Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Mike Penning

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

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comment. I think it fair to say that there are a range of views on this issue, and some accord with the description that he has outlined. There are civil servants in the Northern Ireland civil service who have been incredibly courageous during the time that we have not had democratically accountable Ministers.

But there is the rub—the Bill relies solely on the willingness of a senior departmental official who is impervious to direction and impervious to the views of politically mandated, democratically elected representatives and who can decide whether or not they wish to proceed. The guidance is there, but if we go through that guidance fairly, I think we could decide that something is within the public interest or outwith it at our own discretion, and that is a fault.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I will expand more on this in my speech, but this is a critical point to do with the civil service. We can all criticise civil servants. There are good ones and bad ones. But, particularly in Northern Ireland—I experienced this when I was the Minister—the fear of judicial review in the civil service will not be addressed by the Bill. Bravery is fine, but if this Government do not back civil servants, there will still be fears, not about public opinion, but about whether they will be dragged through the courts, which we have seen so many times in the Province.

[Gavin Robinson]

That is a key consideration. The Bill does not insulate civil servants from the prospect of judicial review. We know from our experience in the courts in Northern Ireland, compared with England and Wales, that ultimately it is easier to progress a judicial review in Northern Ireland. Whether for unaccountable civil servants acting in the best interests of the country or democratically elected Ministers serving the people who elect them and the people of Northern Ireland, the challenges in the courts are still there.

The Bill seeks to replicate the understanding that was there prior to the Buick decision. I remember saying a year ago to the Minister of State that the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 empowers senior departmental officials to take decisions. Ultimately, it was considered by the courts, and the one fundamental ruling they made was that a decision of such regional significance that was controversial and/or significant should be considered by an Executive Committee. The Bill might seek to address that, but it does not absolve anyone from the legal requirement inserted through the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, which amended the Northern Ireland Act 1998, for consideration over and above the individual Department.

That was a significant safeguard injected into the legislative framework arising out of the Belfast agreement on controversial or significant decisions. In that sense, the Bill empowers civil servants to a greater level than a democratically elected and accountable Minister. That is difficult. That is my reading of clause 3(5), and it is constitutionally a troublesome step. I have to accept the position that the Northern Ireland Office has adopted, which is that it will not provide an overarching mechanism and it cannot empower officials to replace what would have been the Executive Committee, but the Bill is deficient in that regard. I am not sure that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to answer or provide any solace on that issue.

Some consideration has been given to clauses 1 and 2, on the timescales for the re-formation of an Executive. I will put on record clearly for the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), in response to the question that she raised, that never once during any of our discussions with departmental officials in the Northern Ireland Office was a date discussed. No date was discussed, and it is not politically driven. Timescales were discussed, but no specific date was ever discussed.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Mike Penning

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. It is important to focus on why we need a novel piece of legislation like this. It is because the traditional, general classification of illegal substances does not suit circumstances in which natural compounds do not maintain their composition and, more than that, there is an easy ability to alter the chemical composition of these legal highs. Traditional classification could be achieved, but so could a slight alteration creating a different product that therefore falls foul of the legislation. That, of course, is the intended purpose.

As has been fairly reflected throughout the House this evening, the legal highs that are available are not only dangerous but can cause catastrophic consequences not only for the young people who use them, but for their wider family and the communities in which they live. We know of deaths and we know of tragedies within our own constituencies. When I was Lord Mayor of Belfast I had the opportunity to go out with FASA. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but Hansard could not decipher his dialect. FASA is the forum for alcohol and substance abuse. It has been involved in significant amounts of research within the city of Belfast on legal highs. Through it, I had the pleasure of meeting people who have been affected and were attracted by a product which is marketed particularly for young people. Many names have been mentioned: china white in Belfast, pink panther in Belfast, magic dragon in Belfast, with cartoon characters and colourful print, designed and marketed so that young people find them attractive.

I was then introduced by FASA to young people—sorry, by hardened drug users. This is important. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) got it wrong when he said we do not want to be pushing the sale of legal highs towards those who sell illicit drugs—currently classified as A and B drugs. This is where there was a mistake. When I met the hardened drug users, they said, “We wouldn’t touch that stuff. We wouldn’t touch legal highs with a bargepole.” We have stuff in Belfast that is advertised as 10, 15 or 20 times the strength of opiates, yet it is classified as a legal high. That is one of the significant difficulties. Those who are used to using illegal class A or B drugs would not touch this stuff at all because of the impact on them and, more importantly, on young people who are lured into believing that these are a safer option.

It is only fair to say to the Minister that there is a difficulty with the definition in the legislation, because there has been a difficulty in implementing a similar definition in the courts in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister was treated unfairly at the start of the debate about the Republic of Ireland experience. As somebody who lives just over the border, 100 miles away from Dublin, I travel there quite regularly. Anyone who knows Dublin or who arrives at Connolly station will know that the street that takes them from there to O’Connell street was a pound shop alley 10 years ago and a head shop alley five years ago. It was not an attractive street to walk down. I was there three weeks ago, and there is not one head shop on that street. That is the marked improvement there has been in the Republic of Ireland, but it cannot gain convictions because the definition is too onerous. At any given stage with each individual—with their own make-up and the alternate make-up of the legal high—it is difficult to prove that that product would have had a psychological impact on them. The Minister is aware of those difficulties.

Clause 4 addresses production. I know what is intended by the clause when it says that “the person” must either intend

“to consume the psychoactive substance”

or know or be “reckless as to whether” it is likely to be consumed by “other persons”. Many hon. Members throughout the debate have referred to standard household products that are freely available and freely manufactured or produced. Those are not made for human consumption, but someone could be reckless if they did not acknowledge that they might be consumed by individuals. I am thinking of air fresheners, pot pourri, deodorants and superglue. We all know that such items were abused by individuals 10 or 15 years ago. Glue was a particular case in point. There have also been deaths associated with aerosols and deodorisers. It is important for the Minister to take the opportunity to state explicitly, in our forthcoming discussions as well as in the Bill as it stands, that the production and manufacture cannot be reckless.

[Mike Penning]

This is why we have given such wide-ranging powers to trading standards in the legislation. When we had the glue problem, we addressed it through trading standards legislation, which is why we no longer have the terrible problem that we had on our streets just a few years ago.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the Minister.

Before I touch on our experience in Belfast, I want to mention one quirky concern that has been raised by the Association of English Cathedrals. It fears that incense might no longer be able to be used in worship. I am not sure whether it needs to be exempted from the legislation. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

[Mike Penning]

Let’s just knock this one on the head once and for all. I have written to all the bishops to tell them that incense in churches will be exempt. Done. Finished. No problem.

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you very much, Minister. I am sure that the bishops will be delighted. That is a positive note.

I started by describing my involvement in this issue when I was Lord Mayor of Belfast—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Mike Penning

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

It is right and proper to pay tribute to Nick de Bois, whose work on knife crime from the Government Benches led to legislation being put on the statute book. My hon. Friend, who knows me well, will know that I intend to implement it as soon as I possibly can.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Is the Minister aware that in the last few weeks, the Northern Ireland Assembly has discussed the prospect of mandatory minimum sentences for those who attack elderly people within our society? Does he agree that it is time Parliament sent out a loud and clear message that attacking the most vulnerable members of our society will not be tolerated? Will he meet me to discuss the prospect of introducing mandatory minimums in that regard?

[Mike Penning]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue of mandatory minimums is devolved to Northern Ireland, but we will continue to look into it very carefully. I am pleased to say that last Thursday I met David Ford, Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister, and the Deputy Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The matter was also discussed during the Anglo-Irish summit in Dublin.