European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have high regard for him. We explored these issues at great length when he chaired the Defence Committee and I was but a lowly member of it. The truth is that there are hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Northern Ireland who have been prosecuted already. How often do we see them go to meet their victims, or the families of their victims? How often do we see them try to apply balm on the wound that has never healed? And those are the individuals who have received justice.

I started to talk about truth and justice before the explosion of interventions. They are important for this debate. For the last number of years, the terminology from this Chamber has been very clearly, “You’re not going to get justice, but we can offer you truth. And the only way you can get truth is if we deny justice.” That is what the legacy Act presented to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we opposed it. They want justice. They want their day in court. They have had to suffer evasions of justice in Northern Ireland for decades. We did not support the Belfast agreement because of the release of prisoners. We do not support the notion that those who take life could be sentenced for two years—sentenced for much longer, but only have to serve two years. Nor did we support on-the-runs letters. Nor did we support amnesties for terrorists throughout the Labour Government proposals or the Conservative Government proposals, because the approach that denies justice is one that will never allow the wounds to heal.

I want to reflect on a number of institutions we have that are supposed to aid justice, truth and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. One of them is the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which was established to allow members of the community who did not support the police to buy into the police, to get confidence in the police. Yet I am sorry to say in this debate today that we have a police ombudsman in whom I have no confidence—none whatsoever. We have a police ombudsman who constructed the notion of collusion. She was struck down by the courts, so she constructed the notion of collusive behaviours. She was struck down by the courts. More recently, she has been missing in action: she is fit to do the job; she is unfit to do the job; she is being investigated by the West Midlands police herself. Yet whether she is obstructing in her role or not, I will raise one family, one gentleman: Alan Black.

Alan Black was a workman who was out to work with his colleagues. All of them, bar one, were Protestants. In 1976 in Kingsmill, all bar one were attacked by the IRA. When asked to identify themselves, the one individual who identified himself as a Catholic was allowed to leave. Eleven of Alan’s colleagues were murdered that day for no other reason than that they had a Protestant faith. Alan survived. He went to the police ombudsman looking for answers on the investigation 14 years ago. He had an inquest, which concluded 11 months ago. We hear from the ombudsman’s office that it is ready to report, but, 11 months later, there has still been no outcome, no publication and no report for Alan. Alan is an old man now. He is an ill man because of the attack. He has suffered greatly, yet he put his faith in the organisations in which he and members of our community should be able to have confidence, and he has received nothing.

The Omagh inquiry started five weeks ago. The first four weeks were testimonies from the families who lost someone so tragically that day. Four months after the Belfast agreement was signed—four months after, when society was meant to be basking in peace—29 people and two unborn babies were killed that day in Omagh. The inquiry has a cross-border dimension: when the courts in Belfast said in 2021 that there should be an inquiry in Omagh, they said there also needed to be one in the Republic of Ireland, because the bomb was constructed in the Republic of Ireland and was planted by a Provisional IRA bomb team who were operating from the Republic of Ireland, travelled from the Republic of Ireland and escaped to the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) indicated her support for such an inquiry in the south. It is for this reason that answers are required.

What do we have so far? Reluctance on the part of the Irish Government—there is nothing new in that. The Irish Government have singularly failed to do anything on legacy apart from criticise the British Government for the past 30 years. During the troubles, they allowed people to hide in the Irish Republic, armed people in the Irish Republic and would not extradite terrorists from the Irish Republic, yet today they stand and look square in the eye the families of the 29 Omagh victims and say, “We are sorry—we are not going to do that for you. We are not going to give you answers.” The same bomb team responsible for Omagh were responsible for 20 bombings in 1997 and 1998. Whether it was in Banbridge, Portadown, Lisburn, Newry or Moira—right throughout Northern Ireland—they were making their mark and making their voice heard in the run-up to peace negotiations. It is an outrage.

That the Irish Government still stand back and say they will not provide an inquiry is a disgrace. They have offered honeyed words for years, yet they do nothing to aid the sorrow. They will not provide the conditions that would allow us to challenge Garda Dermot Jennings, who is accused of having said “We will let one more through, lads,” because he knew the bombing team. Who is going to challenge and question the J2 Irish intelligence officials and ask them the questions? Our inquiry cannot do it, because it does not have the powers. I know the Government are considering a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, and that is important. However, if that does not allow for the production of people as well as papers, it will never work. It is why there has to be an inquiry in the Republic of Ireland, too, and I am glad there is broad support for that.

The Committee on the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland—with which I struggle, Madam Deputy Speaker—published a brilliant report in the last four weeks castigating the Irish Republic for its total failure to do anything on legacy over the past 30 years. It has no legacy bodies, no legacy investigations unit, no historical enquiries team and no ombudsman service; it has no infrastructure whatsoever to answer questions on legacy, and no infrastructure whatsoever to aid the healing of the past.

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

What concerns many people in Northern Ireland is that often, when things happen in Northern Ireland that are of a particular disposition, the Republic of Ireland’s Government will weigh in heavily to press our Government to do certain things. However, it seems that on many occasions when things happen on which our Government should make representations to the Republic’s Government, they fail adequately to do so.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At a summit last week, not one word on these issues emerged, save the Irish Government saying they are not yet quite ready to withdraw their challenge against the British Government for the legacy Act. They ruled against an amnesty being provided, just as we did, but they decided to challenge their near neighbours in the British Government through the European courts. They decided to do that without trying to address these issues, yet when the onus is on them—when the shoe is on the other foot—they offer nothing.

Just this evening, the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a motion to say that the Irish Government should hold an inquiry into Omagh, and I agree. It was amended by the DUP and unanimously supported by every party in Stormont. That is a message that I hope that the Minister will take to the Irish Government about the strength of feeling on this issue. We looked a lot of victims in the eye last week, but we cannot continue, year after year, to look victims in the eyes and say nice things, but offer no hope, offer no truth and offer no justice.

BBC Charter Review

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

Given that my hon. Friend is a master of both taking and making interventions, I agree with his comment.

The previous Government made a statement in April, which was just six or seven months ago. It explained that the purpose of the charter review was:

“To take stock, at the Charter’s half-way point, and evaluate the effectiveness of the BBC’s governance and regulation.”

The statement continued:

“The role of public service broadcasting and a free press has never been more significant than it is today. We are all living in an era of fake news”—

the Government were certainly right about that—

“where social media creates echo chambers of opinion, presents individual experience as established fact and mis and disinformation go unchallenged.”

That sets the context for the mid-term review.

I will move on to the comments made by the director general of the BBC, who has repeatedly said that he wants to see greater accountability from the organisation. I agree with him that the BBC should be more accountable; hopefully, the new manifestation of the charter will explain and expand on that. For example, we have had over a number of years what the BBC calls the “on-screen talent”. They have only recently had to declare their BBC salaries publicly; I and others campaigned for that over many years. Many people said it would never be done, but thankfully it was. Now we see, year on year, the top presenters all having their BBC salaries declared. So they should, because we the public pay those salaries, and ought to know what they are.

There is another point that the charter review should take account of. A small number of presenters have their BBC salaries declared, but some of them have private companies, which get commissioned to make programmes that appear on the BBC. We are not allowed to know what the proceeds of those commissioned programmes are, so it could be the case that some on-screen talent get, for example, £300,000 or even over £400,000 a year. They are paid directly by the BBC for their appearances on the BBC, but because they have a private company that gets commissioned to make programmes, they get additional sums of money. We do not know whether that is a substantial five-figure sum, or even a substantial six-figure sum. The director general says that he wants to see greater accountability, and we want to see the sums. Hopefully, the charter review can address that.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend mentions information that should be shared, and accountability. What about transparency in commissioning? He has raised this issue on a number of occasions over the years. Is he satisfied that there is transparency in the commissioning process? Is there opportunity and fairness in the process, or is there a greater opportunity to inject transparency through the charter review?

[Mr Campbell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct: there is a lack of transparency. I and others have raised the issue of presenters who do their BBC work and so know what kinds of programmes the BBC is looking for. They have an inside track, because they have a private company that is advantageously placed to get a contract. The BBC has been very dilatory in opening up about what that means, how it is reviewed and how the organisation is made accountable. There is a significant lack of transparency.

I turn to the issue of the BBC using licence payers’ money in an accountable and transparent way. We had a recent example just last month, when we had a general election in the Irish Republic. I understand that there is a read-across for Northern Ireland from the outcome of that general election, but the BBC in Northern Ireland already has two full-time reporters based in Dublin, who one would assume were well placed to cover the Irish general election over the three-week period. However, in addition to those two full-time Republic of Ireland-based reporters, the BBC dispatched its Northern Ireland political editor from Belfast, a BBC correspondent from Belfast, a reporter for BBC Newsline from Belfast and a senior journalist from BBC Radio Foyle. All were dispatched to Dublin in addition to the two personnel that the BBC already had in Dublin, to cover the general election in the Irish Republic. We are not allowed to know the cost of that coverage of the Irish Republic election, but hopefully the charter review can look at expenditure accountability.

The other issue I want to raise is the recent phenomenon known as BBC Verify. Danny Cohen, a former director of BBC television, has said:

“BBC Verify claims to represent a new gold standard in BBC reporting, but the frequency with which it has had to correct stories does not suggest that it is meeting these lofty aims”.

If a former director of BBC television, describing a very recent phenomenon that was supposedly set up to establish the BBC as the overseer of the verification of other news outlets, is saying that it does not really live up to its description, something has to be done to ensure that it does so. If there is going to be verification, it must stand up to close scrutiny.

I would hope that the Minister, whom I thank for being in her place, will take this opportunity to respond to the points that have been made. I fully understand that the BBC, in terms of its output and its day-to-day transmission, is a separate body over which no one in Parliament should have any say, and we accept that that is the case, but accountability, transparency and the lack of impartiality that is often displayed in BBC output must be covered by the review of the charter. I hope we can hear something productive from the mid-term review, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Gregory Campbell

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

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

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

Northern Ireland Residents: British Passports

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Campbell]

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

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

[Mr Campbell]

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

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

“Check if you can become a British citizen”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Gregory Campbell

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson]

The Minister does not need to be encouraged on the merits of leaving the European Union or indeed on the benefits, flexibility and freedoms that it will give us as a country to chart our own course and to set preferential tax rates that are beneficial and encourage growth, which I think must be a key factor for the Treasury.

I have mentioned the confidence and supply agreement and the call for evidence that was published. I understand that there has been extensive engagement, particularly from Northern Ireland industry, the airlines and all of those affected by this arbitrary tax. The consultation closed on 5 June and we look forward not only to the thoughtful engagement of the Treasury, but to its purposeful response. The issues that it took evidence on are the same issues that have applied to this debate for years. When the Treasury says that it wants to explore the economic impact of APD, it is exploring the same reports that were presented to it in 2011, 2013 and 2015—exactly the same reports carried out using exactly the same modelling—which indicate that scrapping air passenger duty would be a net gain to the UK Treasury. I do not say that superficially, but whenever we stand before a Treasury Minister or try to argue with the Treasury and say, “We want to have this cut for a boost,” they look at you and say, “This will cost us money. If we take from this pot, how will we supplement it in another way?” The call for evidence will show, as every economic forecast has shown, that there is a net economic benefit to the reduction of air passenger duty.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the major competitor to all of Northern Ireland’s airports—International, City and Londonderry—is Dublin? Dublin Airport has now attracted tens of millions of passengers. It is one of the fastest growing airports in western Europe and the Irish Republic does not have APD. We need a very competitive industry. Cancelling APD would give our airports a magnificent advantage over Dublin.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is right. I will come on to those Northern Ireland-specific issues, but first I will touch on the 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers report. PwC uses—this will mean something to the Minister, and probably a lot to the officials sitting behind him, although it does not mean much to a layman like me—a computable general equilibrium model: exactly the same model that the Treasury uses when considering economic impacts. PwC updated its report in 2015, but the 2013 report was clear: scrap air passenger duty, and the Treasury will gain—not lose and claw back, but gain.

As a country we have gone from getting £343 million per year from air passenger duty in 1999, to £3.9 billion last year, with £4 billion estimated by 2021. When PwC updated its model in 2015, it said that there would be a direct boost to this country’s GDP of 0.5% in the first year, not a loss. How many times do we see newspaper headlines with every political decision that is having a detrimental impact on our GDP? Yet here is a simple and clear way that the Treasury could make a positive and progressive move that would lead to an increase in GDP in the very first year.

PwC said in 2015 that if we had done it that year, by 2020 we would have had 1.7% economic growth. That would have meant 61,000 additional jobs in this country, stimulation of our tourism and hospitality sectors, growth in business, 61,000 more families benefiting from a good income, 61,000 more families not otherwise relying on the state, and more revenue raised in tax than would be lost in abolition. If we can push one message, whether through the consultation, the call for evidence or the plethora of modelling and economic data that has been provided to the Treasury, it must be this: more tax revenue will be raised with the abolition of APD than its retention—an extra £570 million per year, had the decision been taken in 2015. That is not the £4 billion we are hoping to get, but £2 billion on top of that by 2020. That is a 50% increase, and were I a Treasury Minister I would jump at the chance.

Northern Ireland is, of course, close to our hearts. We have to look at the competitive disadvantage in Northern Ireland compared with our near neighbours in the Republic. Travelling from Belfast to Dublin airport is no different from travelling from Manchester to Birmingham. It is only 100 miles, so when someone is considering where to fly from and how much it will cost, the economic attractiveness of flying from Dublin is incredibly strong.

I do not put those figures forward to suggest that the UK tourism industry is in a bad place; it is not—we rank fifth out of 136 nations in travel competitiveness overall. However, on ticket price competitiveness, the Treasury report says we are 135th out of 136 countries. When someone is faced with the attractive economic proposition of travelling 100 miles down the road to Dublin, that is a barrier to growth in Northern Ireland, to additional connectivity, and to greater opportunity for leisure travel. It is frustrating and constraining the economic stimulus that we in Northern Ireland desperately need, and that our businesses crave.

In Northern Ireland we have had an 11% increase in travel, with 17% more air passengers going through our airports over the last five years. That sounds good, as the UK average is 22%, but what are Dublin’s figures? In 2014, the Republic of Ireland scrapped air passenger duty. From 2014 to 2018, the number of air passengers going through Dublin’s airports rose by 47%. That is an additional 9 million travellers, 1.2 million of whom come from Northern Ireland. That starkly illustrates what we are attempting to highlight. On average, 25% of the cost of a one-way short-haul ticket in this country is air passenger duty. It is not small beer; it is a considerable consideration for anyone seeking to travel.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I served on during the time of the inquiry, has considered both the reduction and the abolition of air passenger duty, as well as a reduction in VAT. The debate does not focus on VAT but on air passenger duty. However, in our view the two are intertwined, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee agreed. The Republic of Ireland cut its VAT rate for tourism and hospitality, bringing it down to 9%. That means, again, that that industry has a competitive advantage. If somebody goes to visit the island of Ireland they will see our hospitality figures, hotel rates and so on with a significant uplift.

When the Republic of Ireland cut its hospitality and tourism VAT, there was a significant benefit to the economy again. For every percentage point dropped—and the rate went down to 9%—there was an increase of 1.7% in employment. That directly led to 4,800 new jobs in the Irish Republic, because it had the courage to cut the VAT associated with hospitality and tourism. The Northern Ireland Hotels Federation and Hospitality Ulster are clear that the economic benefit and growth created in the Northern Ireland economy through that simple reduction could result in 1,100 jobs.

I understand that we have two tax rates for VAT in this country—20% and 5%. We are constrained to those two at the moment, and even if we were not, we might not choose to have three, four or five because of the increase in burden. However, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was quite clear that the disparity makes a distinct difference when Tourism Ireland, which is charged with promoting tourism on the island of Ireland under the Good Friday agreement, is promoting Northern Ireland, as opposed to the Republic of Ireland.

I hope that the Minister will not only outline a timetable for considering the Treasury’s call for evidence, but show an earnest desire to take, once thoughtful consideration has been given to the mounting evidence that has been compiled over years, reasonable, beneficial, appropriate steps to stimulate the aviation sector across the United Kingdom, tourism and economic growth in Northern Ireland. I hope that we look at not only the specific calls of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the abolition of APD and the reduction of tourism VAT, but other models as well.

One such model could be a route development fund. We could charge no APD for a three-year window. That would be a good way to test whether or not it is an economic barrier or detriment. There would be no loss to the Treasury on any new route, because it would just not charge for such a route. A route development fund would encourage growth and stimulate the sector to get business destinations, which we crave in Northern Ireland, such as Frankfurt in Germany, France or even transatlantic flights to the United States. We could give a route development fund three years to see whether it makes sense, and whether air passenger duty has been a significant barrier. Allow a route to develop without the threat of air passenger duty, allow it to stabilise and grow, and we believe that fruit would be borne through that sensible policy.

Social Fund Funeral Payments

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Gregory Campbell

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson]

I am indebted to the hon. Lady. She is entirely right. At a time of grief and sorrow, pride sometimes gets in the way of people seeking the support they most earnestly need. While quietly and under the surface there are many membership organisations that, through benevolence, step in to support, they should not have to.

We are burdening those in receipt of benefits with a 62% deficit of £2,300. I know that the Government’s position—indeed, it was accepted by the Select Committee—is that in all these instances people have a choice to make. They have a choice as to what type of funeral they have, whether they engage the services of a funeral director and whether they assume additional costs. We accept that people have choices.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He talks about choices. Does he agree that one of the invidious choices that some families have to make is going into considerable debt from a variety of sources in order to pay for a funeral? At a time when immediate relatives and next of kin are grieving tremendously and finding it very difficult to make ends meet, this added burden sometimes leads them to go to money lenders or other sources to get the resources.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Government talk about choices, they also express a desire for the ideal situation that people make provision for their own end of life. Ideally, that is what we should do. Ideally, it should come from our estate and from our savings, but those who are most in need are recipients of benefits from this society because we recognise that they cannot pay for themselves.

I ask this question of the Minister—I do not do so glibly, but it starkly illustrates the difficulty we have. Take JSA as one example. A recipient of JSA gets £73.10 per week. How much of that £73.10 do Government believe should be set aside for funeral provision? I do not wish to be facetious: that is the serious concern of many people who struggle by themselves and do not get enough from Government. We are saying, “Really, you should be saving for after life as well.”