Northern Ireland

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I apologise for my voice being a bit croaky; I might have to give up slightly earlier than planned. We will see how it goes.

I want to stress that a lot of people in Northern Ireland, including members of my party, have shown enormous patience and pragmatism, especially over the past two years, during which the Assembly has not met. I recognise the efforts made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) to get his party back into institutions, but we have to recognise that enormous damage was done during the two-year suspension, as it was whenever Sinn Féin took the institutions down previously. We have a lot of work to do to undo the damage that has been done, as well as build for the future. Hopefully, we can find consensus tonight on the importance of Northern Ireland having a prosperous future.

I do not want to linger on this point, but Brexit is the original sin behind the problems that Northern Ireland has had over the past seven or eight years. We have had the common theme of trying to find various mechanisms through which we can address the particular challenges posed in Northern Ireland, and of putting in place special arrangements. I hope that the Windsor framework, albeit with modifications in its implementation, can provide a degree of stability, but there is a wider point to be made about the future: the closer the UK and the European Union are aligned with each other, the less the impact of difference will be across the Irish Sea, whether we are talking about any residual checks that take place or tensions that arise about standards and regulation. Although I hope that we are closing this phase of the Brexit wars, particularly as applied to Northern Ireland, we still need to address how the UK and the European Union can find a better working relationship over the coming years. I say that while maintaining my own and my party’s aspiration that one day we will return to the European Union—and, perhaps even before that, the single market and the customs union.

As for our approach to what has happened, we have given the DUP and the Government a considerable amount of space, and recognised that there were issues that they had to work through to get to this point. Equally, we have to recognise that we have had a one-sided political negotiation in Northern Ireland, which is at odds with practice over the 25 years since the Good Friday agreement and, indeed, before that. We were pragmatic in that regard, provided we saw a situation that would not damage the Good Friday agreement, that no damage would be done to Northern Ireland’s dual-market access to both the UK and wider EU markets, and that the parties were kept informed. On all three of those tests, there are some issues that we need to air, which arise from the Command Paper.

We have been careful not to destabilise the restoration of the Good Friday institutions earlier this month, and tonight is perhaps a better opportunity to articulate some of the relevant points, rather than our rocking the boat at an earlier stage. In many respects, the Command Paper has no legal effect, and we are careful not to get too wound up about it. For some, it could be characterised as a glorified press release, but there are measures in it that may cause us all concern, and their implementation will be critical. Aspects of the language are one-sided and loaded, which perhaps points to wider issues of mindset that pose some concerns. Let me give the House a few examples.

Like the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I am concerned about the marginalisation of the duty to have due regard to the all-island economy in legislation. Removing those words from law does not, in itself, erase the reality of an all-island economy, but there is the danger of a change of mindset leading to missed opportunities. I would be very wary of a situation whereby we falsely set the UK economy against the all-island economy; the two can operate in perfect harmony and complement each other. Of course, the all-island economy is different from the UK economy, because there are separate jurisdictions in the all-island economy. Obviously, there are differences around tax, regulation and governance—just to give a few examples. However, Northern Ireland is in a situation where sales and supply chains operate on both an east-west and a north-south basis, and the all-island economy exists as a concept above and beyond Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market.

A clear example of that is the existence of InterTradeIreland, which the Command Paper mirrors with the creation of Intertrade UK. Another is the fact that we have the single electricity market on the island, which has been one of the great success stories of north-south co-operation. That was not even envisaged in the Good Friday agreement, but happened afterwards through sheer pragmatism and the recognition of reality, including by DUP Economy Ministers at the time. We also have the reality of agrifood movements; we have some highly intricate arrangements on the island in that regard. If we end up in a situation where we do not give due regard to the all-island economy, we may end up missing opportunities to drive Northern Ireland’s prosperity, because we have to be open to all economic opportunities that come our way, irrespective of their characteristics. That is a particular danger in relation to the Stormont brake, which I will come to in a moment.

I recognise that European Union law is an issue of contention for many people in this House. For me, it is not remotely threatening whatsoever. I want to actively embrace it, because it is key to Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. We should not be running away from EU law, which is there to safeguard labour rights, consumer protection, environmental protection and other related areas. Companies want to have certainty on those issues for the environment in which they are operating, and those that export in particular want to have the ability to operate to the standards of their largest export markets in any event—so this is not a matter that the business community is raising concerns about.

I appreciate that in the long run, the Stormont brake may not actually change that much about Northern Ireland’s adherence to EU law. If, however, we find ourselves in a situation whereby there is either a delay or some other form of uncertainty in the applicability of updated EU law in Northern Ireland, it may create an issue for some inward investors into Northern Ireland, who rely on certainty about regulations, particularly in highly regulated areas—for example, pharmaceuticals. If we want to fully capitalise on our dual market access, we need to be very careful not to hollow that out from within by playing political games around the Stormont brake. We will reserve judgment to see how that works in practice but, on paper, it causes us some considerable concerns at this stage.

Going forward, it is important that we see a change of gear from the Government in how they engage with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, and that they try to address some of the friction that has built up with the Irish Government in recent months. I appreciate that there are two sides to every argument, but those issues need to be overcome if we are to make the most of this new beginning for Northern Ireland.

A greater level of transparency and co-operation with all the political parties will be crucial for the implementation of any measures that arise from the Command Paper. In that regard, not every item mentioned in the Command Paper directly relates to the seven tests that the DUP set out in its reasons for not being part of the Executive. We have seen some mission creep in some of the commitments that have been made. We have touched on a broad spectrum of issues in Northern Ireland on which there has not been proper engagement with all the political parties, but the Government are under a duty to ensure proper fairness in that regard.

Regarding some of the constitutional stuff that has been mentioned, I too am happy to put on record that I do not believe that joint authority is part of the Good Friday agreement. It is a choice between Northern Ireland being a part of a single UK or part of a single united Ireland. Within those structures we can come up with different arrangements, including a federal Ireland or devolution within the context of the UK, but those are the two choices available. That does not mean that the Irish Government are not a partner in the peace process. Indeed, they need to be an active participant in some aspects of the discussions relating to Northern Ireland. There are also issues in relation to the East-West Council and how that is going to be reconciled with the British-Irish Council. That is an institution under the Good Friday agreement, whereas the East-West Council is not. How will that be reconciled? The Government need to clarify some of these points.

The point has been made that if people want to secure the Union—that may well be the intention of a majority of people in Northern Ireland at present—the best way of doing so is to ensure that Northern Ireland works. That mean having functioning and effective political institutions. It also means equality within Northern Ireland and respect for all traditions. At the moment the jury is out in that regard. Over the past six or seven years, Brexit has resulted in a major reassessment of people’s identities and potential aspirations, and while opinion polls are pointing in a clear direction at present, I think people would be overly complacent not to read beneath the surface and see the degree of concern about the things have happened in recent times and the reactions to them.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The hon. Member has spoken for over 10 minutes and he has raised concern after concern about the content of the “Safeguarding the Union” document, but not once has he reflected on the concerns of Unionists about the encroachment on our place within this United Kingdom as a result of what he was asking to be rigorously implemented. I am hoping that at some stage there will be space for that in this debate. Does he recognise that the wrong choice over the last number of years was to dismiss and demean the concerns raised by his neighbours and that if he and his colleagues had not done that, there might have been a more rational, sensible and pragmatic recognition of the problems and of the collective desire to address them? The only reason that the product of what we are debating this evening was not agreed collectively was that for too many years he and his colleagues dismissed those of us who raised legitimate concerns.

[Stephen Farry]

I am grateful to the Member for his intervention because it has allowed me to have a good drink to ease my throat. He raises some interesting questions which will allow me to clarify those points. I was not going to rake over old coals too much this evening but he invites me to do so.

Let me be clear: my party has always taken a pragmatic approach to special arrangements within Northern Ireland. We recognised, whenever Brexit was imposed on a society that already works through sharing and interdependence, that that situation was going to have to be carefully managed. I did not want to see any checks introduced anywhere on these islands as a consequence of that, but that was always going to be a reality in the context of a hard Brexit. Hopefully the current hard Brexit can be softened over time, which will help in that respect. In so far as those checks can be minimised, I am all for that. Our party has never stood in the way of that particular outcome.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made reference to the phrase “rigorous implementation”, although we have now heard about the vigorous implementation of the Command Paper from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That phrase relates to a letter that was signed by four parties in September 2021 in the context of attempts by the UK Government to unilaterally breach international law. Our position all along has been that modifications to the protocol, right through to what we have today in the Windsor framework, need to be negotiated, where appropriate, between the UK Government and the European Union as the signatories to the new arrangements, and that they have to be legal.

In that context our position has always been consistent. We are a party of law. We are committed to implementing the law where we are required to implement the law, but where the law can be changed through proper process, we are all for that. What we were always against—and remain against—is unilateral action that puts Northern Ireland in a worse position because it undermines trust. The big game changer was when we had a change of Government in the autumn of 2022. All of a sudden the European Union and the UK Government started talking to each other and things started moving really quickly.

I would say that the result that we have today could have been found much earlier if we had had a lot more trust in the process between the European Union and the UK Government—and I certainly did not justify or require the Assembly to be down for two years, causing chaos in Northern Ireland’s public services and a huge number of missed opportunities. My party has always been clear that we want to see things such as the red and green lanes introduced, which was achieved through the Windsor framework. We have also consistently proposed a veterinary agreement, which I would remind the hon. Member for Belfast East that his party initially opposed whenever we put it forward.

[Gavin Robinson]

indicated dissent.

[Stephen Farry]

Questions were asked in the Northern Ireland Assembly and DUP Ministers said they were opposed, including the former leader of the DUP. I am happy to give way to the Member again so I can have another drink.

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Member should have another sip from that cup, although I am not sure it is working. What we did oppose was the understanding that all veterinary medicines would be available in Northern Ireland through an EU prism—an EU regime. What we have proposed—and what continues to be a part of this Command Paper with the Government’s indication that they will publish unilateral action come the springtime should agreement not be reached—is a recognition of mutual standards: mutual recognition. The hon. Member should recognise the statutory instruments that this House and the other place passed three weeks ago on a goods guarantee and mutual recognition—two things that I believe he and his colleagues might have described as unicorns.

[Stephen Farry]

The Member is conflating a veterinary agreement with the issue of veterinary medicines. There is an issue with veterinary medicines that needs to be properly addressed, but the issue of a wider veterinary agreement was something that the DUP opposed—a wider sanitary and phytosanitary agreement between the UK and the European Union that would free up bureaucracy relating to the movement of agrifood products. That would obviously have a direct benefit in terms of the Irish sea, but it is fundamentally in the interests of the whole UK agrifood sector to address some of the bureaucracy that is increasingly coming to the fore and causing frustration for many businesses. Indeed, perhaps at some point we will have a discussion around the “not for EU” labelling issue, which is also causing major concerns for businesses across the UK but is being driven by this particular process.

I appreciate that the Member and his party are keen to have this narrative about “We have achieved this and we have achieved that”, and I am not to trying to burst their bubble too much, but the reality is that there will still be a degree of checks across the Irish sea. Whether they are done on a risk basis or whether we have a red channel for that, the reality is that there will have to be some management of that Irish sea interface, including the registration of the businesses involved. Those are all products of the fact that we have a hard Brexit, and that we have to manage those tensions. I am delighted that we have got them down as far as we have but, equally, we need to be frank and honest that there are certain parameters beyond which people cannot go.

I was not necessarily planning to have as big a row with the DUP as has unfolded tonight, but I have some comments for the Government on the way forward. We are getting a clear narrative that the Government are committed to making Northern Ireland work. We all share that commitment, and we want to see prosperity.

I have three points for the Government, and hopefully the DUP will agree with some of what I say. First, revenue raising was clearly meant to be part of the wider transformation plan required for the Executive to pay off what was packaged as their debt. Of course, that debt would not have arisen if we had a proper fiscal flow. I freely acknowledge that the Executive will have to address revenue raising, but there is a danger that they will rush to address revenue raising in the coming months while they are still trying to find their feet and address wider financial issues, which could cause difficulties within the Executive. Of course, we should address revenue raising, but let us not rush headlong into it. A figure of £113 million is not insignificant, but it is a drop in the ocean compared with a £14 billion-plus revenue budget. There are much bigger decisions to be made on health and education reform, which the Executive need to be encouraged to address, rather than clashing over £113 million.

Secondly, Casement Park is an important issue for the Euros in 2028, but it is a wider, totemic issue for a section of the community in Northern Ireland. I will not go into exactly what the UK Government have to do, but they are a player. Commitments have been made on their support for this overall project. The clock is clearly ticking, so there is a degree of urgency. The issue is now being escalated as a potential political confrontation point, which may pose problems to the restored Executive. With all the caveats about value for money that the Government have to consider, they should be clear, as soon as possible, about what they can do so that the project can move ahead.

Thirdly, the repackaged Fresh Start money is above and beyond the £3.3 billion package for the restored Executive. That fund was already part of the transformation fund for shared and, in particular, integrated education. We now have a situation in which 10 schools, at different levels of development, for integrated education—which, to be fair, the Government have embraced over many years—are now placed in jeopardy. To me, that is not only a step back from integration and reconciliation in Northern Ireland, but it is at odds with the objective of transformation. I urge the Government to reconsider how the Executive handle the £150 million of repurposed Fresh Start funding. Again, the Government agreed the package during a previous political crisis in Northern Ireland.

I have spoken for far longer than I anticipated. I recognise that Northern Ireland is in a much better place with a restored Executive and a restored Assembly, and I recognise that a lot of good work has been done to address a number of critical issues, but there are still bumps on the road ahead. My central appeal is that the Government work more closely with all the political parties to ensure that what they have set out is implemented fairly and transparently, and to ensure that all concerns and input are fully taken into account.

United Kingdom Internal Market

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Intertrade UK, a body about which Members will read in The Command Paper, will have an important job of work to do in that regard.

Back in October 2022, whenever we were under significant pressure to move and to accept our lot, my parliamentary predecessor, former First Minister of Northern Ireland and my mentor, Peter Robinson, issued a powerful post reminding colleagues and those of us who were under pressure that we had not come this far only to come this far. He was encouraging us to stand, and we stood our ground not only then but throughout all the hype and all the pressure associated with the publication of the Windsor framework. The three fundamentals that are expanded on in our seven tests were to repair the constitutional harm imposed upon our country, to remove the democratic deficit at the heart of the arrangements for parliamentarians in our Northern Ireland Assembly, and to reduce the friction on trade, and remove it in respect of GB-to-NI goods that are staying in the UK internal market.

That has been our quest. On the constitutional harm, I am delighted that, as a consequence of our party’s resolution, determination and stand over the past number of years, the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and this Parliament were able to speak to and agree the constitutional SI that just passed the House. That is an important milestone.

On the democratic deficit, let us not forget that what has been achieved in repairing and removing the democratic deficit, and giving Stormont a say in the rules that apply to Northern Ireland, did not just come by way of change in this place. The agreement of that resolution required a structural amendment to the Northern Ireland protocol, and article 13.3 and 13.4 of that protocol was amended. The Windsor framework did that, and, in the constitutional SI that we just passed, we have strengthened further still the legislative provisions around the operation of that process. I say that to indicate that what we were told could not happen—changes to these texts, these tablets of stone—has happened.

These regulations are an important document not in and of themselves but as part of a much wider package that has been secured, and that was published in yesterday’s Command Paper. That wider package has import in and of itself, and today’s proceedings have an importance attached to the prospect of a return to devolution. Our party is a devolutionist party. We believe in locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland having the ability to shape our future within the United Kingdom. The cost and consequence of not recognising the opportunity before us, of not seeing the gains that have been achieved, would be too damaging for Unionism and too damaging for the future of our Province within this country.

Neither this SI nor the SI we have just passed is the sum total of what we have agreed. I listened to the hon. Member for Aberconwy say that there is no issue for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. He believes that because it has been said so many times, but it is not so. From 2017, successive Conservative Governments have always dismissed the fact that traders trade in both directions, and they have always answered through one prism, never recognising that we should be equally free to buy and sell in the marketplace.

Saying that trade has not been a concern is to belie the fact that, as Unionists within this country, we had a situation in which UK trade deals did not automatically apply to us in Northern Ireland. Consumers in Northern Ireland could not benefit from those trade deals.

Although it is not in this SI, it is worth mentioning that on Tuesday evening, as a consequence of our discussions and negotiations with the Government, and as published in the Command Paper, we saw the publication of 60 pages of legislative text that will see products from the rest of the world that are freely available in the rest of the United Kingdom now be available in Northern Ireland. Those products will be taken from the red lane into the UK internal market system.

Some 13,000 tonnes of products will be available that were not available until we secured the concession that recognises our rightful place within this United Kingdom and our access to UK free trade deals. That important step means that 14 million items will move from the red lane into the UK internal market system, and it will mean that free trade deals benefit the people of Northern Ireland in a way that they previously could not, in a way that they did not and in a way that was never previously considered. That progress has been secured by this agreement.

The House will also recognise that, as outlined not in this SI but in the deal itself, primary legislation will be introduced to remove what I can describe only as the legislative litter retained from the 2017 joint report on the fictional all-Ireland economy, which does not exist. The reason why goods are labelled “not for sale in the EU” when moving from GB to NI is because we have a separate and distinct arrangement. We are not the same as the rest of the island of Ireland. We are part of the United Kingdom, and this deal reinforces that.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the phrase “all-Ireland economy,” but does he not recognise that a number of companies based in Northern Ireland essentially operate on an all-Ireland basis? His party’s leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), has highlighted the obvious example of Coca-Cola, which is based in Lisburn and serves the entire island.

[Gavin Robinson]

It is always good to hear from the hon. Gentleman, but he knowingly confuses my point. He knows that Coca-Cola being situated in Northern Ireland and sending its products throughout the island of Ireland is a point that recognises our access to the single market, with which I take no issue—I see it as a practical benefit. He also ignores the fact that, in Northern Ireland, Coca-Cola is able to manage different tax regimes, different currencies and many different aspects which, in and of themselves, clearly demonstrate that there is no all-Ireland economy. I am not concerned about there being one, but I am concerned that there is one remaining reference in legislation that is totally irrelevant and has no force in effect but requires Ministers to have due regard to something that does not exist, and is part of this agreement.

The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill accepted red and green lanes but, under this new arrangement, there is no need for a lane to deal with goods coming from GB to NI and staying within the United Kingdom internal market. The checks required by the Windsor framework— tapering down to 5% by 2025 but, in real terms, 100% on some fruit and veg, 30% on meat, fish and poultry, and 15% on dairy—are gone, save for the ordinary checks we have in relation to smuggling and criminality. Those changes can only be achieved by opening the EU text and securing change in a way that we were told could not happen, that we were told was mythical or wishful thinking.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been very gracious in letting me speak around the SI up until this point. In the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the Government proposed many things that were to be of benefit to us, but they dropped them. They had our support in protecting our place within the UK internal market, but they dropped the proposals. This deal brings them back again, but it also goes further.

Other Members have commented on this, but proposed new section 45A(2) of the 2020 Act says:

“Accordingly, this Act—

(a) prohibits the application of export procedures to goods removed from Northern Ireland to Great Britain”.

Whether or not Members think it has practical import, I can say as a Unionist that it has principled import. There should be no exit procedures. The exit procedures under the Northern Ireland protocol have caused us so much harm, and they have gone. That is important for all of us.

Subsection (3) says:

“In particular, that permanent unfettered access is achieved in relation to qualifying Northern Ireland goods through (among other things)—

(a) the mutual recognition”.

Mutual recognition has been discussed many times in this House, and it is an aspiration we all share. We were told it was mythical. We were told it was a unicorn project. We were told that it could never be achieved because the EU would never agree, yet in this SI, we have mutual recognition—something that could do away with the checks, the impediments and the impositions that were put upon us by this Parliament and resolve the barriers to trade within our own country. Something that had consequences for the principled and political integrity of our country is now gone, because we have achieved mutual recognition.

Why is that important? It is important in the context of the debate we have been having across the House. I am proud that we have put in measures about internal market impact assessments that probably seem a little boring, methodical and bureaucratic, but even if we go through the process of getting civil servants and policy- makers to understand that any choice they make could have an impact on the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place within it, to understand what those impacts are and seek to address them, and even if the conclusion is that parliamentary sovereignty reigns and the principal policymakers in this place decide that they will diverge in policy terms from where we are in Northern Ireland, we have a goods guarantee. Nobody on the DUP Benches is going to upset parliamentary sovereignty, but we will protect our place within this United Kingdom.

The goods guarantee—the mutual recognition that says that, irrespective of the standards that apply in either part of this country, our goods from Northern Ireland will always be welcome in the rest of the United Kingdom—is a gain. It is a gain even when others did not see it as a problem, because it future-proofs our place within this United Kingdom. It is something that was absent from the Windsor framework. It has been a long quest for all of those who have walked hard yards to resolve some of the issues that have arisen from our choice to leave the European Union, but our determination on those issues has never wavered, and a resolution has been achieved.

New section 46A of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act deals with indirect access. In that section, our Government are now saying very clearly that there can be no administrative checks, controls and processes, not only for direct movements between one part of our country and another but for indirect movements—direct movements, but for the fact that the goods have merely passed through the Republic of Ireland. That crystallises yet again the fact that we are not in an all-Ireland economy: we are different from our near neighbours. Legislatively, Northern Ireland hauliers and Northern Ireland businesses that are sending goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain will be able to do so in an unfettered way, even if they travel through a foreign country. Those controls will not apply to them.

Those achievements are worth focusing on, because we have been trying to resolve the unresolvable—to get focus on places where attention had moved elsewhere. It has taken much longer than we would have liked. I am sure that many Members on other Benches would have preferred the process to end a lot sooner as well, if only we had agreed to less, but we were not prepared to do so. The Windsor framework marked progress, but we said that there were unresolved issues: not only the potential for future divergence in GB that would put us in a difficult position, or gains that were offered in the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill or, indeed, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act that were ultimately dropped—which we have now brought back and secured, and this Parliament is agreeing to—but resolving the unresolvable in a way that will have practical application for Northern Ireland, and for our place within this United Kingdom, now and for a long time to come.

Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Committee of the whole House
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry]

I am very grateful to the Minister of State for his comments. I largely agree with him, but I will point to a certain disagreement on some aspects. I fully recognise that there have been past financial packages and problems with reform not being fully realised, particularly around integrated education, which is a clear example. We have to do better in that respect. From where we are, I do not see any alternative to trying to do that once again and learning the lessons from what happened in the past. I recognise that we have seen additional funding packages from the UK Government—obviously, we had a major uplift in support to deal with covid and its side effects on the economy, and that support was very welcome—but the fact is, as other Members have said, that our expenditure per head is not based on our need, and that fundamental point has to be recognised.

[Gavin Robinson]

I think it is helpful to emphasise at this point that, although the Minister indicated that this budget is exactly what an Executive would have been allocated were they in place, last year it was £322 million less than what an Executive would have needed, this year it is £431 million less than what an Executive would have needed, and the projection for next year is £458 million less. So in saying what he said, has the Minister not confirmed the real problem at the heart of this?

[Stephen Farry]

Indeed. I think we are talking to two separate points in that regard. Yes, the block grant would have been based on the current policy approach from the Government towards the Barnett formula and the assessment of need in Northern Ireland, but what we on these Benches are all saying is that we need to reassess the whole basis of how that is reflected. That is a conversation to be had. I would also take the point a bit further by saying that, if we had had an Executive in place, or indeed if we get an Executive in place shortly, that would be the form by which we could make this case much better to address both the fiscal squeeze and the negotiations on a financial package for Northern Ireland.

To give a human flavour to the scale of the crisis facing our society, I will close with one example of an area of crisis in Northern Ireland: special educational needs. There is a real crisis happening in that regard: the funding available is not meeting the levels of need. As I think all Members appreciate, this is one of the most sensitive areas, and one where Government has a duty to invest in children and ensure that their rights are properly protected. As we meet this evening, that is simply not the case in Northern Ireland. There are multiple failures to provide for children; the academic year has now started, but scores of young people still have not been allocated suitable special educational needs places. That has a major toll on parents and families—mental health issues and financial and career pressures—and on the children themselves, particularly a lack of opportunity, health and safety issues, a risk of regression and a lack of social inclusion. I appeal to Members, from whatever perspective we look at this—the Government in terms of setting the financial parameters, and also those who are still holding out for an Executive—that we need to get back to addressing those types of issues. That is what the coalface is like, and that is what we should be prioritising.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Northern Ireland

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Farry]

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

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

[Stephen Farry]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I had not intended to speak until perhaps the very end, so I am grateful to be called so early. I am delighted to follow in the footsteps of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She very clearly and very fairly outlined some of the serious concerns that we have raised and will continue to raise, and which show the dangerous departure that the Government have adopted from what was agreed in NDNA.

There was an old television advert for Harp lager starring Colin Murphy, a comedian in Belfast. The question he posed in it was, “Is your glass half empty? Is your glass half full? Or more importantly, what’s in the glass?” It is through that prism that I shall approach my contribution this afternoon.

It is incredibly easy to be caught by arguments of the past around the Irish language and continue to stand in its way; and our most recent history will show what impact that had on good government in Northern Ireland, on progress in Northern Ireland and on showing respect for one another. I do not want to repeat that process; I am incredibly comfortable with what was agreed in NDNA.

The lengths and efforts that went into that negotiation were not only important in the wider context of social cohesion in Northern Ireland; they were important for our political progress at that time. Should somebody have an interest in the Irish language, which I do not, should somebody want to engage in a language that is of no interest to me, that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to take it further and build on the support that is there under the Belfast agreement for the Irish language and for Ulster Scots tradition—the Government support that is there, encouraging people to explore and build upon a flourishing language—that is entirely a matter for them. If they want to engage with Government Departments, if they want to write to a Government body and get a response, that is not something that will ordinarily trouble me; that is not something that I will be overly exercised by, and that is not something that I think we should be overly concerned about.

I think of the political aspirations that were outlined for year upon year, and government denied in Northern Ireland for these quests—they were not achieved in NDNA. In fact, Conradh na Gaeilge, one of the organisations that championed the cause of what it described as a “stand-alone Irish language Act” summarily failed, and Sinn Féin summarily failed in its negotiations at the time of NDNA. It wanted a stand-alone Irish language Act, but did not get it. It is not in New Decade, New Approach, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted a commissioner with unfettered powers; it did not get it. It was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted an imposition on what would otherwise be equality legislation in Northern Ireland to provide for quotas in employment; it did not get it. It was not achieved: it is not there in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. It wanted the Irish language imposed on me, on my neighbours and constituents, and residents throughout Northern Ireland through road signs and everything else, but it did not get it. It was not negotiated in NDNA, it was not agreed in NDNA, and it is not in the Bill. From that perspective, I can take some comfort from what was agreed.

That is before we add in the counterbalances and the support for Ulster Scots and, for the first time, Ulster British. Why is it, if we look through the prism of a glass half full, that Unionists do not stand back and say, “For the first time, rather than being faced with having our culture and identity stripped out of buildings, civically or otherwise, throughout Northern Ireland, this is a legislative vehicle to enhance the Unionist and Ulster British tradition in Northern Ireland?” That is something that I support and welcome; it was secured through the NDNA negotiations, and through the provision of the commissioner for identity and the Ulster British commissioner. Those are good things. The provision of, and the agreement to provide for, the Castlereagh Foundation—providing Government-supported academic rigour to the case for the Union for the first time—is a great thing. It is something in the Bill that I welcome, and something that it was important for us to get agreement on at the time of NDNA.

But then, we get to the last part of the prism that I started with: what is in the glass? During the three years when there was no Government in Northern Ireland, I was incredibly frustrated by this faux argument about whether there was a stand-alone Irish language Act or not. It was totally irrelevant. The question is not, “Is it one chapter of a bigger book, or is it a book itself?” but “What does it say? What does it do?” However, that debate rarely featured in Northern Ireland society during those three years. Yes, the Scots have Scots legislation and the Welsh have Welsh legislation, so why can the Irish not have Irish legislation? That is a fair enough question, but the Scots legislation is not the same as the Welsh legislation, and neither is the same as the provisions in this Bill. They are different.

So, what is in the glass? What does it do? The fundamental error that Members will hear about from me and all of my colleagues this afternoon is that the Government have taken what was agreed through negotiation between parties in Northern Ireland, corralled, encouraged and spearheaded by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), and decided to deliver in a one-handed fashion through this Bill aspirations that were not agreed at the time of NDNA. That is a fundamental disaster.

Within the Office of Identity, as the former Secretary of State will recall, it was important that no commissioner could proceed with their agenda for the year, their budget-setting process, or what they intended to do in their annual reports without the consent of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—the Executive Office. For the Secretary of State to assume the power to do whatever he wants anyway, not just in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive but even in the presence of one, is an incredibly foolish approach to Northern Ireland politics. When we have an agreement that has been painstakingly thrashed out for years, whether it was officials in the Northern Ireland Office or former Ministers who thought it was a good idea to assume that power themselves through this Bill, it was a fool’s errand. That point will be discussed in Committee.

[Stephen Farry]

Given the argument that the hon. Member is making, would he explain why it was that over a two-year period when the Assembly and Executive were functioning, no effort was made to bring forward legislation within the Northern Ireland Assembly at a time when all those issues could have been addressed in the correct forum, rather than them defaulting to Westminster?

[Gavin Robinson]

Coronavirus. I am not sure whether the hon. Member was aware, but there was a pandemic in our country and around the world, and normal government was set aside in the interests of public health and public safety.

The Bill even envisages a situation—I think it is one of the subsections of clause 6—where an issue has been raised with an Executive Minister and brought to the Executive, but agreement has not been found. Sorry? Leaving aside our own personal political aspirations for this or any other Bill, where the Executive collectively decide not to do something but the Secretary of State, at the request of a one-sided aspiration, can decide to supersede them, what is the point in devolution? The presentation of the Secretary of State’s powers in the Bill makes it incredibly difficult for somebody who can stand here and openly and honestly say that he thinks the agreement two years ago was worthwhile, and should have been reached. It is causing support to crumble, because what was agreed is being set aside for things that could not, and would not, have been negotiated or agreed at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Farry]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Belfast East first.

[Gavin Robinson]

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) might like to intervene. She was not demeaning or dismissing anybody who has campaigned for Irish. In fact, many of the campaigners who have campaigned for Irish language provision will equally acknowledge that their aspirations have been dampened and harmed by the irresponsible and politically naive approach of those who have indeed weaponised the Irish language.

[Stephen Farry]

The comments that were made are on the record and people can see them. However, we are in danger of getting ourselves into difficulty if we over-focus on the particular points that have been made by some republican activists about the Irish language. That is not where the vast majority of people are. I note that the hon. Lady did not give way during her comments, but nevertheless, I am happy to.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry]

Well, obviously, that is about to happen in Northern Ireland, if the Bill goes through its stages. We cannot escape the reality that a majority of MLAs have signed a letter making it very clear that they do not support the Bill. I urge all Members of this House, and of the House of Lords, to respect the views of the people of Northern Ireland, who have a direct mandate. Obviously, we have a group of MPs here who represent Northern Ireland, though some of them do not take their seats, which is regrettable. The views of the DUP are not the views of Northern Ireland. Of course, we have to address the views of the DUP, alongside the views of others, in trying to find a way forward, but it is not consistent with democracy to allow that view to dictate what happens to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I have listened to the hon. Member outline to the Committee that the majority of people in the Northern Ireland Assembly are against the Bill. We hear him say that he recognises there are issues that need to be resolved, yet he was fully supportive of the Northern Ireland protocol and talked about its full implementation. He was supportive of New Decade, New Approach in 2020, yet he was against the provisions within it on the UK internal market. His party was against the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, against triggering article 16 when the conditions were met and outlined in the White Paper, and now against this Bill. When are we going to get to the stage where we actually resolve the issues in Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry]

There are two points to raise on that. The first is about the practicalities. My understanding is that discussions have not been taking place between the Treasury and the European Union to get these issues resolved, particularly on the situation with renewables, but the door is open. The amount may be £1 million, but we will get that as a Barnett consequential anyway. The solution is available. Across the European Union, rates of VAT, or its equivalents, are being reduced to support renewables and to help people with energy bills, so we are not asking the impossible.

The wider point is why on earth we have to go through this process in any event. The answer is probably the same one that we give on countless occasions: this is the outworking of the protocol, and the protocol is the outworking of Brexit. Decisions made about the nature of Brexit subsequent to the introduction of the protocol had to be put in place, and these are the issues that have to be managed as a consequence. We have to own the decisions taken by the Government and this Parliament, and work through them to find the best outcomes, which I believe are achievable only through negotiation.

I am not denying that there are issues on state aid and VAT, but unilateral action will not provide a long-term outcome; in fact, it will make things more difficult. We can achieve outcomes through negotiation, and I believe that the door is open for that if the Government choose to walk through it, rather than standing back, and using the issue as an excuse and a reason to construct a narrative as to why this Bill is required.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I heard your positive assent, Dame Eleanor, when the shadow Secretary of State sat down, and you were rather impressed when the usual channels inquired of us how long we would take and we indicated that we would be brief. We were asked whether we would be about 20 minutes, and I aim to please, Dame Eleanor.

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), who in many ways makes a great argument, but not, I think, the one he intended to make. What he outlined highlights starkly not just the practical application of state aid policy, subsidy policy and VAT policy, but the interface between that practical application and the constitutionally injurious position that we are left in because of the protocol. Whether the differential between VAT on solar panels and renewables was £1 million or £100 billion, the issue is not the scale of the sum; it is why this sovereign Parliament is constrained in setting VAT rules for the nation. That is the nub of it. People say that there is no constitutional harm with the protocol, and when we highlight the constitutional damage that has been done, they rubbish it and wish it away, but here is the outworking of that; one part of our country is unable to benefit from VAT rates set nationally by this Parliament.

The fact that there are two probing—and, I respectfully suggest, rather superficial—amendments before us from across the political spectrum highlights that not only is there a problem with VAT rates, subsidies and state aid under the protocol, but that a resolution is required. Why should we have to negotiate that agreed solution or outcome? It is because we have ceded sovereignty in a way that constitutionally impinges on article 6 of the Acts of Union. That is why we are in this position. If that had not been impliedly repealed, as the Government lawyers state in our High Court in Belfast, we would not have these challenges.

The Joint Committee has summarily failed in many aspects of what it was tasked to do under the Northern Ireland protocol. It did not designate anywhere near enough goods as goods that could come from GB to Northern Ireland without risk of onward transit into the single market. We raised the issue of the VAT margin on the sale of second-hand cars, for example, for which there should have been a quick fix, but there was not. Whereas a second-hand car salesman in England pays VAT only on the profit from the sale of the car, in Northern Ireland they have to pay VAT on the entirety of the sale. Why? Because of the Northern Ireland protocol. The solution is very simple, but it took months and months of painstaking negotiation, and that is but one example from scores of issues that pervade industry and business in Northern Ireland.

That was the VAT margins; then there are the importation tariffs that our businesses in Northern Ireland had to pay in importing steel, a raw product, from GB to Northern Ireland. There should not be any tariffs at all within our own country. That highlights the practical application of the constitutional harm. Again, it took month upon month of painstaking work to get agreement through the Joint Committee, but when we were on the cusp of agreeing a solution for steel, I said, “Hang on a second. I have an aircraft manufacturer in Belfast East that uses aluminium. What about tariffs on aluminium?” It remains the case that a tariff is applied to any aluminium, a raw product, coming from GB to Northern Ireland, and a further tariff is applied to anything fabricated in Northern Ireland as a result of that raw product going back to GB for further integration—a tariff on the movement of a material from one part of our country to another, and back again.

[Stephen Farry]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson]

Civil aviation parts are tariff-free internationally anyway, and large manufacturers such as Spirit Aerosystems in my constituency have an agreed workaround and are exempt, but many in the supply chain do not, including some engineers in the hon. Member’s constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

Indeed, and I am having dinner later tonight with representatives from an esteemed local company in the aerospace sector. Does the hon. Member recognise that his very valid points about tariffs point to an issue not with the protocol, but with the trade and co-operation agreement, and the gap that was rather, shall we say, irresponsibly left by the lead negotiator, Lord Frost?

[Gavin Robinson]

No, I would not agree at all with that, because the tariffs came long before the TCA and arise from the protocol. I heard the hon. Member’s suggestion that people were making a mountain out of molehill in relation to VAT on renewables; with respect to him, I think that was a bit of a stretch. I do not agree with him on that, but the tariffs on raw materials coming from one part of our country to another are unnecessary. They are a breach of article 6 of the Act of Union. That breach is constitutional harm arising from the practical application of a protocol that was, I recognise, agreed by this Parliament, but not without warning from us.

Dame Eleanor, you will recognise that none of these contributions is going into extraordinary detail on the issue. There is a complexity to it, but in the real world of politics, consumers and the businesses that we represent, we need a practical solution. Given how limited the amendments in this group are, it is fair to say not only that is it accepted that there needs to be a practical solution, but that this Bill takes us far along that path.

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Committee stage
Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I hope he accepts the point that I made earlier—that all the amendments that I am speaking to this evening were available last Wednesday, and that the same thrust and energy that were dedicated to amendment 115 could have been engaged in respect of a number of these as well. I recognise that that has not happened, but I hope that the fact that we are not focusing on them this evening does not mean that attention has been lost on the issue of the notice requiring the provision of information. These are not the same rigorous powers that the police have. There are no powers of arrest, for example. However, there is this notice, and provision for a fine of up to £1,000 if it is not complied with. A £1,000 fine is pitiful for someone who was an active terrorist, who tried to destroy peace and democracy in Northern Ireland, who has never engaged with truth and justice and who does not want to comply with this process. They could be fined up to £1,000—it really is so inconsequential.

There are amendments that were discussed throughout last Wednesday and this evening, and I hope the Government will engage with them. I have mentioned amendment 120, which would place a duty on people involved in memorialisation to ensure that there was no glorification. New clause 4 deals with those who are granted immunity and then go on to glorify terrorism. We accept that section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 provides an offence of glorification of terrorism, but that is not what the amendment proposes. The amendment not only replicates section 1 but indicates that, if someone had previously benefited from immunity through the ICRIR process, new clause 4 would make it an aggravating feature if they had immunity and then ultimately glorified terror.

We will support Labour’s amendment 114 on this, although we do not think this should be solely confined to profit. Labour Members like to focus on profit sometimes, and their amendment is very much focused on profit from glorification. There is more to this than just making money; it is about the ruining of lives and the retraumatising of individuals in whatever guise, and profiteering could be one of those.

I shall turn now to new clause 5. Mr Evans, you will note that I did not start my contribution by saying I was not going to say very much. I can be accused of many things, but hypocrisy is not one of them. New clause 5 deals with revoking immunity, and I want to thank other Opposition leaders and Members for indicating their support for this. It would be hugely controversial and hugely damaging to the reconciliation spirit of what is proposed in the memorialisation strategy if, having assessed somebody, we gave them immunity from prosecution for their heinous crimes, only for it ultimately to be shown that they had lied throughout the process. If there is no way to revoke immunity, the whole system will collapse. There will be a crisis of confidence in the system. There needs to be a mechanism, whether through the panel during the five years it is in operation or through the Secretary of State thereafter, whereby immunity can be revoked. In the same way, when people were released on licence after 1998, licences could be revoked. It would be anathema to anyone who believes in reconciliation to allow a situation where individuals were granted immunity for their heinous crimes on the basis of a subsequently demonstrated and proven lie.

I know that others will wish to contribute on the range of amendments that we have tabled. I have highlighted just seven of them this evening. We have had engagement from the Minister specifically on new clause 3. I am grateful and welcome that. I hope that he will have something more positive to say about new clauses 4 and 5 and some of our other amendments when he sums up the debate.

[Stephen Farry]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). It is not often that the Alliance party and the DUP find agreement in this Chamber, particularly in the current context, but there was certainly a lot I would concur with in his remarks. I would also concur with a lot of the interventions from the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). There is an important lesson in that, which is that, despite everything else that is happening in Northern Ireland, there is at least a degree of unity across the Northern Ireland political parties in expressing significant concerns about this legislation.

Before getting to the other points I want to make, I want to start on a more positive note. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), mentioned Paul Gallagher, who was shot and partially paralysed in a loyalist gun attack in 1994. I want to put on record our congratulations to Paul Gallagher on achieving his PhD at a ceremony at the weekend, not least because his research involves legacy. He has been both living it and researching it for almost 30 years.

The first point I want to make is about the word “reconciliation”, which appears in the long title of the Bill and is referenced throughout it. Reconciliation is very much in the DNA of the Alliance party; it is what we are fundamentally about. That said, we are concerned about the way in which the term “reconciliation” has been used in the Bill. Reconciliation was a core principle of the Stormont House agreement, and the implementation and reconciliation group was set up as a separate structure that was envisaged under Stormont House. Reconciliation was taken seriously in that process.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry]

At the outset, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David Amess and pass on my condolences to his family. I also reference his personal connection to the Bill, in that he was one of the Chairs in Committee. True to his character, he handled proceedings professionally, efficiently and with huge impartiality. May I also say, for those MPs who are still new to this place and are still swotting up on procedure, that he was very generous and understanding in that regard? I also thank the House of Commons staff, and the Bill Clerks in particular, for the rapid turnaround of amendments in the past week.

The amendments in my name fall into four broad categories: the election or nomination of First Minister and Deputy First Minister; reforms to petitions of concern; the operation of the Executive; and the commencement date. On the nomination and election of the First Ministers, frankly the current system does not work. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister are identical in terms of status, powers, responsibilities and duties. That one small distinction in wording takes on disproportionate importance—indeed it is only symbolic—and turns our elections into the politics of fear. That risks crowding out consideration of important economic, social and environmental issues during election campaigns. They are often about keeping the other side out, and yet, in the past, the so-called victorious party has gone on to share power in the same joint office with the largest party from the other designation.

There is speculation that Sinn Féin could emerge as the largest party after the next Assembly election and we have two Unionist parties unwilling to make clear whether in such circumstances they would serve as Deputy First Minister. That is hugely destabilising and a selective application of the rules of democracy as they stand. That could lead us into a difficult situation after the next election. People should clearly adhere to the rules, but that does not preclude us from seeking support for reforms to make the system work more effectively.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is important to note that there will be issues on which we can find agreement. There will also be issues and amendments before us today on which we cannot find agreement. However, importantly for these proceedings, does the hon. Member agree that, as we discussed in Committee, the Bill fairly reflects what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach and that, unless and until we get joint agreement on a range of issues through another forum, we should not be tinkering around with too many amendments?

[Stephen Farry]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I agree partially. The Bill does accurately reflect the New Decade, New Approach agreement, but it is worth referencing that that was made back in January 2020. I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), for his endeavours in that regard. However, we have had many political developments since then. One of my great frustrations as a Member of this place and previously as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly is that we often respond to the last crisis and fix the rules to address what has already happened rather than trying to look ahead, anticipate where crises are likely to happen and put measures in place that will make the world operate more easily.

That brings me to new clause 1, in my name, which seeks to address anomalies in the current system. At present, the largest party regardless of designation is entitled to the position of First Minister. However, the Deputy First Minister must come from the largest party from the largest remaining designation. I do not want to get too far ahead of myself as a member of the Alliance party, but it is conceivable that, one day—perhaps after the next election or at some time in the future—a party that is not Unionist or nationalist may be the second-largest party in Northern Ireland and yet it would not be automatically entitled to that position. That would create a certain crisis of legitimacy in terms of the institutions and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister team. With that small measure, we could address that problem.

Secondly, I turn to new clause 4 in in the names of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) of the Social Democratic and Labour party, which would essentially return to the Good Friday agreement model and the first iteration in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by providing for an election of a joint team of FM and DFM. That would have two advantages: Assembly endorsement of the team; and reinforcement of the point of collective responsibility from being part of a joint office, not two individuals pursuing separate agendas.

My one reservation is that that relies on the current cross-community voting system, which is fundamentally linked to the designation system. As hon. Members will know, MLAs are required to sign in as Unionist, nationalist or other. I used to be an “other”, which is a wonderful way to describe one’s identity. The system perpetuates the two communities model in Northern Ireland rather than reflecting the diversity that existed in 1998 and that which exists today. There are people with open, mixed and multiple identities, and there are people from different backgrounds who have come to live in Northern Ireland and are not properly reflected in how we frame the operation of the Assembly. That needs reform.

Thirdly, new clause 2, in my name, would return to the Good Friday agreement model but with the distinction that we end up with a purely weighted majority vote—set at two thirds—without reference to any designations whatsoever. That is the fairest and most ideal way to address the issue. It would avoid some anomalous outcomes and inflexibility. Both new clauses on the second and third options would take the opportunity to acknowledge in law and change terminology to confirm and reinforce that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are identical in status, powers, responsibilities and duties.

New clause 3—my final amendment in the group—would reinforce that point about the equality of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in all those respects but outside the context of the nomination or election process. We may not be able to find consensus on that during the Bill’s remaining stages. However, we should take the opportunity outwith that to reflect in law that the FM and DFM are entirely equal, to try to take the heat out of the fairly stupid, meaningless contrast that is made and creates huge tension in our election campaigns. Unfortunately, we would need to make one exception and say that that would not apply to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister election process, because, until we change the system, someone must be put in place first, and someone else second.

I turn to petitions of concern, which have been a source of huge controversy in the past 20 years in Northern Ireland. Petitions of concern have been used and abused well beyond their original intention. They have brought huge discredit, and indeed tension, to the Assembly. It is worth noting that virtually no human rights or equality legislation has been passed by the Assembly. Instead, it has been done either through various periods of direct rule or through the direct intervention of Westminster, notably through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 in recent times. I welcome the reforms in New Decade, New Approach, but the Alliance party is sceptical about whether they go far enough. People may say that there have not been any petitions of concern since the Assembly’s restoration. That is true, but we have also not had much legislation or any equality or human rights pieces before the Assembly. We must therefore remain vigilant.

I want to test two points with the Government. The first lies in the 14-day timeframe for a petition of concern to be considered, which may turn out to be a straitjacket. There may well be situations in which a matter must be considered urgently, such as a legal responsibility or some other deadline that must be met in response to a legislative consent motion. I therefore think it is worth clarifying that the Assembly has the ability within its Standing Orders to vary that 14-day timeframe if the circumstances warrant it. In a similar light, a petitioner or set of petitioners could withdraw their support for a petition if they feel that the issues they were concerned about have been addressed otherwise, rather than having the clock continue. In Committee, the Minister of State’s predecessor did give such reassurances, and I hope that the incumbent will be happy to do the same today.

I turn briefly to the operation of the Executive. Amendment 2 would move the “three meetings rule” from guidance to statute. At present, we have much concern in relation to the petitions of concern issue in the Assembly, but it is not as commonly understood that there are mutual vetoes in the context of the Executive. They must also be addressed. One such veto relates to the formation of the agenda. At times, Ministers have sought to put papers on the agenda but been blocked persistently. The three meetings rule is therefore of particular importance.

I appreciate that others are waiting to speak so, finally, I want to talk about the commencement timeframe. Comments about such timeframes may be unusual on Report, but this is an important point in this particular context. It is unusual to have a Northern Ireland Bill moving through Parliament at the normal pace of a Bill—most tend to be matters of urgency.

The ethos of the New Decade, New Approach agreement was to ensure that the institutions worked together, that we have sustainability and that we try to avoid crises, whether that is collapse of the Assembly or difficulty in forming a new Executive after an Assembly election. It is two years since New Decade, New Approach was agreed, but we are only now putting this into legislation, and we meet in the midst of a potential crisis of non-delivery of other aspects of New Decade, New Approach, with tensions emerging around the protocol and the unrealistic demands made in that regard—the Democratic Unionist party of colleagues sitting in front of me has made threats that it may withdraw its Ministers from the Executive in the near future—as well as speculation about what might happen after the next Assembly election. It would therefore be seen as absurd if we had a crisis when the measures in the Bill could to some extent have been helpful in managing that crisis. However, the Bill might still be in the process of going through Parliament or, even worse, it might have received Royal Assent but, because of the two-month commencement period, we would not be in a position to deploy the measures that might have helped the situation.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Farry]

Thank you very much, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I take no offence at the mis-association of me with the hon. Member for Foyle—I have been called far worse, so I will take it on the chin.

I will speak briefly to amendment 6, which appears in my name. It relates to the ministerial code and the insertion into law of what is known in Northern Ireland as the three-meeting rule, which was agreed by the Northern Ireland political parties as recently as the Fresh Start agreement in 2015. At the moment, my understanding is that it is in essence guidance and not part of law, and we see partial implementation of the rule in the Executive. Sometimes papers can be blocked for considerable periods, causing considerable frustration for Ministers. In recent weeks, for example, the Northern Ireland Health Minister has had a Bill on organ donation blocked. My party colleague, the Justice Minister, has had a Bill blocked for a considerable time.

There has been a lot of talk about the petition of concern and vetoes in discussion of the Assembly, but a lot less attention has been paid to what happens inside the Executive where, in essence, there are two vetoes. The first is in the way in which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have almost full control over the Executive agenda. It takes almost a double sign-off from both for a matter even to get on to the agenda for debate. Secondly, a cross-community veto can be deployed by three Ministers to block a decision. My amendment addresses the former issue of the agenda, so that there is at least scope for a discussion and a vote to take place on any Executive paper. No Minister puts a paper to the Executive that is without merit, and they all deserve discussion.

The purpose of amendment 6, in essence, is to put into the ministerial code something that has already been agreed by the Northern Ireland political parties in the Fresh Start agreement of 2015.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I promised myself this morning that I would not get into the mould of opposing every amendment that has been proposed by my colleagues from Northern Ireland, but I have a couple of points to make about SDLP amendments 17, 18 and 19, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast South. The danger is that we seek to legislate too much on such issues. I understand entirely the thrust of her argument and, indeed, the way in which the amendments have been structured is to talk of best endeavours and the relationships that we want to see in our political situation. In truth, however, they bring with them no legislative consequence should we not see best endeavours. How I would frame it is that if we need to rely on such provisions being in legislation, the system is not working as it should in any event. Without a consequence, and given the positive but loose nature of the amendments, I do not think that the proposals would add significantly to the Bill or to the agreement reached in New Decade, New Approach.

I also understand why the hon. Member for North Down has advanced amendment 6. He served in the Executive when I was a special adviser in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. He will understand not only that the nature of that joint office brings political challenges with it, but that there is still an importance of that office’s chairing and maintaining the efficiency of the business brought before the Executive. He and I will both remember times when things were much more terse around that table, but to reflect on his time as a Minister, whenever he brought forward papers for the Department for Employment and Learning, we engaged in discussions prior to any difficulty emerging around an agenda. His special adviser and I used to spend a lot of time problem solving before issues were brought formally to the agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

I apologise, Mr Stringer. I will focus exclusively on amendment 7. My party has been very keen to see the petition of concern amended. Our views and, indeed, those of many others on this issue are very clear. In some senses, it would be almost logical for us to try to make the signing of a petition of concern as difficult as possible. However, I was very struck by evidence that we received orally last week and also in writing from the Speaker of the Assembly. Concern was expressed that if the proposal for Deputy Speakers not to be able to sign a petition of concern were put into law, that might well deter people from coming forward to become a Deputy Speaker in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is worth referencing the fact that the way Deputy Speakers operate there is somewhat different from the practice at Westminster, in that they continue to have a political role.

I should say that my party does not have at present a Member of the Assembly who is a Deputy Speaker, and nor do we intend to seek any of those offices in the future, so I may be speaking from a position of a certain objectivity in this regard. I do think it is worth the Committee’s considering whether what was a sincere commitment made in New Decade, New Approach—I accept that it is in black and white in that document—may have, in the cold light of day, some unintended consequence and therefore that there may be some scope for reconsideration. I would be happy to hear the views of other Members in that regard.

[Gavin Robinson]

I just want to give my reflections on the evidence that we heard from the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not agree that there is a chilling effect associated with the agreement reached––New Decade, New Approach–that would have a material impact on parties’ willingness to provide a Deputy Speaker for the Assembly. I would go further and say that our Deputy Speakers are not the same as Deputy Speakers here. Neither is our Speaker. Our Speaker in Northern Ireland does not resign from their political party. When they seek re-election, they do so as a member of a political party.

The element that I do not think the Speaker reflected on appropriately in his evidence last week is that, as each of the four parties provides a Speaker and three Deputy Speakers—one from each of the four parties—the consequence of assuming that office and so being unable to sign a petition of concern applies to the four largest parties. Each is supplying somebody and each takes the consequence. In that sense, what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach is fairer than one party losing a signatory from a petition of concern because they assume the position of Speaker, so I take quite a different view from that of the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and I do not believe that the fears that he outlined are merited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I absolutely take note of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and agree with his intent. I am happy to come back to that issue on Report, as appropriate.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, in clause 5, page 7, line 17, leave out from beginning to first “the” on line 18 and insert “the presentation of the petition and the time when”.—(Robin Walker.)

This amendment means that the standing orders may specify a minimum period of notice of less than a day for a petition of concern.

[Stephen Farry]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 5, page 7, line 31, at end insert—

“(e) make provision to allow petitioners to withdraw a petition of concern at any stage in the process.”

The amendment relates to the wider package of comments I made earlier. I will not press it to a vote today. I just flag it up as part of that wider discussion and hope that the Government reflect on it and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Belfast East said, speak further to this general issue on Report.

[Gavin Robinson]

When you see the physiology of that amendment, it is clean; it does exactly what we have described. We may have to consider whether it is appropriate for us to do this through the Bill or whether it can be reflected through the Standing Orders of the Assembly, but it is exactly what the intent behind amendment 8 was; amendment 9 does it very cleanly. I am positive about the spirit and the text of the amendment, but it may not be pressed to a vote this morning.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. A very warm welcome to you, Sir Jonathan. I will largely pick up on your answer to the questions posed by Colum Eastwood. You are one of the very rare officials with long experience of Northern Ireland over several different stints in office, so you have that wider perspective. You indicated that there might be a need to revise the rules around the institutions at some stage. Do you feel there is a danger of the Northern Ireland Office almost operating on a reactive basis after a problem has actually arisen and then trying to patch it up, amend it and move on for a few more years before going back to the next crisis? Is there not an argument for trying to be a little bit more proactive and anticipate where pressure points are likely to emerge, to assess how society is changing and to act accordingly? In that regard, should we look at some of the rules around the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, particularly in the light of the democratic change that we are seeing in society?

Sir Jonathan Stephens: In a sense, I agree with you, Mr Farry. I was indicating earlier that there had been significant change in Northern Ireland. At the time of the Good Friday agreement, the assumption was that there was a Unionist majority community, a substantial nationalist minority community and a relatively small but steady component who did not identify with the others. Since then, the situation has changed. It is more like two substantial minorities with a much larger, more significant and growing number of people who choose not to identify with either.

Over time, I think that will mean that a number of the arrangements need to be looked at again and examined. I am just conscious, having participated in a number of those discussions over the years, that that is not an easy task. It takes up a huge amount of political energy. Yes, there is a lot to be said for anticipating, rather than reacting to, crises, but Governments across the world, not least in Northern Ireland, have a number of crises right now to respond to. I simply suggest that right now does not seem to me to be a good time to undertake that significant and mammoth task, but I would be surprised if at some point in the next 10 years it is not on the agenda.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Q Good afternoon, Jonathan. I will reflect on the question from the hon. Member for North Down. Of course, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the sort of place where you would ordinarily think these discussions at the moment should occur. Going to the NIO and expecting the Government to sort these issues out should be the last resort; it should be something that is foreseen and considered among parties.

I do not know whether you had the opportunity to hear the evidence session this morning. Some questions were raised about the lack of detail in the Bill as to what safeguards are in place if Ministers are in position and there is a difficulty in forming an Executive. You will know that the discussions during the negotiations focused on safeguards for issues that are significant, cross-cutting and controversial, which would ordinarily therefore go to the Executive, but with no Executive sitting, those decisions could not be made. It appears in one sense that there needs to be further detail in the Bill on what the pitfalls might be. One aspect that did not come out in the evidence this morning was the fact that Ministers normally operate after having gone through a process of reaching consensus on a programme for government. Any Minister without an Executive could therefore continue to bring forward decisions on that basis, and perhaps juxtapose that with an inability for Ministers to act and the difficulty that the Northern Ireland civil service found itself in during that three-year hiatus.

Sir Jonathan Stephens: The fundamental position is that the Bill essentially provides for a form of caretaker Administration in the absence of the formation of a full Executive. Without an Executive Committee or an Executive meeting—there cannot be an Executive without a First and Deputy First Minister—as you say, Mr Robinson, decisions cannot be taken on issues that are cross-cutting, significant or controversial. That in itself will be a significant constraint. During the absence of Ministers, cases were brought before the courts arguing that decisions had been reached without the required authority, and the courts policed that quite robustly. No doubt they will police these provisions equally robustly.

Although there might not be an Executive Committee meeting in place, there is likely to be agreement on a programme for government, even if it was of the previous Administration. That will provide an overview, as it were, of the direction of the Government under which a caretaker Administration would be able to continue to operate. I think there are protections in place, but I continue to come back to the point that no system is perfect, and there should be no doubt that the absence of a properly functioning Executive for the periods of time that could be possible under the Bill would itself have serious consequences, but at least we would not be in a situation where there was no direction and no decision making at all.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). I guess I also need to reflect on the points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He made two points, and I substantially agree with the first, which was about the range of voices from Northern Ireland in this debate and the positive aspect that that brings to our deliberations in this House. I say that acutely knowing that I am following a colleague of mine and that people will be thinking, “For goodness’ sake, we’ve just had six minutes of that, and now we’re going to get another 15 or 20 from the big lad.” I promise I will try to give an alternative reflection.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is right, and I too believe that the 2017 to 2019 Parliament was greatly inhibited by the curtailed voices. There was no range of voices from Northern Ireland save for that of Sylvia Hermon, the former hon. Member for North Down. That is not to say that I agree with everything that is said or with other contributions, but I think this House benefits from a range of reflections. I also make the point, since there are now a range of voices from Northern Ireland in Parliament, that it is still important that the other parties engage with us. It would be a shame for anyone to think that they now have a buddy or a mate in Parliament, so there is no need to broaden their own horizons; that would similarly be a foolhardy mistake. I look forward to continued engagement with the right hon. Gentleman.

The fact that there is widespread critical agreement on the progress of the Bill through Second Reading highlights the point that it is probably not that significant an advancement. Its provisions take us so far and make some changes, but they are not significant in and of themselves. It is appropriate, however, that there are advancements to New Decade, New Approach, and in a legislative sense it is appropriate that those aspects are before us today.

It is right that we reflect that this is non-emergency legislation. That is nice for me as a Member of Parliament who has been here for six years and seen hugely significant issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland rushed through this Chamber in a three or four-hour process of Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading. None of that is appropriate. It is important to recognise how this is progressing and is intended to progress over the months to come.

We benefited not only from the contribution that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) made earlier, but from his time as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I remember the engagement that we had at Stormont House on the discussions about New Decade, New Approach, and the personal determination that he had at the time to make sure that politics worked; I sometimes feel that that is lacking now. I hear time and again from community voices, sectoral support, business and public servants in Northern Ireland, all of which still have good contact with the right hon. Member and still hugely value the contribution that he made to our society in Northern Ireland. That energy and drive was predicated on Northern Ireland people working for Northern Ireland people on supporting devolution in Northern Ireland, on making it work no matter how difficult or intractable the problems appeared, on highlighting, recognising and dealing with the continual difficulties in our society, and on supporting us collectively across the political spectrum to deal with those issues in Northern Ireland.

That is why I think that the commitment made last week was so retrograde. We know that there are challenges—they have been reflected in this debate—but do not turn around and give the impression that “If you just can’t do it, we’ll do it for you.” I said to the Minister of State two weeks ago, “Do not make the commitment that you will legislate on any aspect of NDNA without political consent, because the political party that you are going to do it for still needs to work with other political parties in Northern Ireland.”

The only way that devolution will be successful in our Province—the only way that we will continue on the pathway from troubles to peace—is if we work with one another, trust one another and build a relationship based on shared values and a shared outlook on how we grow as a society. If the British Government, the Irish Government or the American Government step in at every turn and say, “Come on, now, I’ll hold your hand and take you down this certain path, because that’s where you want to go,” it will not work.

The short-term gain of what was agreed last week is futile and fundamentally injurious to devolution in Northern Ireland. I say at this stage—it is not part of the Bill, but it is intrinsic to all that has gone before—that the Government need to recognise that continuing along the path that they have outlined would be hugely detrimental to progress in Northern Ireland. I say that with no joy—none whatever.

The protocol was mentioned. It is a hugely symbolic and genuinely difficult issue affecting all strands and strata of our society. We hear voices at one side saying, “It’s all a disaster and it’s all been imposed upon us,” and we hear others saying, “Well, you brought it upon yourselves.” None of that actually matters at the end of the day for the ordinary consumer, the ordinary businessman or the ordinary member of our community who is striving for the best but sees the barriers ahead of them.

I heard the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood)—I am glad that he is back in the Chamber as he gets a mention—say that he was surprised that the protocol featured in the statements made today; “Why not the priority of the health service?” We first need to recognise the difficulties. We need to highlight the problems and work to resolve them. But make no mistake about it: there was a suggestion that a focus on veterinary agreement would be significant in relation to the protocol; it is but one aspect.

We recognise the challenges in the health service. How do we deal with the challenges in the health service if we do not deal with the grace period on medicines that is going to expire? Was it not the European Union, three months ago, that sought to trigger article 16 to prevent the export of vaccines to Northern Ireland? It was. We saw cancer drugs get approval by our UK medical agency in the last month, but the European medical agency had not yet quite made the approval, so those cancer drugs were not being made available in Northern Ireland, a part of this country—a constitutionally integral part of this country, enshrined under the Good Friday agreement that we all seek to protect.

Let us not suggest that veterinary issues alone will solve the protocol. They will deal with the significant impediment of barriers for food and animal products, but they will not deal with the totality of it.

[Stephen Farry]

I appreciate what the hon. Member says about medicines. It is important that we have a resolution in that regard, and I believe that some very good work is being done by both the European Commission and, let me say, the UK Government in that regard. But on the veterinary agreement, although I appreciate that it is only one part of the equation, would his party join all other parties in Northern Ireland in making a common call to the Government in that very particular respect? I appreciate that it does not address all the issues, but surely, if all five parties were to make a common pitch on that one topic, it would make a huge difference, and I would expect the Government to listen to that.

[Gavin Robinson]

I understand why the hon. Member puts forward that proposition, but he is falling into the same trap. That alone will not solve it. If we go collectively as five parties and say, “Sort out veterinary,” the Government will, but does that solve all the problems impacting Northern Ireland on the protocol? No, it does not. Does it solve the medicines issue? No, it does not.

There was a clamour months ago about steel, and a resolution was found for the importation of steel into Northern Ireland, with a Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs fix. Did it do anything for aluminium? No, it did not. Does that impact aerospace, the largest private employer in my constituency and a huge employer in the hon. Member’s constituency—something we recognise that, despite the problems last year with coronavirus, had £1.4 billion-worth of economic benefit to Northern Ireland and still employs 6,500 people? Is that on the table for resolution? I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of my disappointment and anger when I got a message back from the Northern Ireland Office indicating, “Well, actually, the letter was sent to Mr Šefčovič, and it’s not going to be added to the agenda.” There has been little change since.

That is before we touch on the constitutional aspects and before we touch on the democratic deficit associated with the protocol. I am not saying that we should not collaborate on veterinary checks, but let us not go down the rabbit hole of focusing solely on one singular issue when the issues are many, deep and broad and they need to be resolved.

I shall conclude on this, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are challenges in society in Northern Ireland. There have been concerns around the stability of our institutions in Northern Ireland and the opportunity for progress. Although I recognise them all, I will not lose my passion for progress in Northern Ireland—for all of us, irrespective of our differences, working together in Northern Ireland. It costs me nothing to say I believe and agree that commitments that were entered into shall and will be honoured, but we cannot ignore the huge and damaging impact that the protocol has brought to society in Northern Ireland and the unease that abounds throughout my community and many others, and we have to buckle down and deliver, and solve it.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

I do agree. I know that the Minister went through a number of the amendments we have tabled and said, “Look, there are provisions about direct and non-direct discrimination and those still apply.” However, where a business is competing in a sector for which there are state subventions and subsidies in England, Scotland and Wales but where those same subsidies and subventions are precluded in Northern Ireland, there will be discrimination. There will be an unfair playing field in the economy of this internal market, and that square is not circled in this Bill. There are no satisfactory answers from the Government to say, “If we run with the implication of EU state aid rules in Northern Ireland, and if we support businesses in GB but not in Northern Ireland, how is there not unfair competition? How are there not direct or indirect discriminatory outworkings of the provisions of this arrangement?”

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a useful document, which I hope he will spend time considering. I refer to the Northern Ireland stakeholder response to the UK’s research and development road map consultation, which considers clearly some of the things the Government could do under clauses 46 and 47 in providing financial support for sectors in Northern Ireland. We hear an awful lot in this Chamber about doubling down on levelling up. We know that research and development support across the UK is hugely uneven, and that the majority of that money goes into the south-east of England, to London and to the east of England, and that Northern Ireland and other regions throughout the UK do not get their fair share.

The stakeholder response is a collaborative piece of work by Belfast City Council, Belfast Harbour, Queen’s University, Ulster University and Catalyst Northern Ireland. It asks that the Government ring-fence R&D support, with a minimum of £250 million per year for Northern Ireland; that they create bespoke arrangements that allow for flexibility of funds for the Northern Ireland economy; that they appoint regional delivery partnerships; and that they are considering an ARPA—advanced research projects agency—for the cyber-security hub in my constituency, our FinTech hub, the advanced and high-end engineering and manufacturing in my constituency, and the aspirations of a digital free port in Belfast. That ARPA opportunity is well worth considering and it is well worth showing that even though we may have an uneven playing field, our Government are serious about doubling down on levelling up and will extend support to Northern Ireland.

I would love to go through a lot of the amendments, but I am conscious that I have gone over my self-imposed timeline, so I will just discuss the importance of amendment 68, which proposes a change to clause 40. It proposes that Northern Ireland Assembly consent would be required for any new arrangements or requirements for goods traded from GB to NI, and new requirements would not come into force unless they were agreed with the consent of the Assembly. It would also provide that:

“No additional official or administrative costs”—

arising from new requirements—

“may be recouped from the private sector.”

The Minister referred to the trader supporter service, and we know that the Government have said that there are going to put £355 million into that service at this stage. Huge questions remain unanswered for businesses in Northern Ireland, which have heard that they have unfettered access to the UK internal market. Some understand that that promise is one way; some understand that that promise is NI to GB. Some do not understand that there are huge constraints on GB to NI trade, because the Government gave that power away in the withdrawal agreement. They passed it to the Joint Committee and therefore they are only half of the equation. We know that the Joint Committee is considering what goods are at risk, but businesses are trying to access goods in the rest of GB and their suppliers are saying, “Are we able to send this to you? Will we be able to sell you these goods? Will we be required to file exit declarations? Will there be a cost for us doing business with you in Northern Ireland, one that we are not prepared to meet or you are not prepared to pay?” If that is the case, it makes a whole nonsense of this internal UK market.

[Stephen Farry]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the record whether, if the amendment were to proceed and the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly were required, that would constitute a unilateral breach of the protocol in how that consent would be given? Could a petition of concern be lodged against it, thereby giving his party and anyone else—Members of Traditional Unionist Voice, for example— a veto over the way forward?

[Gavin Robinson]

The first aspect of that question is the intended breach, and the answer is clearly no, because amendment 68 talks about “new requirements”, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the content of the amendment, he will see that. The Northern Ireland Assembly has cross-community voting mechanisms not to provide vetoes but to encourage consensus. The hon. Members on the Benches to my left know exactly why those provisions were brought in, and they know the importance of them, but they tend to believe that they are worthy of use only when there is an issue for which they wish to use them. That is hugely regrettable. When I talk about the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I know that there are cross-community mechanisms to ensure that we get to a place of consensus. I do not believe in stalemate or in logjams. I have spent my political life trying to resolve them. I hope that when I contribute on issues in this House, people respect the fact that, although I do not necessarily agree with everyone, I try to get to a place where we can agree.

Businesses in Northern Ireland that buy from GB and wish to sell to GB want to know what their trading position will be. They were promised the best of both worlds, yet day after day they are learning about the bureaucratic and administrative burdens that are going to be placed upon them. They want answers. I know that the Minister will respond thoughtfully to the debate, and that he will pick up on some of the additional issues that I have raised on amendment 68. I hope he does that. I hope he offers some clarity and comfort for businesses in Northern Ireland, and I hope he outlines just how the Bill will assist them. I believe that it will not do so, however, so I hope that he gives us some clarity as to what steps the Government are prepared to take in the Finance Bill to resolve these overarching and burdening issues, which remain unresolved, through the Joint Committee.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Gavin Robinson and Stephen Farry

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I am generally supportive of this Bill and I recognise that we need to strengthen the UK’s approach to combating terrorism and keeping communities safe. It is also important to recognise that increased sentencing powers are only one part of a wider strategy to tackle terrorism. We also need to address terrorism at source and prevent people from entering that path.

There are many attractions to taking a uniform approach across the UK and avoiding any two-tier system. However, it is important none the less to recognise that there are different dynamics in the nature of the terrorist threat in different parts of the UK, and that a one-size-fits-all approach may not always be appropriate.

In that regard, I want to focus on clause 30 and explore some of the potential unintended consequences of the extension of the provisions of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 relating to the removal of the automatic right to early release for terrorist-related offenders who are currently serving either determinate or extended custodial sentences in prison in Northern Ireland. As Members have said, there may well be a legal challenge—or, indeed, multiple legal challenges—to that provision on the ground of compatibility with the European convention on human rights, and particularly with article 7. Some Members—and, indeed, the Government—say that that risk has now been reduced or eliminated, but there are others who dispute that analysis. Time will tell. Any successful legal challenge in Northern Ireland could have wider repercussions for the rest of the UK, and it is important to bear that in mind. This approach also erodes the principle of judicial discretion to set appropriate custodial and licence periods.

Secondly, and perhaps even more significantly, there is a danger that these measures could inadvertently lead to unintended consequences and be counterproductive. The provision of longer, tougher sentences at the time of conviction is one thing, and I would certainly support it. However, the application of retrospective measures to what is currently a very small cohort of prisoners in Northern Ireland runs the risk of providing a propaganda opportunity for dissident republican terrorists to argue that the goalposts have moved and that terrorist prisoners have somehow, in their minds, become political prisoners and a propaganda tool.

Over the past 50 years in Northern Ireland, prisoners have, sadly, been used by terrorist organisations and their supporters for propaganda, radicalisation and recruitment in parts of the community, and this has led to greater violence being practised on wider society. For example, Members will be familiar with how the introduction of internment without trial in early 1970s and the hunger strikes in the early 1980s were manipulated to great ends, bringing even greater disruption to our society. At present, both the Police Service of Northern Ireland—my emphasis on “Northern Ireland” is deliberate, and will be understood by many people back home at present—

[Gavin Robinson]

Thank you.

[Stephen Farry]

You’re welcome.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Security Service are doing an excellent job in combating the terrorist threat, and I want to pay tribute to them in that regard. Nevertheless, the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland remains severe and there is a need for constant vigilance. The threat of violence should never be used to determine policy, but it is nevertheless sensible to reflect on the potential consequences relative to the benefits. In addition, retrospectively implementing the proposed changes for individuals who are currently serving determinate custodial sentences has the potential to undermine the current public protection measures in Northern Ireland, rather than enhance them. That applies in particular to post-release monitoring. This could have the unintended consequence in Northern Ireland of terrorist offenders being released without any requirement to be on licence, which would be dangerous to the wider community.

Points have been made by others about the implications for young people and about the question marks around mandatory polygraphs. I am not going to repeat those points; suffice it to say that I concur with them.

My final point would be to encourage both the Secretary of State and the Minister to continue to engage in dialogue with my party colleague, the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland. I know that they have had correspondence and discussions to date, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged. There are genuine concerns about how this could play out in practice in Northern Ireland, and while we all fully respect the need to be tougher in how we deal with terrorists, it is important that the approach we take is ultimately effective and that the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland are taken into account as the Bill proceeds through this House and the other place.