Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

Absolutely right. Mr Deputy Speaker, we gave time to my hon. Friend, but we have saved time on what I was about to say. This is an important point and such civil servants should take cognisance of their ability to make these decisions, and they should make these decisions.

Very helpfully and importantly, paragraph 10(c) of the guidance outlines that NICS departmental officials are encouraged to

“continue to advance preparatory work”

up to the point at which a ministerial decision would be required. That goes some way to addressing the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). No longer can a departmental official say, “I’m sorry, we can’t advance that project or strategy, consider an alternative or engage with interested groups because we don’t have a Minister”; they can, and I think that is crucial.

As a constituency representative for Belfast East, I look to the regional stadium development fund as a prime example. The Executive agreed that they would spend £36 million on stadium development. Strand 1 of that scheme said there would be £10 million for a football club in my constituency—Glentoran football club. Officials say they cannot advance it because they do not have a ministerial decision. Well, of course they can, because it is an Executive priority, it is agreed, the consultation has been issued, the consultation responses are back, the consultation responses have been appraised by officials and they know exactly the direction of travel. Preparatory work still needs to be concluded, particularly with the Irish Football Association on the funding matrix for such a development, and that work should continue.

Transparency needs to be at the heart of this Bill. I was therefore pleased to see in paragraph 15 of the guidance a requirement on departmental officials in Northern Ireland to report to the Secretary of State monthly on any decision that has been taken under the Bill. That is really important, and it goes to the heart of transparency of government. The notion that senior civil servants could take decisions and not tell the people or that they could fail to take decisions that we know remain outstanding is one that is well worth consideration. I am pleased to see that that is included in the guidance.

There is a whole other issue that should have featured as part of this Bill. I look to the Minister to see whether he can give any comfort on this issue at all. We have no legislative forum in Northern Ireland. This is the only legislative forum in this country that can legislate on behalf of Northern Ireland, and every week, Bills go through this place that could and should be extended to cover Northern Ireland: issues that are not controversial; issues that do not cause difficulty between political parties; and issues that are normal and run of the mill. It is important that they are progressed and that we in Northern Ireland do not lose the opportunity for legislative change. We do not have any certainty that the ad hoc procedures and ad hoc approach to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in England and Wales legislation and the extension of that legislation to Northern Ireland will take place. That leaves us in a ridiculous situation. We are asked to come here and vote on issues that affect the people of England and Wales and yet not get any progress for the constituents that send us here. It is not right.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), had the courage to include Northern Ireland in non-branded medicines cost regulations back in March. He said that he sought a legislative consent motion, but there was no Northern Ireland Assembly. None the less, it was the right thing to do, and it was in the public interest to include Northern Ireland. Yesterday, the Civil Liability Bill should have included Northern Ireland. Animal welfare changes that have been brought forward by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should include Northern Ireland. In Westminster Hall, in debate after debate, we ask Ministers whether the Government will extend the same provisions in the absence of an Assembly to cover Northern Ireland, and they say that they cannot because it is devolved. I invite the Minister, if he can provide comfort for us now or later in his summation, to outline the steps that we can achieve to make sure that there is certainty that, when a legislative vehicle gives the opportunity to extend something sensible to Northern Ireland, we seize that opportunity.

[Nigel Dodds]

My hon. Friend makes a very, very important point. The Bill really covers only the issue of Executive functions and decisions taken at administrative levels, so the whole area of legislation is left to one side—obviously. There is the issue not only of extending legislation for England and Wales to Northern Ireland, but of legislation that is sitting with Government Departments in Northern Ireland ready to go, which cannot be progressed. Earlier, somebody mentioned the unexplained wealth orders, for instance, to tackle paramilitary crime and criminal organised crime in Northern Ireland—a sensible measure that is supported by everybody and that should be progressed. The police want to see it happen; everybody in Northern Ireland wants to see it happen. Why can that not be progressed?

Air Passenger Duty

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. It is a timely opportunity to remind everyone of the important work that is under way in relation to the consultation on APD and VAT in Northern Ireland, which he referred to. He talked about the general issues, but there are two crucial issues that will result in a change for Northern Ireland: first, we are in competition with Dublin airport; and, secondly, Northern Ireland is cut off from the rest of the United Kingdom by the Irish sea, and therefore we are much more dependent on air links. When the Treasury looks at APD, it must conclude that, to make Northern Ireland competitive and to sustain our economy, it must take action to deal with those two issues.

[Gavin Robinson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the competition and the constraints put upon us as a region. I could not have put it better. We are set aside by the Irish sea, and we rely on air connectivity. We do not have the choice to search around for off-peak train travel, or to easily jump on a boat, only to find that the bus is not at Stranraer waiting for us. When we look at stimulating our economic growth, we have to recognise that we are at a distinct disadvantage because of the Irish border and the tax duty regime in the Republic of Ireland.

I know that other hon. Members will mention the other devolved regions, which have committed to remove air passenger duty. Whenever a devolved Administration gets into such a discussion with the Treasury, it will ask for the cost to be covered by the block grant. It has had such conversations with Northern Ireland and with the Scottish Government. If there is further devolution, it may have such conversations with the north of England.

The whole thrust of that approach is predicated on loss and on the Treasury not having something it otherwise would have had. If it is successful, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the north-east of England are not allowed to reap the rewards; they go back to the Treasury. We need confidence and optimism in this process. Evidence from across the United Kingdom shows that there are benefits. The Government must recognise our unique challenges and those of other parts of the United Kingdom.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I have a Valentine’s poem for him. It was written by Pubs of Ulster—the predecessor to Hospitality Ulster—to one George Osborne in February 2015. I hope it adds a bit of levity to a debate that can be turgid when we get down into the figures. I think pragmatists can see what the answer is.

“Labour is red

Tories are blue

Here’s something important

That you need to do

Our VAT rate is crippling

Our ability to grow

It’s putting off tourists

To other countries they go

Please cut the VAT rate

And help us create

A competitive market

For our beds and our plates

As you know my dear Chancellor

You’re close to our hearts

But elections are looming

And you may depart

So as your last action

Before the big day

Please cut the VAT rate

And you may get to stay!”

That is a little bit of fun, but it lays out the Northern Ireland tourism and hospitality industry’s calls about VAT.

Air passenger duty is clearly a barrier to growth. I trust that the Minister will thoughtfully consider all the calls for evidence. We look forward to hearing a suitable response today and in the weeks to come. I hope that, come the autumn statement, we will be in a position to make some sensible and serious proposals.

Social Fund Funeral Payments

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to some of those issues later in my speech, as well as recognising the particular difficulties we have in Northern Ireland when it comes to those choices. The Select Committee did a good bit of work on the application process and the SF200 form, which I will refer to later as well.

The Minister will know that the social fund payment is broken into two categories: what is considered to be a non-discretionary award and what is considered to be a discretionary spend. The Committee has canvassed this issue. The Members I mentioned previously—the hon. Member for South Shields and others—have recognised that the £700 award, which was formulated at a time when it met discretionary spend needs, was frozen in 2003. The Bank of England’s calculator suggests that that £700 is now worth £495.68, yet the costs have not frozen; they have risen exponentially. That figure was set at a time when Government said they would meet the costs, but I am afraid this policy is now compounding the debt and the pressure on families who look to Government for support. That is 13 years of diminished spend, and the cost of discretionary items has risen exponentially, at more than three times the rate of inflation year on year since 2003.

Let us consider what is discretionary. I do not find it comfortable that the provision of a representative of the clergy or an officiant at a ceremony is a discretionary spend. I know that people have different views on faith, but for me it is not a choice. I recognise that there are many in our country who do not live a faithful life but who, when they approach the end, build that relationship for what is to come. I do not believe that that spend—whether it is a faith-based clergyman or someone who will simply officiate at an ordinary funeral—should be discretionary, nor do I believe that the hiring of a place of worship should be. We cannot expect it to be a discretionary cost for people at a time of grief and sorrow to sort out a place aside from their home to welcome family and friends who want to pay their respects to their loved one.

Discretionary cost is also associated with a cremated remains plot or storage space. Cremation is a non-discretionary spend, so its cost is covered; burial is also a non-discretionary spend and interment is covered. Burials cost substantially more than cremations and the Government will cover the cost of interment of a body in a burial, yet providing a plot for ashes or a safe place for them to be kept is non-discretionary. Given that there is a huge saving for the Government in the discretionary element of cremation, the provision of a cremated remains plot or storage space should be moved from non-discretionary to discretionary.

Embalming is a discretionary spend. The Government say a family choose whether a body will be embalmed. It is not required scientifically, but is most important, should a family choose to have an open coffin or to spend time with their deceased loved one. As part of that categorisation of non-discretionary spend, the Government are making the choice more difficult for those in receipt of benefits or who can ill afford it. They are saying, “We will pay £700”—which in no way represents the cost of the non-discretionary items added together; indeed, it has been frozen since 2003 and is now worth less than £500—“but you choose: are you going to use it to have an officiant at a ceremony, to have a place to put the ashes of your loved one, to embalm the body before disposal or to mark their final resting place with a memorial?” It is appropriate to spell out these aspects of the end of life sincerely and earnestly, to illustrate some of the choices that the policy is asking people without sufficient means to make.

In an evidence session during the Select Committee’s inquiry, an official from the Department for Work and Pensions said that, ideally, eligible claimants should know what their entitlement is before a funeral. It is sensible and plausible that people do not go to a funeral director and ask for these discretionary items, amassing a substantial cost that they can ill afford. That is sensible and, when I consider the delay in having a funeral in England and Wales, it is also practical. People may wait two, three or four weeks for a funeral. That is not so in Northern Ireland, where traditionally people are buried two or three days after death. So at a time of sorrow and grief, we not only ask people to come to terms with loss and their inability to provide for their loved one and to make arrangements, contact family and friends, but to contact DWP’s advice line to see whether support is available. Three weeks sounds practical, but three days is less so, yet the constraints are the same across the country. Colleagues from other parts of the country may wish to add their experience, but in Northern Ireland the short time frame does not allow people to do what the DWP official described as ideal.

All this—the question of discretionary or non-discretionary and the cap in 2003—has led to a crisis of funeral poverty in this country. The Local Government Association has highlighted its concern. In 2009-10, there were 2,200 public health funerals, at a cost of £1.5 million to local authorities. In 2010-11, there were 2,900, at a cost of £2.1 million. The BBC survey of all local authorities in this country had a response rate of three quarters. It is estimated that there will be 3,500 public health funerals this year.

We know what they are. Paupers’ funerals have been described as funerals for which there is simply no one to pay, no family support and no ability to give someone a send-off from a loved one, so the state steps in. The number of such funerals has risen exponentially to 3,500 this year. That has led the National Association of Funeral Directors to ask why, if funeral poverty is rising, social fund funeral payments have decreased. The social fund payments of £40 million in 2016 represent a 10.9% decrease from £44 million in the previous year. The number of public health funerals is rising and funeral poverty is rising, yet Government support is falling. With a fall of £4 million between last year and this year, we are returning to 1993 in real terms, when the Government spent £90 million on social fund funeral payments.

Last year, the social fund proudly stated that it had reduced outstanding debt and returned more than £150 million to the Treasury. The number of public health funerals is rising, spend is decreasing and the cost to local authorities and funeral poverty are rising; rather than proudly stating that they are handing £150 million back to the Treasury, the Government have the choice to use the money more appropriately and to provide the support that is needed.

To be fair, the Government gave a timely response to the Select Committee’s report. The Minister has had the chance to consider some of her narrow brief—DWP is not a narrow Department and has many considerations—and today gives her the opportunity to add some meat to the skeletal response and skeletal commitments that were offered.

The Government have talked about dialogue between funeral directors, interested third parties and stakeholders. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says to update the discussions that have been taking place since 2015. We should have an appropriate response from the Government today on how those discussions are progressing without just placing the onus on funeral directors.

There was much in the Select Committee’s report about funeral directors doing this and that. The Government could define what a simple funeral is. There are choices, as I have outlined, about what is discretionary and what is non-discretionary. I will be interested to hear not just what stakeholders, funeral directors and their association are prepared to do, but what the Government are prepared to do.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this debate and on how comprehensively and eloquently he has introduced it. In my experience as an MP, people do not necessarily want to talk about funerals, but as they get older the issue becomes more of a burden and a worry. We have a new Prime Minister and a new direction in a Government who are not for the privileged few but for the many. This is an opportunity for the Government to take a new approach and relieve this burden from many elderly people—often widows living alone—who are worried about passing on debt to their families. This is a real opportunity, as my hon. Friend said, to have a new, fresh start.

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree entirely. In 2004, six years before I was elected, I was assisting in one of our advice centres. A lady came in and said she had nothing, but that she had been turned down for pension credit. When we looked at the reasons why, we saw she did have something. She had very few savings, but she had a lump sum of £4,000, which brought her total savings above the threshold for pension credit.

I asked her about the £4,000 and her response was, “That’s not mine. That’s Wilton’s.” Wilton is a funeral director in my constituency. For her in 2004, the consequence of doing what the Government asked of her—to take responsibility for herself and to take pride at the end of her life knowing that no one else would have to step in—was to be ineligible for the Government’s pension credit when she needed it most.

Dog Meat (South Korea)

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Monday 12th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Given that we are within the first hour of the debate it is appropriate to thank you, Mr Nuttall, for calling me so early in this session. I have enjoyed every contribution that has been made. In particular, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) had a difficult task in not only presenting his views but doing justice to the petition. That is not something he wrote, but it is appropriate we consider it here this afternoon. I do not disagree with a word said by any of the contributors thus far and because of that I want to build on the contributions that have been made about the soft power that we as a country and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be using to, if not coerce, certainly concentrate the minds of those who can make a change in South Korea to what, we all accept, is a horrendous situation.

It was great to get the Library briefing, which is incredibly detailed and starkly paints the difficulties that we face. This is a $2 billion a year industry in South Korea. It is not just a few restaurants that need to be hidden from public view when people visit for the winter Olympics in two years’ time; there are 20,000 of them in South Korea. There are 9,000 health food stores selling the tonics that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to. This is a massive part of the local economy in South Korea. I am keen to hear from the Minister whether discussions have been had, or could be had, with his colleagues responsible for agriculture or in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to show an alternative income stream for farmers who clearly recognise how lucrative the dog meat trade is in their country and to encourage them—whether diplomatically or economically—to shift their focus and recognise that there is a better way to provide for their people.

Contrary to popular belief the dog meat available for sale in South Korea is not cheap, so although it may have started off as a response to the impoverished conditions of the Korean war, it is not something that remains because people cannot find alternative sources of food—it is a choice, a lucrative choice. If we have a response to make this afternoon, it should be to focus on how we as a country do not just cajole but encourage those involved in the dog meat trade—whatever motivates them—to change their tack, change their focus and recognise that they should inject a better form of welfare to the meat industry they are involved in.

Given that we do not have a business or agriculture representative from Government here, it is appropriate that we recognise that—although the dog meat trade is an important debate and 102,000 people signed the petition nationally so that we would consider it here today—the Foreign Office and South Korea have some bigger issues on their plates at the moment. South Korea, only a day ago, was threatening to declare nuclear war with North Korea following a test-fired missile within the last week. That just shows how difficult the situation is within that region of our world and how difficult the politics are within the region from a Foreign Office perspective.

Although I recognise the Minister will give us his commitment today that he will take the issue of dog meat seriously, it is incumbent upon us as representatives of this United Kingdom Parliament to recognise that some issues—even though this is an important one—are more acute for South Korea, North Korea and the international world at large. Although I know the Minister will give us a commitment of his tenacity on this issue, we need to recognise that this is one of many that require a focus with South Korea.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful speech and the important points he is making. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on initiating this debate. My hon. Friend mentioned soft power and ensuring that we continue to keep this matter to the fore of people’s minds, despite the other very acute issues that are out there.

We accept that South Korea, the UK Government and other Governments are dealing with other grave matters, but is it not important—the Olympics come round every four years as has been said—that we do not allow these issues to come round now and again, but that we continue to raise them in a supportive and positive way through engagement with the South Korean Government? As parliamentarians, our duty is to continue to raise these matters with our own Ministers and on the international bodies that we are represented on.