Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I have indeed seen that report. The problem is that the approach set out in the legacy Act has been found, in that respect and many others, to be unlawful. Of course we will continue, as the previous Government did, to see whether we can find a lawful way of dealing with the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has identified. That work will continue.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the job of the commission in helping people to deal with the past is made much more difficult when we have reprehensible incidents such as Sinn Féin First Minister Michelle O’Neill attending and speaking at a commemoration of three IRA terrorists who died when the bomb they were transporting through County Londonderry in 1971 exploded prematurely, killing them rather than the innocent people they intended to murder, and when we now have the possibility that the former Sinn Féin leader and terrorist Gerry Adams may be about to receive compensation?

European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 6th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I will try to be as brief as possible, to allow others to speak.

I wish to come to what the Bill is actually about, rather than what people say it is about, but first I want to dispel the idea that it would mean going backwards. The idea of mutual enforcement in fact originated, as others have said, in the EU itself at the time. It came from those who were tasked, as senior officials—British and others—to come forward with a solution, before the end of the Brexit debates and so on, with an alternative way to make the borders work and to take the heat out of what later became really quite powerful and ended up with a Government literally unable to move any motion at all and have it succeed.

I have personal experience of this issue because, when there was a break in the negotiations between the UK Government—who handled it pretty badly at the time, by the way—and the Commission, I managed somehow to get a team of people together to go and see Monsieur Barnier directly. We sat at a table with all his negotiators, and a few of ours who were there, and we talked through the principles. This was before mutual enforcement became a concept, but we talked about what already existed in the EU with others from outside the EU and inside the EU, and how they traded. We ended up reaching very much the same conclusion as originally reached by Sir Jonathan Faull and others: that mutual enforcement was the better deal. Monsieur Barnier agreed with us. At the end of that agreement—I can see him following me out as I put my coat on—he said, “The principle behind any chance of this being agreed is that we must have trust. Without trust, we cannot have an agreement.”

The sad part about it was that when I came back to the UK to speak to my Government, they did not want to take any interest in that as a departure. They had already got bogged down in other areas. Sadly, two weeks later, what actually happened was that the Government went back in and carried on with their complicated and hopeless negotiation, without first setting out the principle of what they wanted. I think Monsieur Barnier was open to that and I think the EU wanted mutual enforcement. At that stage, there was no question about weaponising the border; it was about how we could reach an agreement. We could have done much more then, and I still today think that this idea is it.

The Bill, then, is not about going backwards in the sense that it destroys what we have done; it actually says something about what we have done so far in two stages. The protocol, it seems to me, could only ever have been temporary, and the Windsor agreement, which I did not support, opened up the negotiation again, which was good, but the ask was so limited, and in some ways rather restrictive, that we have ended up with the principle being there, but the practical bit does not work. That was the moment when we should have used the opportunity to go back into mutual enforcement. What is so wrong about that? The EU already uses the principle in its dealings with other countries.

As I said in an intervention earlier, the classic example is New Zealand. The EU trusts the New Zealand veterinary officers—particular key ones, but they trust them all once they are registered—to say whether certain foodstuffs are, under SPS rules, packaged properly and agreeable under the EU rules. They are trusted to say that EU rules are met. That is a critical component. When those foodstuffs are shipped and arrive at Rotterdam, most often it comes up on the computer and they are waved through. Any checks that have to take place in Rotterdam for non-EU countries take place 30 km behind the border, and they are spot checks just in case something has happened en route or something else has changed on the way. In other words, things move smoothly through. But such arrangements were not agreed in the various agreements here.

Eventually, in trying to draft this idea together, I sat down with others to try to figure out how we could make mutual enforcement work. I give credit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for having brought forward the Bill, because it gives us a chance to debate the matter. I know very well what goes on in this Chamber and I know only too well how Fridays work, and the sad part is that if the Government do not want to have any further debate on something, they arrange for it to be talked out. It has happened on both sides; cynicism exists on all sides. I understand that. Lots of people will have come in, particularly from London because they are closer, and they will do what they have to do to talk this out. The Bill is not going to get through; I never expected it to. [Interruption.] Honestly, do not object; Government Members know very well that that is exactly what happens. Some will be here because they believe in something—I look across at my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—but the majority are not. Therefore, let us just understand fundamentally what we could have been discussing and what the current Government could now be engaged in; they could be talking to the EU about changing these arrangements.

The current arrangements are damaging relationships and causing issues around Northern Ireland. We know that; nobody is arguing that that is not the case. If we have such problems that affect the constitution and the smooth running of businesses both in Northern Ireland and the wider United Kingdom, then surely any Government would want to make sure those are settled. It is not a polemic, it is not a right or left wing thing to do; it is called practical governance to try to figure out how this works.

I did not agree with my Government when they brought forward the Windsor agreement in its final stages, and I voted against it. I voted against it because I thought they had lost a real opportunity. The EU had accepted that its imposition earlier on did not work and it had to change it, but what we ended up with was a de minimis change which did not solve the problems; in fact some of them have got worse.

When we strip out all the politics, the key component is that mutual enforcement requires each side to make reciprocal legal commitments to each other and to enforce the rules of the other with respect to trade across the border. In other words, we would accept that where our exporters export to the EU, we are responsible if they breach EU regulations. So if the EU says a company or individual is exporting goods in breach of the terms of its trade, the UK Government will take the responsibility to proceed against them, and vice versa for the EU.

That does not require no border, because there has always been a border in Northern Ireland; we just do not want a hard border. That was always the issue. People talk about borders, but they mean a hard border. I had some experience of that when I had to man one of the checkpoints there when I was sent to Northern Ireland. I hated doing it, but that was a hard border. We do not want a hard border and mutual enforcement obviates the need for a hard border. Borders will exist, and we talked about that in terms of currency and VAT.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

On this mythical hard border, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible to implement such a thing for any land border of 300 miles with 280 crossing points, and that the process we are embarked upon is trying to get a two-way flow of trade that obviates the need for any of those checks anywhere on the border?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The real point is getting rid of the Irish sea checks; it is anathema that one part of the United Kingdom is now treated separately from the rest of the UK. That is surely a reasonable idea and if it is in this Bill then the Government should want to take it through to the next stage and debate it. This is what the Bill does. Mutual enforcement does not of itself remove customs duties; neither does it harmonise or require mutual recognition of standards. It works by inverting the usual approach to customs enforcement; duties may, for example, be imposed for anti-dumping reasons or due to subsidies that one party claims are injurious to itself or to companies as a result of goods failing to qualify for zero duty under rules of origin. That is what the Bill does. All the rest that has been talked about is not in this Bill; it is very simple and very practical. The trade and co-operation agreement between the EU and the UK already has an agreed mechanism, which is very important for identifying and addressing these distortions. If we are able to allow that and make changes, that is how it will work.

There are other areas, too, which I will speed through as quickly as possible. Mutual enforcement can also under these terms accommodate the collection of customs duty. The detailed procedures are obviously beyond the scope of briefing papers and the Bill, but the reality is that we could have a system whereby an order of goods from the UK to the Republic of Ireland triggers a UK export declaration and an EU import declaration such that in terms of the EU’s customs data any sums owed are put into the goods invoice and paid by the importer to the exporter. There are many other ways ahead that can be facilitated, particularly now that almost all of this is done using modern technology, not large sheathes of paper and with a man standing at the border with a ladle to check whether the brandy being imported or exported tastes like brandy. That does not happen any longer, but from some of the debates it would seem somehow we have not moved on from 17th-century customs requirements.

To ensure compliance with this regime, a penalty in this arrangement would apply to those parties who failed to follow the procedure. The penalty would apply to both exporters and hauliers, therefore incentivising all parties involved in the carriage of goods to ensure that appropriate EU customs duties are paid. By the way, the same would be required in the Republic for its importers. It should be noted—this is the important bit that has gone missing—that an analogous system would in any event be required for the red and green lane approach prescribed in the Windsor framework.

Is this going back? No. It is using what we have and ultimately making it better. That seems to me the practical principle behind this idea of mutual enforcement. We should have started in this place, but we now have an opportunity to look at this issue and decide if there is a better way to do it that will take some of the good stuff already there and improve it by saying to the EU that we want a smooth process between the EU and the UK, because everything else then follows. Many EU members already agree; I have heard their discussions.

I cannot remember who it was, but somebody got up and said, “Did we not think they were allies? Did we not think they were friends?” It is because we think they are allies and friends that we want to get rid of the things that make us have rows and arguments about the most practical issues that could be dealt with. That is the point of this mutual enforcement process: to get rid of the ludicrous arguments about who we are and who they are. We can then be very good allies and friends, which we are and will need to be over the next few years, as we enter arguably the most dangerous time that I can remember.

I have a point for the Government. Given that almost identical rules apply in the EU and the UK, the EU could, and arguably should, negotiate an SPS equivalence agreement with the UK, as it has done for countries as far away as Canada and New Zealand, as I have said before.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important aspect of business innovation and for mentioning those businesses, which are important to Northern Ireland’s economy. We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure the best outcome for Short Brothers and its staff in relation to Spirit. The Department for Business and Trade remains in contact with Spirit, Airbus, Boeing and other potential buyers. We want to see an outcome that includes a commitment to develop Short Brothers and its supply chain as part of any acquisition and that provides the best possible opportunity for growth in Northern Ireland. The Department for Business and Trade continues to provide over £13 million of support for Short Brothers’ research and development activity.

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

Across these islands, Northern Ireland is at the forefront for fibre broadband due to our confidence and supply deal with the previous Government. Can the Minister indicate what is being done to promote this golden innovative opportunity nationally, which would help small businesses right across Northern Ireland?

[Fleur Anderson]

This Government are working across the whole of the UK to promote those businesses, and the industrial strategy provides an excellent opportunity to have this discussion. The UK Government are working with businesses, trade unions, local and devolved leaders, experts and international partners to develop that international strategy, which will cement this work and growth. Eight growth-driving sectors have been identified, including some that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) has already identified—advanced manufacturing, clean energy industries, creative industries and so on. The transition to net zero also provides huge opportunities, and we will make the most of them.

Windsor Framework

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Hilary Benn]

For my many and varied sins, I spent a number of years chairing the Brexit Select Committee. We looked at all of these things at great length, and I have to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the basis of that experience that nothing hoved into view that would address the central question: how to maintain an open border—one of the very few things that everybody agreed on during Brexit was that there could not be checks or infrastructure at the border, for reasons that all of us in the Chamber well understand—while ensuring, as a good neighbour, that the European Union can be confident that goods arriving in Northern Ireland, which could then move freely into the EU by crossing the border into the Republic, comply with the rules of its single market.

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

The Secretary of State was elaborating on the problems we have to grapple with. Does he agree that there are just three ways of dealing with those problems? One is to ignore them in the hope that they will go away. The second is to keep complaining about them but not doing anything about them. The third is to actually work at resolving them, and that is what all of us, but principally His Majesty’s Government, should be doing.

[Hilary Benn]

I hope it will not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman if I say that I agree with him. Complaining and ignoring does not get us very far. He anticipates what I am about to come on to: the progress we have seen as a result of the Windsor framework.

Police Funding

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alex Easton]

I totally agree with the right hon. Member: what we have does not even touch the amount of funding that the PSNI needs to find, and he raises the most valuable points.

These figures underscore the urgent requirement to address the ongoing issue of structural underfunding. I acknowledge the £37 million in additional security funding allocated from the Budget, as well as the investment in the Paramilitary Crime Taskforce. While those measures are welcome, let me be unequivocal: they do not adequately address the underlying pressures facing our police service in Northern Ireland.

Don Quixote reminds us that the truth of the pudding is in the eating, so let me now present to the House the stark truth of policing in Northern Ireland. Neighbourhood policing is diminishing; response times for non-emergency calls are excessively prolonged; the capacity to investigate crimes has been reduced; inquiry offices are closing and the ability of the police to support partner organisations is compromised.

However, I am supported by listening to policing colleagues on the frontline, committed to proposing solutions alongside dialogue on those challenges. A comprehensive approach to address those issues includes supporting the business case for maximising the Police College’s potential over the next three years, aiming for 7,000 police officers and 2,572 staff by 2028. It is important to note that those figures remain significantly below the Patten commission’s recommendation of 7,500 police officers. The funding required for the initiative is £8 million in year one, £25 million in year two and £47 million in year three.

To put it bluntly, any viable solution must be threefold. First, the monitoring round must address the £37 million funding gap. Secondly, there must be an increase in the budget baseline to establish sustainable funding. Finally, we need approval of the business case to enable police headcounts to recover to previous levels. It is entirely appropriate for the chief constable of the police service to accurately highlight the current position, and he has my unwavering support, along with that of many others.

There is no doubt that the Justice Minister faces a crucial set of questions regarding the adequacy of the current budget allocation in the light of recent crime rates and increased public safety concerns. First, how can the budget be considered sufficient when community safety, recruitment and training—essential components for maintaining public trust and safety—are insufficiently prioritised? The current funding allocation leaves much to be desired, and as a result the PSNI’s ability to effectively serve the community is hindered. Furthermore, the limited resources allocated for community safety directly impact the PSNI’s ability to perform its duties, which raises the urgent need for accountability.

An explanation is required as to why public safety is not being treated as a top priority, especially when the current funding does not reflect that crucial need. Sadly, it appears that the voices of the public, of the police unions, of community leaders and of political parties, all calling for adequate resources, are not being heard sufficiently by either the Ministry of Justice or the Minister. I challenge the Government to be open to a comprehensive review of policing budgets. That is essential to ensure the PSNI’s mandate, but I must be honest and place on record that they have fallen short in that regard.

It is unsustainable to have approximately only 4,500 deployed officers in Northern Ireland. The reality we face is that the PSNI loses around 40 officers each month due to retirements and departures, while the number of graduate officers fails to keep pace with that attrition.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Does he agree that we had the perfect example of insufficient numbers earlier in the year, when the Chief Constable had to apply to Police Scotland to try to get personnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, because there was a risk of a massive increase in violence and he had insufficient offers to deal with it?

[Alex Easton]

The hon. Member is right: recruitment levels have got so bad that we have had to go to Scotland to get extra police to make up the shortfall in emergency situations, which is not acceptable. Northern Ireland is projected to have fewer than 6,000 officers by 2025, underscoring the need for urgent action. Although I strongly welcome initiatives such as “Right Care, Right Person”, which addresses the current mental health crisis in partnership with health and social care colleagues, we must acknowledge that PSNI officers are often the first and last resort for many individuals in crisis.

Let us consider the broader context of national security. According to “No place to hide: serious and organised crime strategy 2023 to 2028”, the cost of organised crime is estimated at £47 billion. In Northern Ireland, where approximately one third of organised crime groups have links to paramilitary organisations, that is particularly concerning. It is alarming to note that 30% of the PSNI’s investigative organised crime unit is dedicated to tackling those paramilitary gangs. Furthermore, the impact of paramilitarism is widely felt, with 40% of adults and 45% of our young people in Northern Ireland affected by its presence.

In conclusion, adequately resourcing our police across the United Kingdom is essential for maintaining effective law and order, ensuring appropriate enforcement of the law, safeguarding community safety and supporting the overall functions of the justice system. We ask our officers to perform a challenging task, often running towards danger while others move away. They deserve a fair allocation of resources that enhances their ability to serve and protect the United Kingdom effectively. That need is particularly pronounced in Northern Ireland, where the challenges are unique and significant. Together we can work towards ensuring a robust and effective police service, where our police officers are aware of the respect they are rightly held in, not least through the provision of financial resources to match the immense challenges that they face.

Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Robin Swann]

To clarify, the hon. Gentleman means a veteran—that is the point that has been made very vocally by the veterans community.

The third point in the annexe was:

“Initiate a review of the Aftercare Service in Northern Ireland (ACS) which will consider whether the remit of the ACS should be widened to cover all HM Forces veterans living in Northern Ireland with service-related injuries and conditions.”

The fourth was:

“Ensure that the work of the War Memorials Trust who protect and conserve war memorials across the UK is better promoted and understood in Northern Ireland.”

In August 2020, the then Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, announced that the former Ulster Unionist MP Danny Kinahan had been appointed as Northern Ireland’s first Veterans Commissioner. In the spirit of transparency, it should be noted that Mr Kinahan was my party’s previous MP in the seat that I now represent. His appointment was welcomed across the board. The then leader of the DUP, now Baroness Foster, said his appointment was a

“positive and long overdue step toward ensuring the needs of Northern Ireland’s large and vibrant demographic of armed forces veterans are practically understood and addressed”.

She added that

“he brings a wealth of experience to the role and I know he will be keen to embrace the huge in-tray that awaits”.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Does he agree that the pressing need for a commissioner was exemplified just this weekend in the national press, where the issue of the late Captain Robert Nairac was highlighted? It is also exemplified in the ongoing problems veterans face, with many of them having witnessed horrific and terrible incidents and still living with their thoughts about them.

[Robin Swann]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. I asked a question of the Northern Ireland Office on 12 December about the appointment, and the answer I got was:

“We will set out steps for the appointment of a new Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner in due course.”

We are now almost a month on from that.

Northern Ireland City Deals

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

Although my hon. Friend encourages me to, I will not speak for the Chancellor. She will tell us what is in the Budget when she stands up on 30 October.

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

The Secretary of State will remember that when he and I were at the signing of the Londonderry deal in September, I lobbied him strongly to get the other two deals over the line. He has outlined the meetings he has held, but given what he has just said about not meeting and talking with the Chancellor about this, will he be meeting the Prime Minister? He has met other people, and we need to get these deals up and running—over the line—to get much-needed investment into areas such as mine and the Mid South West.

[Hilary Benn]

I very much enjoyed seeing the hon. Gentleman at the signing of the Derry/Londonderry and Strabane city deal—it was a great event. It is the responsibility of all of us in the House who have the interests of these two deals at heart to make representations to everyone who can influence the final decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Final question.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that it is important that, in discussions with the Irish Government, they understand that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, whether they consider themselves to be British, Irish or Northern Irish, can see that it is the United Kingdom context that allows them that diversity, and that improving the lives of present generations is the best way to preserve the lives of everyone for the future?

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Gentleman in that commitment to improving the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. As a Government, we are committed to working on that with him and all his colleagues in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention and for her ongoing interest in Northern Ireland, which is always great to see. She is right. Intertrade UK will cover not just issues related to the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, but trade across the UK, between Scotland and England, England and Wales, and so on. It is designed, in the new environment we find ourselves in, to encourage greater trade within the United Kingdom. We have a market in the United Kingdom in the region of 60 million people. It is the second-biggest market in Europe and we should be selling more of our own goods to our own people. The purpose of Intertrade UK is to encourage those enhanced, stronger trading links across all of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Union is not just a political union; it is an economic union. It was the economic union in particular that was harmed by the protocol. The new measures are designed to restore those trading relationships to a more healthy place.

In welcoming the restoration of the devolved institutions, it is important to recognise that one key difficulty with the protocol was the lack of democratic input for the political institutions in Northern Ireland. Laws were being applied automatically to Northern Ireland—new laws and changes to the law—on which Northern Ireland had no say whatever. We welcome the establishment of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will now have the function to scrutinise laws that are coming forward. It will have the power to stop those laws applying, as I said earlier. The UK Government ultimately have the power of veto if laws are deemed to be harmful to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and its internal market. That is all progress.

I note that some who were critical of the new arrangements and said that the new Democratic Scrutiny Committee was powerless now complain that they are unable to obtain membership of it. Furthermore, I note that some of our detractors now talk about the risk of what they call “trivergence” whereby if the Assembly, exercising its power, vetoes a new law being applied to Northern Ireland, all of a sudden that might create a problem in so far as Northern Ireland will have different law from the EU and, potentially, different law from Great Britain. But in the new arrangements put in place as a result of the Command Paper, Northern Ireland goods will be available for sale in Great Britain regardless of the circumstances. There is a goods guarantee built into the legislation that this House has approved, which means that Northern Ireland goods, in all circumstances, can be sold in Great Britain. However, I note that those who said the new arrangements would be ineffective now complain that they will be so effective that they might be counterproductive when it comes to Northern Ireland’s interests. Which is it? Either they are effective or they are not. We believe that they can be effective, and we are prepared to test the new mechanisms to ensure that they protect the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.

Let me make a few general points. We welcome the commitments that the UK Government have given about Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, including those given from the Dispatch Box this evening, but I also note that we hear much talk about border polls, and much talk, particularly from Sinn Féin, about the need for such a poll. It is worth recalling the history of Sinn Féin’s approach to border polls. As long ago as 2011, Gerry Adams told us that by 2016, Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom. We are almost 10 years on from 2016, and we are still in the UK. By August 2021, Gerry had changed 2016 to 2024; well, 2024 has arrived, and we are still in the UK. In May 2022, Mary Lou McDonald called for a border poll by 2027, but then she changed that to 2030, and just this month Michelle O’Neill shifted the Sinn Féin goalposts once again to call for a border poll by 2034. But they recognise the reality—that it is the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom—and all this talk of divisive border polls is designed simply to reassure the Sinn Féin base.

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

On our constitutional future, does my right hon. Friend agree that in the changed Northern Ireland that now exists, there are many of us who are proud of our British nationality and will never yield on that, while others are proud of their Irishness? Also, many do not share either constitutional identity. Only membership of the United Kingdom allows people to cherish all three.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. The beauty of Northern Ireland today is that each of us has the right to identify ourselves in whatever way we deem appropriate, but it is evident that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland continue to accept that the settled will of the people is to remain in the United Kingdom, and that should be respected by everyone, regardless of how they identify themselves. It is clear to me, however, that Unionists, myself included, have a job to do in continuing to persuade people that the Union is best for all. This debate is welcome, but neither Parliament nor the courts will ultimately decide Northern Ireland’s future. It is the people of Northern Ireland who will decide our future in the United Kingdom, and our job as Unionists is to continue to persuade the majority that they are better off in the United Kingdom.

Let me say this, with great respect, to my colleagues, not on these Benches but out there in wider Unionism, many of them detractors of us in the DUP—those who attack my party and the stand that we are taking, because we recognise that building a prosperous Northern Ireland that works for everyone is the key to securing the Union for the future. Let me say to those who are a minority in Unionism, but who still live in the days of the 1970s when Unionism had an inbuilt majority, that Northern Ireland is changing. Its demographics are changing. We need only look at the results of recent polling to see that.

Unionism has to recognise that among younger people, support for the Union is not as strong as it is among more senior citizens in Northern Ireland. Our task is to persuade our young people, the next generation, that the Union works for them The way we did it in 1970 is not the way we will do it now in 2024, or in 2030, or in 2034. It is a prosperous Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland that delivers jobs for our young people, and ensures that they have the best education and the best start in life—that will deliver support for the Union. That is fundamentally and vitally important.

The signs are good in that regard. Today Northern Ireland has less unemployment than any other region in the United Kingdom outside London, which is an impressive indicator of the extent to which it has moved forward from the days when unemployment was beyond 12% and we had the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. That is what making Northern Ireland work looks like. Making Northern Ireland work looks like delivering jobs for our young people, driving down unemployment, improving our economy, creating jobs and attracting investment, and the new arrangements that we are introducing give us an opportunity to do that even better in the future.

Those are the arguments that will secure the Union for the future, and Unionism needs to do better. We can be proud of a Northern Ireland that is delivering in terms of its manufacturing industry. One in three aircraft seats in every aircraft across the world is manufactured in Northern Ireland. Every Airbus wing includes components manufactured in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We have a world-class creative industry, as is clear from the number of new films being produced in Northern Ireland. We have a talented workforce, and the costs of establishing a business in Northern Ireland are 40% lower than those elsewhere. We have unfettered access to the UK internal market, and we have privileged access to the EU single market.

I therefore believe that there is a bright future for Northern Ireland, one in which our economy grows—and as it grows, support for the Union will grow, because who wants to disrupt what is successful? Who wants to move away from what makes Northern Ireland work for all its people? I stand here today with optimism for Northern Ireland, the place that I call home and am proud to come from. Its people have so much potential, and we have an opportunity now to demonstrate potential for all our people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) says that a glorified press release is in front of us tonight. The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who is no longer in his place, said that a love letter to the Democratic Unionist party has been penned. They say that is all it is, yet they still protest. They protest if Unionists get as much as a nod and a wink. They still object to it. It should not have been done, they say. Unionists should get nothing out of this place. That is the import of their comments. Or perhaps the hon. Members for North Down and for Foyle protest too much. Perhaps the real issue is that they do not like anything done that gives Unionism a nod or a wink, an advantage, or recognition of our rights. Their objections are perhaps strongest to the latter.

Points have been raised this evening about the future of Casement Park. I was not going to mention it, but as it has been put on the agenda, I think I will. Most people listened with consternation this morning to the words of Jarlath Burns, the leader of the Gaelic Athletic Association, who said, “Not a penny more will come from the GAA for Casement Park”—not even on grounds of inflation. It is £15 million or nothing from the GAA. That has to be a significant body blow to the future of Casement Park. The Northern Ireland Executive may indicate that they will give an inflation-related piece of money—significant money—to that project. The Government of Dublin may indicate that they will give multiples of millions to that project. Yet the GAA will not even give the project an inflation-linked amount. That suggests to me that perhaps the GAA does not want Casement Park to go ahead, and that it is looking for someone or for some group to blame. [Interruption.] I hear the giggles and fits coming from the SNP Benches, but of course it is very easy to spend other people’s money. This project now looks as if it will be short by about £100 million.

Tonight, I have heard that we should really be able to wipe out the “not insignificant”—I think that was the comment—£113 million in Executive funding that has been asked for, yet the big ask is: “We’d better have this money made available for Casement Park,” no matter what the amount is. That is amazing. Not only do we have a demand for this money, but it is almost as if the point being made is, “If you don’t give us that money, there will be a crisis.” That seems to be the way that the comment was framed to the House this evening. Most people will reflect very sombrely on the comments made by Jarlath Burns, and by others inside and outside this House who have made it clear that the money must be made available or else. But things can no longer work that way. Difficult decisions need to be made, and I suspect that the decisions that will be made very soon about Casement Park will be incredibly difficult. The way the parties respond to those difficult decisions will be the measure of those parties.

The Minister was taken down a rabbit hole tonight by the hon. Member for Foyle, who, again, is no longer in his place. Perhaps he has decided to go back to Foyle, given the terrible issue at Seagate and the loss of 300 jobs. I hope that he is working hard to get those jobs back, because they are very significant. Perhaps Mr Kennedy, the envoy, will turn up with a cheque book and the trillions of pounds that he said were available for Northern Ireland—it would be amazing if he did. Perhaps that money from America will arrive and those jobs, which are very important to the area, will be saved.

To return to my point, the Minister was taken down a rabbit hole and was asked to confirm whether, in line with the terms of the Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, there would be a simple majority vote for the future of Northern Ireland, but of course that is not in the Act. It talks about a majority vote; it does not define what that majority is—if it is a majority of the people, or a majority of the people who vote. In fact, I believe that the definition has been left open purposefully, so that Parliament will have a say on the terms and conditions. The Minister, referring to previous referendums in this country, has already conceded that a small majority is not the way to make major constitutional change in this nation. If he believes that, he will certainly believe that for the outworkings of the Belfast agreement. He shares the position of the late Seamus Mallon, one of the negotiators of the Belfast agreement, who made it clear that there had to be a “clear majority”, in his words, for a change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We should avoid going down these rabbit holes; we need to recognise the importance of what this House is debating tonight, and why we are debating it.

The objective of every Unionist is to undo the damage done by the great betrayal made by the Government of a former Prime Minister when they agreed the protocol on Northern Ireland. That was done against the advice of the Unionists. Unionists on these Benches, myself included, met the then Prime Minister and implored him not to go down the road of a protocol. He said that things would all be sorted out. He came to County Antrim and told farmers not to worry, “because all this can be shredded.” He told them that we can ignore it, and that we can throw the bits of paper in the bin. Of course, as it transpired, the Prime Minister’s betrayal of Northern Ireland has left us still debating this issue two years later. Untold damage has been done to the psychological view of where those in the Union are, as a people. Responsibility for the economic position of the kingdom lies four-square at that Government’s feet, and it is important that they undo that damage.

I agree with the leader of our party that, after much diligence, we have before us a work in progress. Yes, much more must be done. Today’s Humble Address must be seen in the context of more needing to be done, but the fact is that whenever we give a hint that we want more progress and more stability, we cannot even have that. That seems to be the cry from the nationalists. Nationalism has to grow up and recognise that it cannot go on baiting and pushing at Unionism, because that is wrong.

Until the laws promised by this strengthening of the Union are operational in Northern Ireland, problems will remain for Northern Ireland trade. That is why I urge the Government to hurry up, and get on with implementing the changes that they have said are coming; otherwise more divergence is threatened. We must avoid divergence. It remains a threat and an ever-present danger to the Union, which is why the sooner the Government legislate and move on these issues, the better. Unionists have a history that means that we always have to remain vigilant.

As this is a work in progress, and as the Government, in previous utterances from the Dispatch Box, have conceded that more legislation is to follow, it would be worth while for them to state that again from the Dispatch Box this evening. They cannot expect one party in Northern Ireland to do all the heavy lifting. Will the Government therefore spell out when further actions will be put on the calendar? When will we see those further actions? In conversations with my party colleagues and party leader, we have already discussed the necessity of implementing what has been promised, and the need to make more progress. It is okay us talking about it, but the Government have to take action.

Our constituents already feel the vice-like pinch of the protocol and the framework on their businesses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined. I intend to put on the record some examples that really perplex me and should have been resolved by the Government, and which underline the ongoing damage to our UK single market trade—our largest market by far.

My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and I have challenged senior civil servants in Northern Ireland over why the frictions continue when this place has spelled out that they ought to have been removed. Northern Ireland businesses are right to be impatient. We demand progress. We cannot live on the promise that a change is coming—the promise of jam tomorrow. We and this House demand actions now.

We urge the Government not to lose the momentum for change, and I therefore ask the following questions. When will the veterinary medicines working group be established, and when will it commence work? That is an urgent priority for our single largest sector. When will the plant working group be established? The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised that urgent matter. When will InterTradeIreland be established? What date is pencilled in and calendared for that important body to start operations?

What instructions have been given to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland to progress the changes for goods flowing from GB to Northern Ireland? I ask because I know of several companies in my constituency and elsewhere in Northern Ireland that are being held back by these frictions. A constituent with a very small businesses that orders plants from an English wholesaler came to my office this week and said that she has been told, “Go elsewhere. Try somewhere else. Don’t buy from the United Kingdom.” As her MP, I volunteered to bring that stock—those samples and seeds—over in my hand luggage if she so requires, and dear help the official who tries to stop me.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

My hon. Friend talks about bringing material over himself. Can he imagine the incredulity of citizens of Northern Ireland who hear about the situation? They will say, “What possible risk could that pose to the EU internal market?”.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes his point well; there is zero risk to the European single market. In the same way, there is zero risk with veterinary medicines—the Secretary of State knows that well, because I have discussed the matter with him—because we are talking about the same medicine as before. Europe does not want the medicines changed—shock, horror. It just wants the label changed, but for that to happen, it is demanding that the pharmaceutical companies rescale and re-examine what is in every product, which would costs millions of pounds, and would not be worth it for the companies. It is the same with biscuits. The leader of my party today met a company that has been required to do certain labelling. The EU is not trying to change the content or recipe of the biscuits; it is trying to change the label, because the single market might be damaged by the wrong label. That is how “bent bananas”, “squared cucumbers”, this argument is. We should have left that behind long ago.

The owner of a haulage business in my constituency has had the number of checks on his consignments go from nine per month in August last year to—wait for it—27 in the last two weeks of this month, and we are still moving towards the last couple of days of February. That is the record for the number of checks he has undergone since the protocol was put in place. Once again, will the Government look at this over-zealous Department, DAERA, which looks like it will not undo what this House said has is to be undone, as was outlined in a previous debate?

I mentioned a constituent who is trying to buy scanners for a service sector industry. He has always bought the scanners from GB, and he has been told that he must have an economic operators registration and identification number. That number means that VAT is paid in the Republic of Ireland, but my constituent does not trade in the Republic of Ireland. He is being denied the ability to buy equipment from GB because some official here is saying, “No, you must have an EROI number, and you must put GB in front of it.” That does not exist, and it is appalling that he has been put in that position.

Northern Ireland

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I am holding up the piece of paper.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I am afraid that the back of a postage stamp is too big to write what they have achieved. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) has achieved so much in this deal in safe- guarding the Union and his detractors have not come up with anything.

The changes the right hon. Gentleman has secured in these regulations and the other instrument before this House, which we will consider shortly, will further enhance those protections. The regulations end any presumption that there is any form of automatic and unchecked dynamic alignment with European goods rules. Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the so-called pipeline of EU law, is now expressly subject to the operation of vital democratic safeguards that the Northern Ireland Assembly, when sitting, will be able to exercise, including the Stormont brake. Indeed when— I emphasise when—Stormont begins to sit again and first assembles, I will be able to sign that Stormont brake legislation into law and it will be available to be used by the Assembly as we move forward. When Parliament passed the 2018 Act, it was exercising its sovereignty so that the UK-EU withdrawal agreement could be implemented in domestic law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

My party and I have never made any secret of our disagreement with Brexit and the manner in which it was delivered. That has certainly caused issues for us in Scotland. However, we broadly welcome the point that matters have reached today. It has been a long road. Having clarity about Northern Ireland’s constitutional status is, I believe, helpful, as indeed is the reaffirmation of the principle of consent, which is the basis on which many of us in Scotland, not just in Northern Ireland, understand the Union of which we are, willingly or otherwise, a part.

The manner in which Brexit has come about has, as I say, caused issues in Scotland. It has placed our own constitutional question back at the forefront and under renewed scrutiny, but despite the tensions that that has released, or brought about, politically, I hope that my party and I have been able to understand and empathise with some of the concerns of people in Northern Ireland, and not just over the way in which Brexit, as originally constituted, threatened to undermine the basis on which peace and progress had been secured over the previous quarter century.

I hope that my party and I have also been able to understand and reflect on the fact that aspects of the protocol have left Unionists in Northern Ireland in particular feeling that they have been in some way separated, or set on a course of being separated, from the UK. In that regard, as I have said on a number of occasions, we never considered it unreasonable in and of itself, in the light of experience, that the UK Government should seek to renegotiate, or to rework, aspects of the deal that had been put in place.

Although there were certainly opportunities to recast a deal which, I would argue, could have worked better in the interests of all parts of the UK—I would highlight sanitary and phytosanitary alignments as being essential to that—and while I regret that those options have not been pursued today, I do not begrudge Northern Ireland a single aspect of what has been agreed in recent days or what appears in the statutory instruments.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman says that he does not begrudge us the achievement of some of the objectives that we set out to achieve. Does he agree that one of the advantages that we have and Scotland does not have is a 300-mile unclosable land border that makes virtual accommodation with access to the Irish Republic and onwards into the wider EU market almost impossible to prevent?

[Richard Thomson]

The border is certainly a complex one to try to police, and that has been at the forefront of many of the discussions. By contrast, we have what would be a very straightforward border between Scotland and England were it ever to take on international significance.

There appears to be something of a contradiction, in that Northern Ireland cannot conform to the requirements of the single market to maintain access there, and also the UK internal market, in the event of a future divergence. That brings to mind paragraph 146 of the Command Paper, which provides that

“the Government will legislate to require that a Minister in charge…must assess whether or not”

something

“has an impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

and make statements.

That contrasts with new section 38A (1) of the SI, which states:

“His Majesty’s Government must not ratify a Northern Ireland-related agreement with the European Union that would create a new regulatory border”.

A Minister might lay a statement before Parliament to that effect, but that does not mean that the Minister’s opinion will necessarily be shared, or make the statement any less subjective. Ministers might be capable of thinking six impossible things before breakfast, and indeed at times during the Brexit debate it seemed that that was a necessary qualification for office. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State, in summing up the debate, could clarify how any such dispute might ultimately be determined and resolved.

With these publications, we appear to have reached something of a conclusion. It has been a thoroughly exhausting process, which has occupied talents and energies—not just in the Government and Parliament here, but across swathes of public life in Northern Ireland and beyond—that could, I believe, have been directed more productively. Much work has built up in the absence of an Assembly, but hopefully these provisions will allow for all the political mechanisms to bring the Assembly back. It is important for that to happen because a peaceful, prosperous Northern Ireland, at ease with itself, in control of its future and able to be respectful of all shades of opinion, is manifestly in the interests of all people in all these islands. To the extent that the statutory instruments pave a way towards restoring that state of affairs, we support them.