European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

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

[Jim Shannon]

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

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

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

[Gavin Robinson]

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

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As hon. Members may be aware, I am not a career politician. I worked as a pork delivery driver with Henry Denny’s, until I opened my own small business as a pork retailer. I worked from early morning, before I did my work for the council and then for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I employed staff members. I did the books as well as I could, then handed them to my accountant. I delivered to local businesses and shopped local. I understand what it is to be a part of small business; indeed, it was a microbusiness. I say respectfully to the Minister that I know I would have struggled to implement some of the things currently under discussion, so I remind hon. Members of the implications of the Bill on small and microbusinesses. The Northern Ireland statistics will show why I hold those concerns.

Microbusinesses in Northern Ireland are no different from those in the United Kingdom mainland. Employment law is mostly devolved, but much of the law in Northern Ireland follows the direction of what is passed in the House of Commons, which is why I want to make my comments in a constructive fashion. The fact is that most employers are not skilled at making changes. The changes made by the Bill and additional obligations on employers must be made clear, be cost-effective and not mean that they need to hire an HR consultant, which is simply out of the question.

For example, I recently heard about a case of a small business that had worked out holiday pay using the online Government calculator. An employee moved to another job and queried the holiday pay. The Labour Relations Agency has said, according to the employees’ representation, that the owner owes approximately £800 per annum to each staff member. The owner has told me that they will need to close the business. I gave that example because I want to show what can go wrong—and, my goodness, it can go wrong at an absolute volume—with regulations that the Government put in place. The business is viable, but does not have the capacity to pay £10,000 in back pay to its staff. It used online tools to get it right, and yet has been left in an untenable situation. That makes it clear that when changes are made to employment practices, the advice for employers must be accurate and easy to understand. This is clearly not currently the case.

With great respect to colleagues on the Government Front Bench, the Bill is a curate’s egg—it is good in part, but not in every part. I welcome some of the measures, such as the end of zero-hours contracts and the enhanced protections, and look forward to seeing the minutiae of the detail.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

On Friday, I attended an event hosted by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It offers the Government no ill will and wants to engage positively and pragmatically on the issues, but it is concerned. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if, instead of continual hubris and politics from one side to the other throughout this debate, there were a willingness on the part of Front-Bench Members to engage thoughtfully with businesses?

[Jim Shannon]

My right hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I want to make. Through the Bill, the Government are pushing forward legislation that is necessary and welcome, but they need to work better and more closely alongside small businesses and microbusinesses of the kind I worked with many moons ago, whenever I had hair—that is a thing of the past. We cannot expect almost 80% of small businesses to behave as if they have an HR department, a payroll department and a board when most of them are simply retailers as I was, hiring local people and trying to be a good boss in a world with changing obligations.

Support must be central to any change in legislation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I ask the Secretary of State to take that point on board. If he is able to do so, I believe we can move forward constructively and help our businesses to maintain their status as employers.

Aerospace Industry: Northern Ireland

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Jim Shannon

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady makes a pertinent point, and I absolutely agree about the importance of unions. The last sentence of my speech will underline the important role played by the unions.

The operations are being sold as a going concern, which is encouraging. However, my going concern is to ensure that it does not result in jobs being lost, but results in an even stronger aerospace industry in Northern Ireland. That is why I am pressing for Government involvement and support to ensure that happens.

Spirit announced on 1 July that it had signed a definitive merger agreement under which Boeing will acquire Spirit. Spirit has also entered into a binding term sheet with Airbus, under which Airbus will assume ownership of certain Airbus programmes carried out by Spirit. That includes the A220 programme at our Belfast site.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point not only about trade unions but about job retention. It will be important in the days and weeks to come that the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland impress upon Airbus that, in assuming responsibility for the wings facility, it is taking on grandfathered obligations that arise from Northern Ireland Executive and national Government commitments that led to the construction of that facility. Airbus should be in no doubt that, if it takes on the wings facility, those obligations sustain, and that its commitment to the workforce in Belfast should sustain. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agrees with me, but I am also keen to hear that the Minister is prepared to advance that issue with Airbus in the coming days.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. In my discussions with the Minister last week, I took the opportunity to give her my contribution and my final asks. We are looking for positive answers, and I think my right hon. Friend will not be disappointed when the Minister responds; certainly, I hope that will be the case.

I am aware that Spirit is in the process of securing a responsible owner for the remaining activities in its Northern Ireland operations, hopefully including the facility in Newtownards, which is severely underutilised. I wish to underline something that the company has been at pains to highlight: the decision to offer the non-Airbus part of the Belfast site for sale is not a reflection on the operation’s performance or capabilities. Spirit is one Northern Ireland’s largest investors and biggest employers, with over 3,500 employees. It has a highly skilled, adaptable workforce and an extensive, integrated Northern Ireland and GB supply chain. That must remain the case because it is clearly a key part of the local aerospace ecosystem and its operations have a major impact on the Northern Ireland economy. I cannot underline enough the importance of its impact on the Northern Ireland economy.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

May I say what a privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) and to stand here not only as a returned representative, elected to continue my representation of my home constituency, but as the leader of Unionism in Northern Ireland—to have the opportunity to speak for the people of Northern Ireland in our national Parliament with the endorsement not only of my constituents, but of colleagues right across the Province? It is a real privilege, and I am pleased to do it during this Loyal Address and response to His Majesty’s Gracious Speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that the election brought with it some challenges. We do not have two of our colleagues that I would have liked to have been here with us today—I thank both Ian and Paul for their contribution and service to national politics and to politics more broadly in Northern Ireland—but we are not without hope, and it is very clear that the additions to the parliamentary team, even though not of our party, will make a significant contribution to life in their constituencies in Northern Ireland and to this place.

In responding to this Loyal Address and Gracious Speech, the first thing to say is that we hold His Majesty responsible for not one bit of it—it is, of course, the agenda of this Government—and if you were to ask someone in rural Ireland for directions, you might find them responding, “I wouldn’t start from here.” As I read through the King’s Speech, I welcome the commitment to repeal the provisions of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023; and I say that as somebody who, over the last nine years and alongside colleagues who have been here for longer, has been consistent in our approach to issues of legacy in Northern Ireland. That is not something that everyone in this Chamber can say.

Over the last number of years, we appreciated the opposition that those on the Labour Benches offered in the face of the Conservative Government’s pursuit of the legacy Act. We appreciated the response from Labour colleagues, when they recognised that the removal of the pursuit of justice was obnoxious to victims—people who lost the opportunity to pursue answers and outcomes on behalf of their loved ones. But the corruption of justice in Northern Ireland commenced decades ago: the early release of prisoners was a corruption of justice; the on-the-runs legislation, ill-fated though it was, was a corruption of justice; and the letters of comfort, indicating to terrorists that they would not face prosecution, was a corruption of justice.

I am well aware that this evening the Prime Minister is due to meet the Taoiseach of Ireland, Simon Harris, and that as part of this King’s Speech he has indicated very clearly that he is keen to reset relations. That is important—we should have good relations with our near neighbours—but I want to take this opportunity to say very clearly that the corruption of justice has now been highlighted by the Government, we have a commitment from them that they are going to act upon it, and that should mean that we have an engagement based on honesty with the Government of the Irish Republic, and that there should be gentle and encouraging challenge to say that they have failed in their responsibilities on legacy.

When the courts have determined that the Irish Government should bring forward inquiries as to what role was played by their state actors, by An Garda Síochána and by others involved within their territory, there has been silence. In fact, all we have had over recent years from the Irish Government was a case against the UK Government on this legislation—so let’s balance it up. If the engagement this evening is to be fruitful—if there is to be a positive outcome on what is a good commitment and a commitment that we welcome—then it must be to ask our near neighbours to play their part in ensuring truth and justice.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend my right hon. Friend and colleague for what he has said. When it comes to responsibility, the Republic of Ireland should be held accountable for the fact that it gives sanctuary to the IRA terrorists who murdered my cousin, in December 1971, and Lexie Cummings, and escaped across the border. There is something wrong with the Government in the Republic of Ireland in particular if they can give sanctuary to IRA murderers and killers—and they think they can get away with it.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment.

Moving on to public services, over the last number of years we have been campaigning about the fact that public services in Northern Ireland are constrained because the Barnett formula has not served us well and we have been getting less than what the Independent Fiscal Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council have accepted that we need. Therefore, year on year public services are being reduced in Northern Ireland and year on year we are not getting the sort of uplift required to ensure that our constituents benefit from devolution.

New Members of this House will probably not have experienced the protracted agony around devolution in Northern Ireland and the importance of getting it restored five months ago, but one part of that restoration was ensuring that sufficient public finances were available. There is a key opportunity—though not mentioned in this King’s Speech, I hope it is something the incoming Government will focus on—to draw upon the lessons of the Holtham commission in Wales and upon the positive uplift there, to provide us with what we need to reform and transform public services.

At the moment, the challenges are not about how we grow and develop the provisions for our people, irrespective of their community background, in Northern Ireland, but about what special schools we close, what hospitals we close and what services we stop providing. As somebody who speaks for our corner of the United Kingdom in this place, I ask for earnest engagement on public services and public funding in Northern Ireland.

Devolution was restored on the basis of an agreement that we reached with the previous Government, but that agreement was supported by Labour in February of this year. The “Safeguarding the Union” document, which allowed devolution to be restored, contains within it key and significant commitments and we look forward to the new Labour Government’s honouring them. Their Members supported it at the time in February. They know its importance. While I see reference in the King’s Speech to resetting relations with the European Union—as I said earlier, we should have good relationships and we should build upon those good relationships with near neighbours—we need to carefully nurture the arrangements that were agreed in February and need to be delivered. This is about removing barriers within our own country.

We can focus on relationships with others outside, and we should, but not to the detriment of that which makes this country work. There are opportunities on regional connectivity and to build on the Union connectivity review. The proposed creation of a council for the regions and borders looks quite like the East-West Council that was agreed back in February as part of the “Safeguarding the Union” document. We will have to study the detail. If it is a rename and a re-badge, that is fine, but we need to talk about how we move people and products from one part of our country to another. Where is the connectivity review work on the A75 moving from Northern Ireland into Scotland and down towards Carlisle? How do we think about this as a national endeavour? There will be newly elected Scottish Members of Parliament on the Labour Benches who will take keen interest in ensuring that the Union works across the United Kingdom, and we want to play our part in that.

I have spent the last eight years on the Select Committee on Defence. I have spoken many times of the contribution of Thales from my constituency and the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, and how important they were in the initial weeks of the defence of Kyiv particularly and Ukraine more generally. However, the eye has been taken off the ball on support for those industries that are key within my constituency and important for Northern Ireland as a whole in the Defence sphere.

Hon. Members will have seen negative briefing in the last 24 hours around Harland & Wolff. I want to see a very clear commitment from this Government that they believe in the contracts that have been awarded to Belfast and in the renaissance of shipbuilding in Belfast, that they adhere to the commitments of the national shipbuilding review to building skills and opportunities throughout our United Kingdom and that—irrespective of the ups and downs, highs and lows of any individual company—the aspiration and the economic benefits of retaining shipbuilding and growing the shipbuilding capacity in Belfast are highly important. So, too, is the issue of Boeing wishing to bring Spirit AeroSystems back into its company. Significant issues arise from that for the economy of Belfast and Northern Ireland, as Spirit AeroSystems is the largest private employer, with high-skilled manufacturing jobs, in my constituency, but it services the entirety of the United Kingdom. Like previous Business Secretaries, the Government need to focus on that. I am not suggesting that they are not, but there is a huge opportunity in the next six months, and we need to land it to secure what is important for us.

Finally—I realise that I am going beyond the suggested time limit, Mr Deputy Speaker—there is a proposal for a football regulator. Good. We will have the debate in the next weeks and months—it will probably come from my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) —about whether that football regulator should be for England or, in this national Parliament, for football within our country.

If I did not close with this, I would probably have one less vote come the next election. My constituent Davy Warren, who used to serve me in the newsagent’s on my way to school, texted me to say: “Gavin, support England if you like on Sunday. They’re not your team but they’re the only team from our country, so support England if you like, but remind them all that Neil Diamond’s ‘Sweet Caroline’ is a Northern Ireland football team anthem.” The green and white army were very happy to lend that anthem to you all, but we will reclaim it. I gently remind the House that the last time Spain faced a home nation in any significant final or competition—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford was there, and I was not born—Northern Ireland beat Spain.