer. What has been published is a Government legal position statement, and that is different from legal advice. He will understand the differences in relation to that position. He has heard what I have said, and I was grateful to him for welcoming the points I made in response to the specific concerns raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which gave me flashbacks to my grilling by that illustrious Committee, when I was sitting alongside my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in my former role as Solicitor General. We followed that very report mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Turning to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I make the simple point that I cannot address each and every one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North here. However, I know she is looking forward to asking me some specific questions tomorrow afternoon when I attend her Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery.

We then had from a former Law Officer-fest, as we had the pleasure of hearing from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who now chairs the Justice Committee, and from my illustrious predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). I am pleased to say that I am now a former Law Officer as well. We therefore have a joint endeavour and interest in making sure that this legislation works.

I have mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham and her important point about Rwanda and the rather patronising tone sometimes raised by Opposition Members when it comes to our international partners who have signed up to an internationally binding legal treaty with this country.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Northern Ireland

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Farry]

I thank my colleague from Northern Ireland, who represents the constituency neighbouring mine. I agree with everything the hon. Member said, with a minor exception: I would put North Down marginally ahead of Strangford, obviously. Yes, the ETA has to work in both directions.

It is essential that immigration enforcement throughout the UK is familiar with the exemption and the documents that can be accepted, as it applies to travel within the entire common travel area. We need to know what happens if someone who is exempt from an ETA is encountered and has no documents proving their legal residence in Ireland, as this will happen from time to time. Will they be given an opportunity to return to Ireland or to provide the documents subsequently, or will they face criminal prosecution and immigration detention?

Overall, the exemption illustrates that it is possible for the Government to be pragmatic in recognising the particular circumstances in Ireland and the reality of the thousands of daily journeys by non-UK or non-Irish citizens: to shop, for leisure, for medical appointments, for education, and in some cases to work. The focal point for flexibility is now largely centred around tourism, although there is considerable disappointment in the tourism sector that similar flexibilities were not announced at the same time as they were for residents in Ireland.

It is important to note two key, overarching factors. First, under the Good Friday agreement, Ireland is marketed internationally as a single destination. The success of tourism on the island is one of the standard examples of successful north-south co-operation. Secondly, most visitors to the island of Ireland, including those who travel onwards to Northern Ireland, enter through airports and seaports in the south. The overwhelming majority of international flights to the island come via Dublin, especially from the lucrative North American market. Overall, 70% of international visitors to Northern Ireland start in the Republic of Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He will recall the engagement that we had collectively, as Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland, with the Minister at the turn of the year. One point that we made to him was about the practical outworkings of a lack of enforcement against the legal requirement that tour operators and insurance companies would have for their visitors to comply with the law. We had a discussion about an exemption for such individuals, so that they could visit Northern Ireland and avail themselves of all of our beauty and our offering without this legal impediment, which would render them without insurance cover or put tour operators in an invidious position. Does he share my disappointment that we thought we had reached a positive conclusion with the Home Office, but that has not been borne out?

[Stephen Farry]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the situation whereby enforcement and practice may be very light or non-existent but none the less the legal jeopardy continues. That is the nub of the problem that will complicate matters for the tourism sector, particularly when it comes to things such as insurance cover. Again, he reflects on our general disappointment, because there was a time when we felt that a pragmatic outcome for tourism was very close to getting over the line—and, indeed, the Minister kindly facilitated some discussions between his officials and representatives of the Northern Ireland Tourism Alliance.

Overall, there are three types of negative impacts of the ETA on tourism. The first is the bureaucracy, which could serve as a deterrent to visitors coming to Northern Ireland; they may perceive it to be too much hassle and not worth the bother of coming north, and instead choose to do other things in the Republic of Ireland. The Government may well argue that the relative cost is low, highlight the two-year duration of the ETA and stress that it will be relatively easy to apply, but it is worth highlighting a few features of Northern Ireland entry in contrast to other potential entry points. Unlike with the rest of the UK, visitors will be entering via a land border rather than an air or seaport, so there is not the failsafe of drawing attention to the ETA requirement as visitors enter the UK at those other locations. Visitors to Ireland may have the need for an ETA highlighted to them within wider marketing of the island, but that may not necessarily always filter through.

There will also be practical difficulties in highlighting the need for an ETA at the time of booking flights because many tourists will be arriving formally into Irish airports, where there is no need for an ETA, so it would be a case of trying to second guess whether people were going to make further journeys into Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is a clear pattern of tourists making spontaneous decisions to come to Northern Ireland, including for day trips—after all, Northern Ireland is barely an hour’s travel time from Dublin—and feedback from coach operators confirms that much of their business reflects last-minute bookings. Any marketing campaign at Dublin airport will obviously require the co-operation of Irish authorities, which would be difficult at the best of times, never mind in the politically charged context of today. The biometric aspect may also become a barrier to some with limited ICT literacy—for example, some older people, especially whenever they are seeking to make spontaneous journeys.

The second area of impact is the legal jeopardy for tourists who travel to or through Northern Ireland without an ETA. Although there will be no routine immigration control on the Irish land border, those who enter Northern Ireland will nevertheless still legally be required to possess a valid ETA. Problems may arise if someone has an accident or needs medical assistance or otherwise has to interact with the UK state, and they do not have an ETA and the associated legal right to be in the UK. That could lead to insurance policies becoming invalid. Failure to possess an ETA could open someone to a criminal offence and potentially—under the Illegal Migration Bill—to deportation.

At the same time, the absence of routine immigration controls undermines the Government’s main justification for the ETA—knowing or monitoring who is entering the UK—so we could end up placing legitimate visitors in legal uncertainty without any real benefit to the state from the ETA. There is a potential headache and deterrent to those running coach tours and other forms of transport, especially if there is a danger that operators become liable for any passengers they carry who do not have an ETA.

Confusion and uncertainty may also exist for those seeking to travel from two different points in the Republic of Ireland, but who travel through Northern Ireland to get to the second point. For example, the quickest route for most of County Donegal to and from Dublin means travelling through County Tyrone on the A5, even without stopping. A short journey from Clones to Cavan town entails a short road journey that weaves in and out of Northern Ireland in the south-east of County Fermanagh. There is now an enhanced consequence of the Illegal Migration Bill for those who knowingly come into the UK, including Northern Ireland, without permission, including having an ETA.

The interpretation of “knowingly” will be crucial, including in what circumstances it is deemed reasonable or otherwise for someone to be expected to know that requirement. In the event that the term “knowingly” is interpreted in due course in a very narrow way, it may render the application of the ETA to movements within the common travel area to be relatively meaningless in certain respects. None the less, it will still leave that degree of jeopardy and uncertainty for tourists. Someone could potentially be deported to their own country or a third country, even banned from ever returning, under the provisions of clause 2 of the Illegal Migration Bill. That risk is most acute with inadvertent movements over the land border, because elsewhere, at air and sea ports, there would be safeguards.

Any such outcomes for tourists moving into Northern Ireland would send a terrible message regarding the UK being open or otherwise to international tourism. I understand that the Government are looking at that particular point in relation to the Illegal Migration Bill, and I would welcome any clarification from the Minister in that regard, not least given that the Bill has now concluded its formal proceedings.

It is worth stressing the potential legal jeopardy will also apply to visa nationals who are ordinarily resident in the Republic of Ireland and who cross into Northern Ireland without proper permission. I shall give a couple of examples. A woman from Kenya, living legally in County Donegal, could cross the border, which is a simple bridge, into Strabane to do some weekly shopping, and end up interacting with the state and attracting the attention of immigration control. She could be detained and deported back to Kenya. A Nigerian man, travelling between two points in the Republic of Ireland, could unfortunately have a traffic accident and come to the attention of the state. Again, under clause 2 of the Bill, he could be deported, not just back to his home in Ireland, but all the way back to Nigeria.

There will be a resultant impact on the tourism sector in Northern Ireland from the ETA. Tourism professionals tell us that additional bureaucracy and costs are decisive in what are otherwise marginal tourism decisions. That could be an American choosing between going from Dublin to Cork and going from Dublin to Belfast. Despite having some amazing scenery—already alluded to—and wonderful attractions, the tourism sector in Northern Ireland is still below its full potential. Profit margins are very narrow in that sector, so this additional burden and deterrence could be critical, and make or break for a number of operators and attractions. Overseas tourism represents 25% of the annual tourism spend in Northern Ireland, so it is very significant.

A potential pragmatic solution lies in granting a short exemption for tourists to come to Northern Ireland for around five to seven days, without the need for an ETA. There is no routine immigration control planned anyway, so the actual threat to the integrity of the UK borders is overstated as a contrary argument. Legal jeopardy would kick in after that period of exemption had expired, if the person had not left the UK or otherwise applied for an ETA. The Northern Ireland tourism sector believes that that exemption is not only vital but workable. Another angle could be to decriminalise the penalties for someone who crosses inadvertently. That is another potential angle that we would like to put on the table.

I shall move on to a wider issue. Despite Home Office assurances that no immigration checks will take place along the land border, individuals travelling between Northern Ireland and Britain, or directly from Ireland to GB, may still encounter some immigration inspections. An inconsistency between residents and tourists on the island of Ireland raises concerns about how one could possibly differentiate between the two, as determining who fits into each category is highly subjective. Such subjectivity could create fertile ground for perpetuating biases and heightening the risk of racial profiling.

The instance of racial discrimination and profiling within the common travel area has generated significant alarm, with direct negative consequences on our racialised and migrant communities. We would welcome clarity on how the Government intend to safeguard the rights of people of colour departing the island of Ireland, ensuring that racial profiling does not increase on such journeys.

It is worth stressing that until recently, there has been a degree of harmony in how the UK and Ireland have managed movements around these islands. Notably, both the UK and Ireland stayed outside the Schengen arrangements when they were first put in place. However, we are now seeing the implications of growing divergence. The Government may well reference the US electronic system for travel authorisation, and the fact that the European Union is developing its own system specifically for the Schengen zone. However, Ireland is not joining the EU system. Any notion of reinventing an all-islands framework to manage such an arrangement, even if politically doable, would flounder on the basis that Ireland cannot restrict or impinge the free movement of EU citizens beyond passport control, while the post-Brexit UK can.

In conclusion, this is a significant issue for the tourism sector in Northern Ireland specifically. We are joined today by some of its representatives in the Public Gallery. I appreciate that there has been considerable communication between stakeholders and the Minister and his officials, but we do not yet have a solution to this extremely thorny problem. We believe that a pragmatic solution is warranted on the island of Ireland, given our very particular circumstances, and I look forward to a constructive response from the Minister.

Illegal Migration Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

It is for the Court to determine, in the first instance, whether it intends to take up the appeal and at what time it will be heard. I can only point my hon. Friend to the final paragraph in the summary judgment from the Court of Appeal, which expressed the view of the three judges that this is a matter of great urgency and that it needs to be handled expeditiously. I hope that the Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear our appeal, does so swiftly, but that is a matter for the Supreme Court.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will, and then I should make some progress.

[Gavin Robinson]

The Minister will know that, from his perspective, I had a difficult approach to the Bill on Second Reading. When he embarked on addressing Lords amendment 2, he said he would now address the first Lords amendment of substance, yet Lords amendment 1 deals with our international obligations. We had the curious start to this Bill that it could not have a full declaration on the front of it about compatibility with some of those international obligations. Perhaps it was just a turn of phrase, but it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister not only addressed Lords amendment 1 and the Government’s approach to international legal obligations but outlined exactly what is contained within Lords amendment 1 that the Government take issue with.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come back to that issue later in my remarks, but let me be clear, if further reassurance is required, that the Government take our international law obligations extremely seriously. We believe that all the matters outlined in the Bill are within our international legal obligations, and should the Bill or any aspect of it be legally challenged, we will contest that vigorously to defend the position we have set out.

I point the hon. Gentleman to one important element of the recent judgment in the Court of Appeal, which was on this question: if a state such as the United Kingdom used another state and entered into a partnership, such as we have with Rwanda, for the purposes of asylum, would that be compatible with the refugee convention? I point out that all three judges agreed that that was compatible with the refugee convention. On arguably the central international law issue at stake, the Court of Appeal was clear that the Government’s approach is compatible with international law.

Illegal Migration Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Back in 2019, the company that provides accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland housed around 1,000 people. Last Thursday, the figure was 3,271. One third of them are in traditional housing stock and two thirds populated within 20 hotels in Northern Ireland, predominantly on the eastern side of our Province. I know the pressure that that places on some local communities and some local services.

Earlier in this debate there was a challenge to Members that they should be temperate in their language and courteous to one another, so let me say this, as the Democratic Unionists’ spokesperson on home affairs and immigration in this Chamber: I am not an out-of-touch lefty. I am not on the side of people smugglers, I am not a naive do-gooder and I am not against the British people, but I will be supporting the official Opposition’s amendment this evening.

I say that as somebody who supported the Nationality and Borders Bill when it was before this House. I say it as somebody who, when the Prime Minister came to this Chamber a number of weeks ago and highlighted the problems with our immigration system, was incredibly encouraged that he recognised that there was a problem when so many applications are being approved in the United Kingdom, yet similar ones elsewhere in the European Union are not. I thought there was a clear sign that our Government were actually going to grasp these issues in a way that would work, not present us with a Bill that, on the face of it, is incompatible with the ECHR. I am interested in dealing with the problems of unmanaged or illegal migration in this country, but I am not interested in getting involved in what amounts to a culture war—a political culture war that is more about the forthcoming general election than anything else. It is a shame all around.

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) were probably too polite when they addressed this shibboleth as to what is really behind this Bill. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead was right when she said that the Nationality and Borders Bill has not had enough time to bed in. I thought the Prime Minister was right when he highlighted the deficiencies in the system. How much better would it be to sort out asylum applications and the process of assessing them than to do away with the process of accepting asylum applicants altogether? I have stood in this Chamber against indefinite detention: it is cruel, and it is immoral. This Bill will probably proceed this evening, but it will not proceed with my support at this stage, and I will certainly be working to change it.

Probationary Police Officers: Cost of Living

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. In setting the scene, I will come on to some of the detail in a moment, but he has put his finger on what police officers are being forced to do in their private lives to try to make ends meet.

Northern Ireland now has the lowest number of officers since the formation of the PSNI. I remember being on the Police Board at the time when the PSNI came into existence, and we were promised that the number of police officers would keep pace with the developing needs of the community. We reduced the service from between 12,000 and 13,000 officers right down to 7,500. Today we have between 6,700 and 6,800 officers, which frankly is not enough.

We should recognise not only that are we 800 below where New Decade, New Approach tells us that police levels should be, but that Northern Ireland’s population has risen in recent years. In fact, it has risen by 300,000 people since the Patten report recommended that police numbers should be cut from that high point. If we were doing a fair calculation, a more realistic revised figure, against the backdrop of Northern Ireland becoming a peaceful society without terrorism, would be having 8,600 police officers, given the size of our population, but that is not the case. Police officers, including young officers and probationary officers, joined the service and realised that they are being squeezed because there is an insufficient number of colleagues to do the work and they are not being properly rewarded for doing the job.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. He is right to outline the figure of 7,500 officers provided in New Decade, New Approach. Contained in New Decade, New Approach was also a commitment from the UK Government indicating that the PSNI would receive the appropriate and necessary levels of funding to continue its efforts in tackling paramilitarism and organised crime, and to continue the work of the paramilitary crime taskforce, yet the Government have been found wanting on that taskforce. Does he agree that that commitment needs to be delivered by the Government and that, while policing and justice have been devolved, there are commitments on terrorism and paramilitarism that the Government still need to be honour?

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; he makes it well. The fact of the matter is that policing in Northern Ireland cannot be done on the cheap, and that is essentially what has been asked for. Not only do we have to tackle the crimes that are prevalent across this part of the United Kingdom, but we have an added layer of serious and organised crime that derives from paramilitary activity. That puts even more pressure on the policing budget. My hon. Friend is quite right to outline that this additional pressure makes the PSNI like no other police service in the United Kingdom. With 42 other comparisons to look at, the issues that our officers have to tackle are completely unique. They operate in a unique environment and under unique circumstances. With a hangover of policing the past, as well as trying to cope with the present and laying sound foundations for the future, it is almost impossible for them to do it on a shoestring budget that needs to be agreed year on year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Salaries are not exactly the same but they are pretty much the same in Northern Ireland as they are in England and Wales, and the settlement that has just been announced is exactly the same. That is an important principle in relation to Northern Ireland in particular.

I emphasise again that this is a matter for my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. As the hon. Gentleman has said, policing is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and it is not in my area of ministerial responsibility as the Policing Minister for England and Wales. A functioning Executive would give more flexibility and freedom to Northern Ireland to determine its own path and how it chooses to allocate money between different budgets. I understand that the Secretary of State, in setting the budget for Northern Ireland’s Department of Justice this year, has given a 3.1% increase—a total allocation of about £1.2 billion—but as the hon. Member knows, the freedoms available to Northern Irish civil servants are limited in the absence of an Executive, so the sooner we can get an Executive up and running, the more flexibility and autonomy the people in Northern Ireland and the elected representatives of the people in Northern Ireland will have.

The hon. Member made some comments regarding security, and he is quite right to draw attention to that. The UK Government provide the PSNI with additional security funding to tackle the obvious threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the amount of money being paid over for that purpose in the current financial year, 2022-23, is £32 million, which is the same as it was in the previous year. In addition to that, there is a security funding payment of £8 million a year towards the tackling paramilitaries programme, which is designed to match the funding that comes from the Northern Ireland Executive. That money designed specifically to tackle terrorism, which has a unique Northern Ireland element, is continuing.

[Gavin Robinson]

I hope that the Minister will able to go back after this debate and ensure that tat frequency of funding for the tackling paramilitarism and crime taskforce will remain, because as I understand it, the Northern Ireland Office is tapering that money off, which would have an impact on the delivery of service.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am assured by my colleague, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, that he and his NIO colleagues will write to confirm the position on that in the very near future.

I think we are coming to the end of our allotted time, so I want to thank the hon. Member for North Antrim once again for raising this important issue. All of us obviously back our police forces and want to ensure that they have the funding, the salary and the resources to do their job. It is probably appropriate to close by extending, I hope on behalf of the whole House, our thanks to officers the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, but in this evening’s context, particularly in Northern Ireland, for the work they do in keeping us, our constituencies, our constituents and their families safe.

Question put and agreed to.

National Security

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his work on the Bill Committee; he has been an absolute stalwart on the issue and has been a very dear friend for a lot longer. I also pay tribute to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and its work to make Members of this House aware of the various ways in which the armed forces play such a vital role in our national life. My hon. Friend’s comments on cyber awareness are absolutely correct, and I agree with every word.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

As the Democratic Unionist party spokesman for home affairs, may I express my personal delight at seeing the Minister in his place? I hope that when he is constructing this welcome taskforce, he will recognise that our recent history and our contemporary position in Northern Ireland mean that we have a contribution to make.

The Minister and I were elected at the same time. Since then, we have had the strategic defence and security review, the modernising defence programme, the national security capability review and the integrated review, which formed part of his statement. There are two common threads in those four exercises: the threats get bigger, but the budget remains the same. Does he have an assurance at this stage that if the taskforce brings forward a new programme of work to address emerging threats, it will have the associated budget to tackle them?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As he will know, not only is the voice of Ulster heard very clearly in the integrated review, but it actually holds the pen. It is a pleasure to commit to working with him and others across the United Kingdom to make sure that voices are heard. On resources, we are in the early stages: at the moment we are setting out how we can work together better, but there is an awful lot still to do.

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman after the UQ.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I pay tribute to Joseph and Christine from the Belfast passport office, who we have great contact with. All Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have built up a rapport with those two excellent team leaders who are assisting, knowing how difficult it has been over the past three or four weeks. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) raised the issue of six months being required by easyJet and other carriers. The Minister will be aware that access to the Schengen area requires a passport that has two aspects: first, three months’ validity; and secondly, being less than 10 years old. But, as he will know, people in the UK may have passports that are 10 years and nine months or 10 years and six months old. They are valid and have three months remaining but they are not less than 10 years old. The gov.uk website has indicated that engagement is going on between the Foreign Office and the European Commission, and has been for the past four or five months, yet we still do not have a resolution. People in this country with a valid passport are now putting more pressure on the passport system because they are unnecessarily applying for new passports. I hope the Minister can engage with this with the Foreign Office and find a resolution so that people with valid passports can travel.

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully and well on this point. I am happy to engage with our colleagues in Government. As long as the passport is valid, it can be used to come back into the UK. This is not a matter of our own rules; as he says, it is about the Schengen rules. However, I am happy to engage with my FCDO colleagues.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said, those terms are well understood by the police and courts. They are interpreted, and have been over many years in other circumstances, and we do not believe there is room for misinterpretation. This is about placing conditions and balancing rights. We hope and believe that in the small number of circumstances where it is appropriate for the police to apply conditions, just as for the tiny number of protests that currently attract conditions in this country, this is a proportionate, modest power for the Lords to put in place.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Minister is trying his best on this point, but he has to return to the fact that it is wholly subjective whether distress or alarm has been caused. We are conferring this power, but we are not providing strictures around it, or indicating what we believe to be appropriate or inappropriate. None of this will be settled until it is tested, tested and tested again, but bear in mind it will never be tested in the court until a protest has already been curtailed and the police have acted in using these powers without any parameters from us as legislators. That is not the road to go down, unless we very clearly and simply define what we mean and how we intend to curtail protest. Until the Government do that, they cannot have our support.