EU Tariffs: United States and Northern Ireland Economy
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will update the House on the likely impact on the Northern Irish economy of EU tariffs on the US.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As the Prime Minister has said, tariffs are not good news for anyone and no one wants a trade war. The Government are doing everything possible to keep Britain secure during this new era of global instability, and we will always act in the best interests of businesses in Northern Ireland. As part of our customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exporters are facing a general 10% US tariff and a 25% tariff on steel, aluminium and cars, like other exporters across the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not therefore uniquely disadvantaged. We are, of course, preparing for the EU’s next move and any possible retaliatory tariffs that it may or may not introduce, as well as considering the impact that new EU tariffs would have on Northern Ireland businesses importing from the United States of America, because under the Windsor framework, the EU tariff would apply.
As hon. Members will know, however, because of the Windsor framework, businesses can reclaim any such tariff through the existing duty reimbursement scheme in cases where US imports into Northern Ireland do not then enter the European Union. The customs duty waiver scheme also allows duties to be waived entirely, subject to an overall limit. These schemes work in our national interest, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is continuing to talk to and support any businesses that might be affected, to help them understand how to use the duty reimbursement and customs duty waiver schemes. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has talked about all this with EU counterparts in recent days, because the Government are fully aware of how sensitive this issue is for businesses in Northern Ireland. What we need in these circumstances is a calm and considered response, and that is what the Government will continue to provide.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It is incredibly important that this House has the opportunity to question the Government on this issue before the Easter break and before the implementation of these tariffs. I have enormous respect for my opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Office, but it is totally unacceptable that we should have got to this stage in proceedings without a Minister coming to the House to update us on the likely impact on businesses in Northern Ireland of this emerging tariff war between the US and the EU. As the House will know, this comes off the back of the considerable damage done to the economy in Northern Ireland by the Budget last year, by the increases in national insurance contributions and by the changes to the national minimum wage, which have completely undermined business confidence and which are driving unemployment in the region.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the following three questions. First, a week on from the United States’ announcement and some time after the EU’s publication of a 99-page draft of its tariff responses, have the Government now done an impact assessment of what this means for the Northern Irish economy and for businesses in Northern Ireland, and will he publish it?
Secondly, he rightly mentions the duty reimbursement scheme, which would allow businesses taking goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and having to pay the EU tariff to reclaim that tariff. That scheme is now going to be put under enormous pressure. It is going to have to deal with volumes not foreseen when it was originally put together. Does the Secretary of State have complete confidence that it will be able to reimburse businesses in a timely fashion so as not to disrupt trade?
Thirdly and finally, because Northern Ireland remains within the EU customs code, affected Northern Ireland businesses buying affected goods will have to pay EU tariffs, but the same competitive businesses in GB will not. What are the Government going to do to ensure that such businesses are not left disadvantaged, and that we do not see serious distortions of trade? With that in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that in the event that we see a major diversion of trade, his Government will be prepared to use article 16 of the Windsor framework, which allows the Government to take decisions to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland are not damaged? It is incredibly important that businesses hear from the Secretary of State that the Government are prepared to protect them in the event that this tariff war creates a diversion of trade for business there.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I am slightly surprised by his initial comment, because of course we touched on this matter in Northern Ireland oral questions—
Hilary Benn
Indeed, but we touched on this matter in Northern Ireland orals last week, and the Business Secretary made a statement to the House last week.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, of course the Government have been preparing for and looking at all eventualities, but until we know what the EU retaliatory tariffs are, it does not make much sense to publish speculation about their potential impact.
On the duty reimbursement scheme, I have met HMRC officials, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that the scheme works effectively, depending on the number of Northern Ireland businesses that are affected, to reimburse tariffs. I would just say, however, that Northern Ireland imports about £800 million-worth of goods from the United States of America, which is about 2% of Northern Ireland’s total purchases. That impacts upon his third question. We are going to have to take this a stage at a time. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he will do what is in the national interest to protect our businesses, our companies and our economic future, but it is precisely because of the Windsor framework that the duty reimbursement scheme exists.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The EU is currently consulting its member states on the goods that it may target in response to the US tariffs. The Secretary of State has spoken about there being no need to make an assessment yet, but in advance of the EU imposing retaliatory measures, has he made any assessment at all, if there is any point? Is he engaging with the European Commission to ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers are fully taken into account in determining how the EU responds to the US tariffs?
Hilary Benn
As I indicated in answer to the Opposition spokesperson, of course the Government have been preparing for all eventualities, but as I also indicated, there is no point in publishing something that is not based on the actual tariffs that the EU decides to impose. Therefore, it is sensible to wait until that moment arrives.
Secondly, the EU will take such action as it determines to be in its interests in response to the 20% tariffs that the United States of America has imposed on the EU in addition to the tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars. Let us not forget that the Windsor framework gives Northern Ireland businesses unique access to the European market, which is not something that is enjoyed by businesses in Great Britain.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As the Financial Times reported at the weekend—and as I think the Secretary of State has just confirmed—in the event of EU retaliatory tariffs, goods imported from the United States into Northern Ireland will by default be effectively forced down the red lane. That, of course, means additional customs checks, time and red tape and, in the event of their imposition, EU tariff rates for goods coming into Northern Ireland, irrespective of their ultimate destination. That risks a scenario where Northern Ireland importers are penalised more than almost any other businesses in either the UK or the EU, first at the border and then in administering the reclamation of those costs.
Let us be clear: this chaotic situation is entirely the consequence of Donald Trump’s destructive trade war. What are the Government doing to ensure that President Trump and the US Administration are alert to the deeply destabilising effects of their tariffs policy on the Good Friday agreement and the prospect of peace in Northern Ireland? What active steps are the Government taking to mitigate the potential disruption to Northern Ireland businesses that are now unwittingly caught up in Donald Trump’s trade war?
Hilary Benn
The single most important thing we can do for those businesses in Northern Ireland is, as I indicated a moment ago, to ensure that the duty reimbursement scheme works speedily and effectively—provided that those businesses can demonstrate that their goods are not moving into the European Union, for the obvious reason that otherwise Northern Ireland would become a back door for goods seeking to avoid the retaliatory tariffs. The Government will take all necessary steps to protect British businesses in the very difficult circumstances that we are facing, including by continuing to seek to negotiate an economic deal with the United States of America, which we have been engaged in for weeks now. What comes out of that remains to be seen, but it is part of the Government’s calm and considered approach.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The complexity of trade relationships on the island of Ireland is a result of Brexit. Working north-south is as important as working east-west. Does the Secretary of State agree that strengthening relationships not just with the European Union but with the Republic of Ireland Government can put Northern Ireland into a pivotal position to navigate this new uncertainty?
Hilary Benn
We are all having to navigate this new uncertainty as a result of the decision that the US Administration have made. It is certainly true that leaving the European Union has created new complexities. The reason why there is a Windsor framework is that there are two entities—the United Kingdom and the European Union—with different trading rules but an open border, and some method therefore had to be found to deal with the consequence of that. As I have said to the House before, trying to wish away that basic fact has not really worked.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
It is important that we keep cool heads. There will be attempts, subsequent to my question, to relitigate the Brexit wars. The fact of the matter is that the 2019 Brexit deal and the Windsor framework give Northern Ireland a unique competitive advantage: 10% exports and access to the single market. Will the Secretary of State consider a rapid automatic reimbursement scheme, as the shadow Secretary of State alluded to? That scheme is at the centre of easing tensions should there be retaliation on the EU side.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the benefits that the Windsor framework has given businesses in Northern Ireland in terms of access to the EU market. I would just say to him that, in the event of EU retaliatory tariffs, “rapid automatic” does not quite square with the needs of businesses in Northern Ireland that import American goods, because they have to demonstrate that those goods are not then moving on to the European Union. That requires them to provide evidence to HMRC in order to get the tariff reimbursed.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his initial response to the urgent question. Of course, this situation is a reminder that the people of Northern Ireland were absolutely right to oppose Brexit in that referendum. I am really disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State started his supplementary question by complaining about the lowest-paid workers in Northern Ireland getting a pay rise—absolutely incredible. The Secretary of State touched on the trade negotiations between the UK and the United States. Can he reassure us that the situation in Northern Ireland is absolutely at the heart of those negotiations?
Hilary Benn
I am very happy to assure my hon. Friend that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, are uppermost in the minds of all Ministers in trying to deal with the situation we now find ourselves in.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State says that the EU will take action on tariffs in its best interests, but businesses in Northern Ireland expect the Government to take action in the best interests of the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom. He talks about how this can all be resolved by the reimbursement scheme. The fact of the matter is that the reimbursement scheme has failed. Businesses have to produce masses of information, and there are delays in payments—some businesses have to wait for hundreds of thousands of pounds to be reimbursed in taxes. That is not the answer. Surely, the answer is for the UK to collect the taxes that we impose on American goods and leave the EU to collect the taxes that it imposes.
Hilary Benn
What the right hon. Gentleman proposes ignores the reality that faces Northern Ireland as a result of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, and the fact that there was a problem that had to be solved. The duty reimbursement scheme owes its existence to the Windsor framework. It is important, as I have said to the House, that the scheme works effectively, but businesses do need to provide information to demonstrate that the goods have not subsequently moved into the European Union, for reasons that I think he understands.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am particularly concerned about the cash flow of small businesses in Northern Ireland in the event that the EU increases its tariffs. In his discussions with HMRC, has the Secretary of State established what the average waiting time is for the duty reimbursement scheme to kick in? Is there any prospect of shortening that time if the amount of money out of the door increases in the event of EU tariffs?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point for businesses in Northern Ireland. As he would expect, I have had precisely that discussion with HMRC. The honest answer to the question of how long it takes is that it depends on how quickly businesses provide the necessary information to demonstrate that goods have remained in the United Kingdom and have not moved to the EU. Once that information is provided, the scheme should work effectively. It may help him if I point out that the customs duty waiver scheme—a separate scheme—allows up to €300,000 per company over a three-year rolling average, which will obviously benefit small businesses. If they come within that heading, they do not have to pay the tariff up front.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Sadly, I have heard nothing today that will give businesses in my constituency any reassurance that the UK Government are prepared to protect them. I recognise that it is not good practice to comment on speculation, but it is and would be good practice to leave businesses in no doubt that the Government—their Government, to whom they pay hefty taxes—will protect them from EU tariffs. We cannot be left in a scenario where businesses are reliant on a duty reimbursement scheme that does not work—it takes months to get repayments. Will the Secretary of State give more clarity to businesses in Upper Bann that he will protect them?
Hilary Benn
I have done my level best to set out the situation. We all understand the reasons. Northern Ireland gains from the Windsor framework because of its access—[Interruption.] Well, it does gain from access to the EU market that other parts of the United Kingdom do not enjoy. But there is a consequence, which is what we are discussing in relation to the imposition of tariffs by the United States of America. That is a decision that the US Administration have taken, and we all have to deal with the consequences. HMRC has of course already been talking to businesses that might be affected to ensure that they understand how the tariff reimbursement scheme and the customs duty waiver scheme work.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Government’s advice to Northern Ireland businesses seems to be, “Keep calm and carry on.” Well, that creates an awful lot of uncertainty for small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State put a little more meat on the bone in relation to what the Government are doing? As he said, the EU will take action in its interests, but that action may not be in the interests of Northern Ireland businesses or consumers. What will the Government do?
Hilary Benn
In the circumstances in which this country and many countries around the world find themselves, we are having this discussion because of a decision that the United States Administration have taken. We do not control that. What we do have to seek to control is our response to it. I have tried to lay out for the House today what the position is and what is available to support businesses that may be affected by the EU tariffs, once we understand what those are. We will see how extensive they may or may not be, and then businesses will start to work out for themselves what is the consequence and how we can use the mechanism of the reimbursement scheme in the Windsor framework to get back the money that they have to pay in a tariff.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Businesses require clarity and certainty. Will the Secretary of State undertake to come back to the House as soon as we have that clarity and certainty? Will he ensure that the EU understands that the open border he keeps talking about is an unclosable border and tries to give businesses more certainty so that they can develop in the future?
Hilary Benn
Notwithstanding what we have been discussing today, Northern Ireland imports about £800 million-worth of goods from the United States of America, which is about 2% of the total purchases made by Northern Ireland. The rest—98% of the purchases—is unaffected by any EU retaliatory tariffs relating to goods brought into Northern Ireland. As I travel round Northern Ireland, I see that there are great business opportunities and lots of investment coming in. As I said to the House last week, Northern Ireland has a higher rate of growth than the UK as a whole and the lowest unemployment.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is the right hon. Gentleman not embarrassed that he and his Government have no control over the tariffs in respect of goods imported into Northern Ireland? Is the obvious and inevitable answer not to repatriate to the United Kingdom control over trade laws? What happens if Northern Ireland is used as a conduit by the Republic of Ireland or the EU to export goods to the US? Who checks those goods and where?
Hilary Benn
As I think I have said to the hon. and learned Gentleman before, I would not have started from here myself in relation to the cause that led eventually to the negotiation of the Windsor framework, which was a huge improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol. We do not control the decisions that the United States Administration have taken. What we have to do is make sure that we stand with businesses, including in Northern Ireland, to provide them with support, and a mechanism that allows them to reclaim the tariff is the most practical step we can take. It is already in place because of the Windsor framework.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has outlined the case, but I am afraid he has not given any answers, and that is disappointing. The promise was made to Northern Ireland MPs that we would not be disadvantaged by any EU retentions. That is clearly not to be the case, and Government need to address that directly. Will the Secretary of State set out when discussions to extricate Northern Ireland from EU rules will begin and when we can expect to see our interests looked after, as was promised by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? I was here last week when we got those promises, but today, unfortunately, we do not.
Hilary Benn
The situation that Northern Ireland businesses may find themselves in if there are EU retaliatory tariffs is a product of the Windsor framework, which gives benefits to businesses in Northern Ireland as well as requiring the payment of the tariffs that can be claimed back. The single most important reason for sticking with the implementation of the Windsor framework is that we want to negotiate closer economic relationships with the European Union, including a sanitary and phytosanitary and a veterinary agreement.
Members from Northern Ireland have on many occasions raised the consequences of the current arrangement. Things could be a lot easier if we get that agreement, but as I have pointed out to the House many times before, if we do not honour the last agreement that the United Kingdom as a country signed under the last Government with the European Union, how exactly do we expect to get a new agreement—in particular an SPS and veterinary agreement, which would help many businesses in the movement of goods across the Irish sea?
Clonoe Inquest
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I really welcome the opportunity that the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) has given me and the House to listen to this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I congratulate him on securing it. I listened very carefully to everything that he said. As he will know, on 11 February he asked me an urgent question about the findings of the coroner in the Clonoe inquest. In answer to that question, I told him and the House that the Ministry of Defence was considering the coroner’s findings carefully. Before turning to the outcome of those considerations, it is worth reminding the House of the facts of the case, which we have heard a lot about already.
On 16 February 1992, there was an attack on Coalisland police station by a unit of the Provisional Irish Republican Army, armed with a lot of weaponry, including a heavy machine gun. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following its departure, and subsequent arrival at the Clonoe church car park, the unit was engaged by members of the Army’s specialist military unit, resulting in four PIRA gunmen being shot and killed. As we know, the inquest into their deaths began in 2023. On 6 February this year, the coroner found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified, and that the operation
“was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”
I listened very carefully to what the House said when I answered the urgent question. Following careful consideration, the Ministry of Defence has written to the coroner to outline its intention of applying for a judicial review. In its view, the findings of the coroner do not properly reflect the context of the incident—I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what happened—or the challenging circumstances in which members of the armed forces served in Northern Ireland. The Ministry of Defence has also confirmed that it is funding the veterans in question to seek a judicial review, and it is continuing to provide them with welfare support.
The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental democratic principle, and it is crucial to upholding the rule of law in the United Kingdom. One important element of that principle is the right to legally challenge the findings of judicial decision makers where it is believed that an error has been made, and the Government have determined on this occasion that that is indeed the most appropriate course of action. It is now important, as I think the House will recognise, given the confirmation by the Ministry of Defence that it intends to seek a judicial review of the findings of the inquest, that these proceedings are allowed to run their course.
This Government have a long-standing commitment to repeal and replace the almost universally opposed Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I think it is fair to say that, among the political parties in Northern Ireland, it is universally opposed. The Act has been found by the domestic courts to be unlawful in a number of respects, and we should not forget that the legislation in question made provision to grant those responsible for terrible terrorist crimes immunity from prosecution. That is what the Act did.
As part of our commitment to repeal and replace the Act, the Government are committed to proposing measures to allow inquests previously halted by that legislation to proceed. I set out this position in my written ministerial statements of 29 July and 7 October 2024 and in my oral statement to the House on 4 December 2024.
The Government recognise that the Clonoe findings have caused great concern among many of those who served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, and we have heard tonight from some who have given distinguished service to the armed forces and also to this House. The veterans I have met, including a group I met this afternoon, have also expressed a strong view that the way in which we collectively address the legacy of the troubles has to be fair, balanced and proportionate.
Jesse Norman
Could the Secretary of State not simply say now to the House that he has a deep understanding and awareness of the trauma that has been caused, and that he takes the side—not judicially, but politically, in his own mind as a matter of human sympathy—with the poor people affected by these decisions and how they are playing out in the public realm? Could he not say that now, so that veterans and their families understand that a Government Minister in a senior position gets it and is on their side in his own mind, even if not judicially?
Hilary Benn
I expressed that view to the veterans I met this afternoon, when I thanked them for their service in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances. The right hon. Member invites me to do that this evening, and I readily do it, because they were seeking to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom, including of Northern Ireland, in the face of terrorism and terrorists.
As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington pointed out in his speech, the terrorists were responsible for the vast majority of deaths. However, I would add that many of them were prosecuted and convicted—paramilitaries on the republican side, and also those on the loyalist side who were also guilty of the most appalling crimes. As was pointed out, part of the price—in my view, rightly paid—to enable the Good Friday agreement to succeed and to bring the extraordinary peace and prosperity Northern Ireland has seen in the almost 27 years since, was the release of prisoners, which was really, really difficult for many families to accept, to understand and to cope with. I would also point out that, in recent years, a number of republicans have indeed been prosecuted—in fact, more republicans have been. I think I am right in saying that there has been one conviction in the last 12 years of a soldier who served there, and that was a suspended sentence.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned the case of Robert Nairac. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, which does such an important job to try to reunite the remains of loved ones who were murdered by the Provisional IRA with their families—although Robert Nairac’s parents are dead, I think he has other living relatives—has made two recent attempts to find his remains, on the basis of information it has received. I am very sad to say that so far that has not proved possible, but I hope that those who have information, and who have enabled the ICLVR to find the remains of a number of people and return them to their families, will continue to provide information to that body so that it is able to recover those remains.
As the Secretary of State, it is my job to ensure that these concerns and perspectives are heard, alongside other views expressed by a range of parties who also want to see, in their own way, a resolution to the complex troubles that happened and the issues that remain outstanding. I am thinking in particular of the many families I have met since taking up the post who have said to me, “We still do not know, decades later, what happened to our loved ones who were killed.” They carry that trauma with them to this day. Therefore, the Government are absolutely committed to trying to develop legacy mechanisms that are compliant with human rights—I stand with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington in my support, and the Government’s support, for the European convention on human rights—and that can command a degree of public confidence across communities in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
I will just say this about the approach the previous Government took. It caused, self-evidently, immense difficulties, including numerous findings of human rights incompatibilities and therefore an erosion of trust in the Government’s ability to address these issues fairly.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I remind the Secretary of State that, at a hearing in 2017, the Defence Committee took evidence from four distinguished professors of law, including Philippe Sands, with whose work he is no doubt very familiar, and they made it very clear to us that in principle there was nothing illegal about having a statute of limitation, provided that it was accompanied by a truth recovery process? That met the requirement of avoiding the otherwise illegal act of giving impunity for crimes committed. The Secretary of State says that there were technical problems with the previous legislation that rendered it in some respects illegal, but will he not accept that the persecution of elderly veterans—which cannot, in the end, lead to anyone spending more than two years in prison anyway, given the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—will continue unless and until some form of legislation is put back in place to draw a line under prosecutions and to fulfil the other part of the requirement by a truth recovery process? Whatever he thinks about the specific legislation they are repealing, will he not accept the principle that that is the only way to protect people against this form of legalistic persecution?
Hilary Benn
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, that there were not technical problems with the legacy Act; there were many legal problems with the legacy Act. It is the Government’s position, and I think it is the position of the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington, that we uphold the European convention on human rights. I have said from the beginning that I am determined to ensure that the legacy mechanisms, in the form that they are brought before the House, are compliant with the European convention on human rights. There are plenty of examples of other people in other countries who do not abide by the European convention. In my view, it is a very important foundation of our liberties and our protection. There are legal problems with the legacy Act, not technicalities, if I may say so.
I also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the idea of immunity from prosecution was also opposed. I have met one family of a soldier who was murdered by the IRA who were outraged by the idea that his killers should get immunity under the legislation the previous Government passed.
Sir Julian Lewis
I am very sorry, but that answer did not address the question of principle. The fact is that, unless the Secretary of State’s chum, Professor Sands, and three other equally distinguished professors of law were mistaken, there is no reason in principle—regardless of how flawed he, and the courts, even, may think the previous legislation was—that we cannot have a statute of limitation to put an end to these prosecutions, coupled with a truth recovery process. Of course, it will always be possible to find someone who wants the other lot prosecuted but not their lot, but it is the job of Government to cut through that and do the right thing, as Nelson Mandela did so effectively in South Africa.
Hilary Benn
I am not familiar with that particular bit of evidence. The right hon. Gentleman cites one group of lawyers who hold one view, but it will not surprise the House if I say that it would be possible to find another group of lawyers who hold a different view. The purpose of the courts is to adjudicate between the various arguments that are put and reach a decision, and we respect the judgments of the court. It is not possible to have a legal system or a coronial system where we get all the verdicts we like and we are guaranteed to never get verdicts we do not like. The fact is— [Interruption.] We have appealed some aspects of the judgments. The Government came into office committed to removing conditional immunity because we thought it was wrong to give terrorists immunity from prosecution for the crimes they have committed.
I would also say to the right hon. Gentleman that the truth is that the prospect of prosecutions is diminishing with each passing year. Many of the families that I have met recognise that no one is going to be held to account for what happened to their loved ones—they just want to find the answers.
David Davis
One point the Secretary of State has not yet come to is that there is an excruciating element of double jeopardy here. Every single case we are talking about was investigated carefully by the police at the time—the soldiers and the commanders involved were interrogated as to the intelligence, the plans and the outcome at the time, with all the information available. What we are seeing here is that soldiers were effectively found innocent 33 years ago, only for us to come back and do it all over again to get another answer that we want. He must understand that the soldiers see this as terrible double jeopardy.
May I bring the Secretary of State to the underlying principle of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)? What we are all after is a mechanism, however that is found through the law, that will allow us to release these soldiers from a lifetime sentence of being pursued by the courts under what is, in my view, frankly, a misuse of article 2. If it is true that, as my right hon. Friend says, people like Philippe Sands—hardly a hard-line right winger—think that we can do this, will the Secretary of State give the House an undertaking that he will make every effort to deliver on that aim?
Hilary Benn
I would like to give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that when parliamentary time allows, I plan to bring forward legislation to try to find a way forward. The House will be the judge when the legislation is published. I am consulting widely on it and will continue to do so, including with veterans and others. I am not naive about the prospect of coming up with proposals that command widespread support, but I would simply observe that the last set of proposals signally failed to command support among the political parties and many people in Northern Ireland. That is why I am having to deal with the consequence of repeated findings of incompatibility, because of that legacy legislation, with the European convention on human rights.
When I last stood at the Dispatch Box to address this question, I said that we owed a great debt of attitude to those who served in Operation Banner with such distinction. I wish to repeat that statement tonight. The true legacy of those who served during that awful period is to be found in the peace that the people of Northern Ireland now enjoy. If we are being honest, the armed forces did their job.
The Good Friday agreement was itself not able to get to grips with exactly how legacy would be dealt with—those involved had enough on their plate to secure that extraordinary agreement on that miraculous Good Friday. We as elected representatives have to recognise that since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, we have not been able to agree and implement measures that effectively address the legacy of the past in a way that is balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable, and that have a chance of commanding a measure of public support. That is the objective of the Government. I will do my best to achieve it, but the House will be the judge.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Economic growth is the priority for this Government, and our industrial strategy is central to achieving it. Last week I co-hosted a roundtable with the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, Caoimhe Archibald, and business organisations to discuss how we can work together to ensure that the industrial strategy benefits Northern Ireland.
Adam Jogee
Northern Ireland, like Newcastle-under-Lyme, has a proud industrial heritage. Can the Secretary of State expand on his answer and give us a flavour of the specific discussions he has had with industry, higher education institutions and the Executive on ensuring that Northern Ireland is right alongside Newcastle-under-Lyme at the heart of the Government’s new industrial strategy?
Hilary Benn
Northern Ireland does indeed have a great industrial heritage. Titanic Studios, for example, had been the paint shed for Harland and Wolff, and now it hosts a lot of film making. Another example is the revival of Harland and Wolff, which, thanks to the takeover by Navantia, will now be building the Navy’s three new fleet solid support ships. Those are two good examples of Northern Ireland’s strength.
Adam Thompson
Does the Secretary of State agree that the UK industrial strategy is of deep importance to residents of Northern Ireland, as it is to residents of Erewash, where we are currently in the process of redeveloping New Stanton Park to form a new industrial future from the rubble of our famous former ironworks?
Hilary Benn
I do indeed, and I wish my hon. Friend every success with the New Stanton Park redevelopment. At the roundtable that I co-chaired last week, we had representatives from manufacturing, from cyber, from small businesses such as Alchemy, and from the chambers of commerce for Derry/Londonderry and for Causeway Coast. Those businesses can see the industrial strategy resulting in great opportunities for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland.
Chris Vince
A core objective of the Government’s modern industrial strategy is to unleash the full potential of our cities and regions, which is as true in Northern as it is in my constituency of Harlow. Does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland’s four city growth deals, which the Government committed to at the Budget, can play a vital role in this?
Hilary Benn
I wish Harlow every success as well. The city and growth deals are really important to Northern Ireland’s economic future. The Government are investing a considerable amount of money, together with the Executive, private sector partners and businesses. Among the projects that the city and growth deals will support are those relating to digital innovation, decarbonisation and digital health—yet another example of the great strength of the Northern Ireland economy.
Josh Dean
If we are to boost productivity, drive clean, green power and build a resilient economy across the UK, collaboration will be essential. Will the Secretary of State set out what political engagement he has had with business leaders and politicians on working together to deliver the best for Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
Last Thursday I visited Foyle port and its innovation park. A new data centre will be built there to tap into the renewable energy that is available alongside it. That is a really good example of the port thinking about its economic future and how we will get new businesses in, drawing on the great strength that Northern Ireland has in renewable energy. I hope we see more such developments.
Euan Stainbank
My constituents in Falkirk saw at first hand the failure of Governments to collaborate in the previous Parliament. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with political leaders and business and sector leaders, such as those in bus manufacturing, to work together to deliver the best for Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend gives me the chance to talk about the great success of Wrightbus, based in Ballymena, which has won a huge new order from Go-Ahead. It is making the electric and hydrogen buses of the future, and is taking on more staff. I would encourage anyone across the United Kingdom who is thinking of buying buses for their fleet to see what is available at Wrightbus.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Secretary of State further outline what representations he has made to Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the UK industrial strategy pays more than lip service to the position of Northern Ireland’s manufacturing industry, as seen in aerospace, shipbuilding and defence, which has a global reputation for being top-class? How will he advocate for our own Government to invest in those sectors even further and even better?
Hilary Benn
I have already pointed out examples of that investment. To Harland and Wolff, I would add the order that is going to Thales to make more missiles for Ukraine, which will create an additional 200 jobs. As the answers that I have given demonstrate, Northern Ireland has enormous strengths, and the task of the strategy, and for all of us, is to build on them.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Can the Secretary of State give safeguards for the benefits of the UK industrial strategy, such as economic growth, innovation, and research and development, against the adverse effects of the Windsor framework?
Hilary Benn
The Windsor framework is a necessity arising from our departure from the European Union, because we have got two trading entities with different rules and an open border, and some arrangement had to be put in place to manage that. But the goods are continuing to flow both ways across the Irish sea. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the growth rate in Northern Ireland is higher than in the UK as a whole. Northern Ireland also has the lowest unemployment in the UK.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
With regard to international trade, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), what assessment has made been made of the UK industrial strategy and the impact of US tariffs that may come on goods manufactured in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
We will discover more later today about the decision that we are told the US Administration are about to make. Tariffs are not good for any country, and they are not good for the global trading system, but we will have to see what the consequences are. Any tariffs that the United States of America puts on the United Kingdom will be felt equally in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. We will not hesitate to take the action that is necessary to respond, but we are not going to make snap decisions, because we are also trying to negotiate an economic agreement with the United States of America.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
An industrial strategy would be very welcome, but is not the reality that any assistance under an industrial strategy in Northern Ireland would be subject to EU state aid rules, that any raw materials for industry in Northern Ireland that come from GB would have to pass through the international EU customs border, and that many goods would have to be made to EU, not UK, standards? Unless or until we get rid of those hindrances, how do we liberate such a strategy?
Hilary Benn
As I pointed out in my previous answer, the Windsor framework, which was negotiated by the previous Government and was a huge improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol, is the only available means of managing the challenge of having two systems, with two different sets of rules, and an open border. Not all Members of the House may want to recognise that fact, but it is a fact, and we have to deal with it.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary State will be aware that over the past couple of decades investment from US companies in Northern Ireland has been important for economic growth and for cementing the peace process. As we all await the announcement from the President of the United States later today, will the Secretary of State give some thought to supporting businesses that could be detrimentally affected by any potential tariffs in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
We are going to have to wait and see what the US Administration decide. As I have already indicated, the Government will take the steps that are necessary in the national interest, but we are seeking to negotiate an agreement, and that work is continuing, notwithstanding what is announced later today.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
As the House has heard, we are expecting Washington later today to announce the biggest changes to its tariff regime in a generation. That may cause huge disruption to industry and business throughout the United Kingdom, and that disruption may be particularly felt in Northern Ireland. What guidance have the Government provided to businesses in Northern Ireland to help them prepare for different scenarios?
Hilary Benn
We do not yet know, apart from the tariffs on cars and on steel and aluminium, what else the US Administration may announce later today. But the effects of any tariffs, if imposed, will be felt equally in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. We will have to deal with the consequences when we know what the US Administration have decided.
Alex Burghart
I am afraid that reveals that the Government have provided businesses with no information to help them prepare for the different scenarios that may emerge. The Secretary of State will be aware that in some scenarios Northern Ireland, because of its unique arrangements, may be particularly disadvantaged in a trade war. Will he confirm to the House that, if that happens, the Government will be prepared to use article 16 of the Windsor framework to take unilateral safeguarding measures to protect businesses in GB and Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
In respect of tariffs that affect the whole of the United Kingdom, as I have already said to the hon. Gentleman, we will have to see what they are and take the appropriate action in response. If the EU retaliates, then there will be an issue in respect of Northern Ireland, as he will be well aware. However, there is the tariff reimbursement scheme, of which he will also be aware, and that means that, provided those businesses can demonstrate that the goods they have bought from the United States of America are not leaving the United Kingdom, they can get that tariff reimbursed.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government’s commitment to increasing defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027 will provide an opportunity for defence companies in Northern Ireland to secure investment and create jobs.
Luke Myer
Teesside has strong and enduring ties with Northern Ireland: we remember the contribution of the late Mo Mowlam and her legacy, as well as the economic ties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s historic uplift in defence spending can deepen those ties and ensure jobs and growth across the UK?
Hilary Benn
I do indeed agree, because it is an opportunity for UK defence businesses, including in Northern Ireland, to take advantage of the increased defence expenditure. I have already indicated to the House two examples, in Thales and in Harland and Wolff, where the Government are investing in Northern Ireland already.
Johanna Baxter
The UK defence industry supports hundreds of thousands of good jobs and represents UK manufacturing at its best. Will the Secretary of State outline what the Government are doing to support the defence sector in Scotland and in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The most important thing that we are doing is increasing defence expenditure, which will provide the opportunities to which I referred a moment ago. I also very much welcome the Ministry of Defence’s announcement of a new hub for small and medium-sized enterprises to allow them better access to the defence supply chain. The MOD has also committed to setting a target by July this year for spending on SMEs.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State might recall that two years ago I launched a report that highlighted that Northern Ireland receives one fifth of the UK average spend on defence. That incorporates the commitment for Harland and Wolff, which I worked on and greatly welcome. I also welcome the announcement of a £1.6 billion contract for Thales. However, does he accept that the previous Government committed to a thorough and thoughtful publication of how they would support continued growth in Northern Ireland’s defence sector? Will he similarly commit to doing so?
Hilary Benn
The Ministry of Defence has agreed to deliver precisely that “Safeguarding the Union” commitment through its defence industrial strategy, which will look at how the UK’s defence, technological and industrial base can contribute to the Government’s growth mission, including in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson
The House of Commons will this afternoon recognise 125 years of the Irish Guards as a British regiment. When we consider the capacity to arm those who defend us, should we not also continue in our resolve to defend those who stand up for the values of this nation? In terms of legacy, will the Secretary of State commit to defending those who defended us?
Hilary Benn
I certainly will. Those who served in Operation Banner were protecting the people of Northern Ireland and standing up for the values of our country. We have discussed that a great deal recently, and since I last had the opportunity to address the House, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the decision the Ministry of Defence has taken to judicially review the Clonoe inquest verdict—a decision that I support.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The record £18.2 billion funding settlement for 2025-26 will provide Northern Ireland with funding in line with its independently assessed level of need, and it is now for the Executive to decide how that funding is spent.
Sarah Bool
The Royal College of General Practitioners in Northern Ireland has said that the hike in national insurance contributions will be catastrophic for GP surgeries. With many practices teetering on the edge, why are Ministers not doing more to talk to their colleagues in the Treasury?
Hilary Benn
I would point out to the hon. Member that the previous Government left—[Interruption.] However much they may deny it, the previous Government left a fiscal black hole that had to be filled. The increase in expenditure resulting from the autumn Budget is helping to fund, in part, the record settlement that the Northern Ireland Executive have got for 2025-26.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Committee will soon publish our first report to the House on the funding of public services, and the issue of revenue raising by the Executive continues to be highlighted. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with the Executive to help deliver longer-term financial sustainability in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I have regular discussions with the Executive about the financial situation and about their plans. The truth is very simple: all Governments around the world, including the Northern Ireland Executive, have choices to make, with the resources available, as to whether they seek to raise revenue to fund more things, including further investment in health. Those are choices for the Executive to make, but if they do not make those choices, they will have less funds than would otherwise be available to them.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Yesterday, Belfast Chamber, which represents 600 businesses, warned that many Northern Irish businesses are being forced to freeze growth plans, halt recruitment and, in some cases, cut jobs to absorb rising costs as a consequence of the rising employer national insurance contributions due to take effect in just four days. What assessment has the Northern Ireland Office made of the impact of those tax rises on small and medium-sized enterprises, and what practical discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Northern Ireland Executive to support SMEs, which are the future of Northern Ireland’s growth?
Hilary Benn
Of course the increase in employer’s national insurance will be difficult for some firms—that is clearly the case—but, as I said, the North Ireland economy is growing faster than the rest of the United Kingdom and has low unemployment. The rest of today’s questions time has highlighted the huge areas of potential that the Northern Ireland economy has to continue to grow and create new jobs and businesses.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Northern Ireland Farming Minister estimates that three quarters of dairy farms in Northern Ireland could be hit by inheritance tax following the Chancellor’s disastrous changes. Given the particularly high cost of agricultural land compared with farming incomes in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State recognise that the Budget is a direct threat to family farms and thousands of livelihoods across Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The figures the hon. Gentleman just referred to do not reflect the Treasury’s assessment of the number of farms that will be affected, which is based on claims submitted in the past. I understand the farming industry’s concerns, but the Treasury is clear that, first, it will not hit the majority of farms and, secondly, we have to do something about very big landowners who buy a lot of land to avoid inheritance tax.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Trade Diversion and Windsor Framework
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing the debate. The House, once again, has been left in no doubt but that he speaks about Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements with fervour and sincerity, as he did in the Westminster Hall debate in November, to which I responded, and in the debate on his private Member’s Bill in December, to which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland replied on the Government’s behalf. On the Windsor framework, his position is quite clear: he is opposed to it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has outlined that on a number of occasions, both he and the Under-Secretary have responded to issues that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has raised. He will be aware that I wrote to him about a month ago about the problems with horticultural industry trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, but I have yet to get a response.
Hilary Benn
I can only apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I try hard to be punctilious about responding to correspondence. Those watching will have noted what he said, and he can, I hope, anticipate receiving a reply from me very soon.
For the Government’s part, I want to be equally clear. We needed to have a system in place for managing a unique set of circumstances. The system we have is the inevitable result of leaving the European Union. That is where this all began; if that had not happened, we would not be having this discussion. What did that result in? Two trading entities—the United Kingdom and the European Union—with different rules, but an open border between them. That is to be found nowhere else in the world. In other words, all of us together—everyone has to take responsibility for what they argued for, and for the consequence of that—faced the question: how do we deal with the unique situation of two trading entities with different rules having an open border between them?
Jim Allister
The way not to deal with it is to say, “We, the United Kingdom, will hand over part of our territory to EU jurisdiction. We will put it under the EU’s customs code, which will decree the rest of the United Kingdom a foreign territory. We will subject that part of our territory to having 300 areas of its law not made in the United Kingdom; law in those areas cannot even be amended in the United Kingdom. It will be foreign law imposed.” This could have been dealt with by mutual enforcement. We could have said, “We want to trade with each other, and we want to be neighbourly, so we will guarantee, on pain of criminal conviction, that anything we send into your territory meets your standards and vice versa.” Why did things have to be made complicated, at the expense of jettisoning Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom economically and constitutionally?
Hilary Benn
The hon. and learned Gentleman argues in favour of what he calls mutual enforcement, but that is not a credible basis for resolving the dilemma created by our leaving the European Union.
Hilary Benn
The hon. and learned Gentleman may disagree. I am expressing the Government’s view, which is that it is not a credible basis. One thing is absolutely clear: the answer was never to try to wish the dilemma away and pretend that it did not exist. I am afraid that, at times, it has appeared as though that argument has been advanced.
The first go at trying to find an answer was the Chequers plan, which did not get support. The Northern Ireland protocol was the second go, but that was never going to work—I made that argument as an Opposition Back Bencher—so the Windsor framework was negotiated. There is no denying that the Windsor framework represents a huge improvement on the prospect created by the Northern Ireland protocol.
Sammy Wilson
The Secretary of State says that the situation is unprecedented, and that unique arrangements have therefore been put in place. The Government recently recognised that the flow of trade from the Irish Republic through Northern Ireland into GB could cause a situation where goods had to be checked to safeguard the GB market, yet they have been able to put in place arrangements, without all this elaboration, that do not require laws to apply to traders in the Irish Republic; they are simply checks away from the border. If the unique situation of trade from GB into Northern Ireland, which has a non-check border with the Republic, has to be dealt with through a labyrinth of regulations, why is it possible to avoid that in the other direction? If such arrangements can work from Northern Ireland to GB, why can they not work from GB to Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The answer is this: as a sovereign country, it falls to us to decide how we check goods that arrive in our territory. For quite a period after our leaving the European Union, the last Government were not checking stuff coming across the channel, first, because there was nowhere to do the checks, and secondly, because they were concerned about delays, shortages and added costs for the consumer. They repeatedly put off implementing checks. At the same time, British exporters were experiencing the full impact of checks on the goods that they sent the other way, across the channel to Calais and the rest of the European Union. It is for sovereign countries to determine what checks they apply. The same truth applies to the European Union; it has a single market.
We are a responsible country. Some may argue that we should be irresponsible and say, “Well, this is not our problem; let us leave it to the EU to sort it out.” In the end, we had to have a negotiated answer to the question created by our departure from the European Union on the goods that cross that non-existent border. The one thing that almost everybody agreed on during the Brexit debates was that the border needed to remain as it was. That open border is important for a whole host of reasons, not least the extraordinary progress that Northern Ireland has made in the 26 years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The question, therefore, was: how does the EU ensure that goods that cross that border and come into the Republic, and go on to France, Germany or Greece, meet the rules? In exactly the same way, we would ask: how do we know that goods coming into the United Kingdom meet our laws? The only way to do that was with a negotiation.
Richard Tice
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is up to a sovereign nation to look after its own borders and determine its own checks. Does he accept that there has been trade diversion within the United Kingdom? If so, does he accept that it is within the Government’s remit to use article 16 or drop the checks to protect trade within our sovereign borders?
Hilary Benn
I have only just begun my remarks, but if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall shortly come to the point that he raises.
The Windsor framework protects the UK internal market, while, as I argued a moment ago, enabling the EU to be confident that its rules will be respected. The Government’s view and my view is that that was the responsible thing to do in the circumstances, because this Government support sustainable arrangements for Northern Ireland that respect its particular circumstances —indeed, they are unique—and its place in the Union, and that uphold the Good Friday agreement. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim’s central argument this evening is that we should trigger article 16, the unilateral safeguard in the Windsor framework. To do that would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, now and in future. It would disregard the benefits that the Windsor framework offers for businesses—indeed, the benefits that are actively relied upon by businesses, including those that are taking advantage of Northern Ireland’s unique access to the UK and EU markets—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim shakes his head, but I have met businesses that have told me how they are taking advantage of that dual market access. I meet businesses in my constituency that can see what Northern Ireland has got out of these unique arrangements.
Those benefits will be enhanced by the UK internal market “facilitations”—that is the phrase—that will come into force in the near future, and that will, on a durable and legally binding basis, support the smooth flow of goods across the whole of the UK when the next phase of the UK internal market system is implemented this year, without, for example, unnecessary international customs paperwork.
We have seen the benefits of negotiating a way forward. There is unilateralism, as the hon. and learned Gentleman argues, and there are the benefits of negotiation. In respect of agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, we have been able to lift the old ban on the movement of seed potatoes. Not all those problems have been solved—I am the first to acknowledge that—but it is an improvement compared with the situation before. We are now able to apply UK public health and safety standards to agrifoods on the basis of primacy for goods staying in the United Kingdom moving under the Windsor framework schemes. We have reached agreements with the EU on tariff rate quotas, enabling businesses from Northern Ireland to import steel and agrifood products under UK tariff rates.
We also have an active Assembly that is scrutinising the regulations and raising its views—[Laughter.] Well, I will come back to that point later on. Medicines for the whole of the UK are now authorised by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and we have ensured that Northern Ireland benefits from the same VAT, alcohol duty and other taxes as the rest of the UK.
All of those are undoubted benefits for Northern Ireland. They are benefits of the framework that supports Northern Ireland’s access to the two markets, and from which this integral part of the United Kingdom, which Northern Ireland is, uniquely benefits. This is possible because we have a lawful and sustainable agreement, in stark contrast to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed as a way forward.
I would be the first to acknowledge from this Dispatch Box that the Windsor framework is not perfect. We all know that. Where problems arise with the practical operation of the framework, this Government and the EU have tried to show that we can work through them in a constructive and pragmatic way, because that is what we have to do. For example, having listened to businesses, we took a pragmatic decision to extend on the timetable for implementing the new arrangements on parcels. One of the consequences of doing that was that the introduction of the new, less onerous customs arrangement was put off, because the EU’s view was that we needed to do the parcels at the same time in order for the new customs arrangements to come in.
Another example is the horticultural sector, where, in the last month the restrictions on the movement of two species of plant were removed. If we are talking about trees, I think that takes it up to 23, including our beloved silver birch and, I am advised, a number of varieties of cherry tree that were sorted out at the end of last year.
On the question of the Stormont brake, we acted on the concerns that the Northern Ireland Assembly raised about the potential implications of the new rules on chemical labels, font sizes and so on by committing to consult on taking forward measures across the UK that will protect the UK internal market. I would just point out—because the hon. Gentleman looks slightly sceptical —that there is a high bar to be met for the Stormont brake. When I received the application as Secretary of State, I was under a legal obligation to consider the application under the rules of the Stormont brake, and I made the decision that I did. In the end, what the Government announced was moving towards the same outcome that those who had raised the concerns in the first place wanted, just by different means than they had sought. In the end, the Stormont brake process actually worked to achieve the outcome that the Assembly wanted.
Jim Allister
I think the Secretary of State should listen to himself. What he is saying to the House is that we should be grateful for some sort of dud mechanism to deal with the situation whereby the right to make laws in 300 areas has been gifted to a foreign power, and that people elected in Northern Ireland can have no say in those laws and cannot amend, move or bring them into effect. He says that we should be grateful that, in those 300 areas of law, we might be able to go to the EU and say, “Please, Sir, would you ever mind just making that a little better?” Really? Where is the sense of dignity from this United Kingdom, that we should so prostrate ourselves to a foreign unelected jurisdiction—elected by no one in the United Kingdom—allow them to make our laws, and then claim as a victory the fact that we have a right to go and ask them to make some changes? But the Secretary of State has failed to answer the question. There is trade diversion—what is he going to do about it?
Hilary Benn
I am not asking anyone to be grateful for anything; I am simply pointing out to the House the problem that was created in the first place when we left the European Union.
Hilary Benn
If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, from a sedentary position he said, “punishment”. I could not disagree more. I would encourage him to reflect on what he has said, because I do not think that he acknowledges that there was an issue there that had to be addressed, and wishing it away was never going to work.
Jim Shannon
I am reminded of the wee song we used to sing in Sunday school many years ago:
“So high, you can’t get over it,
So low, you can’t get under it”.
The Stormont brake does not work because it is too high and too low; it is just not functional. In my intervention on the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), I referred to the HMRC cost. To give the Secretary of State an example, last week a business said that the HMRC charges have got to the stage where they are even more expensive than the goods the business is bringing in. There has to be something wrong when it gets to the stage where it is not the issue of getting the product across but the cost factor. Could the Secretary of State look at that, because there is something wrong with a system that ends up costing us more, when it did not cost that amount before the Brexit system came in?
Hilary Benn
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with further information about the particular example he has raised, I will of course look at it.
On trade, I have a slightly different set of figures from those that the hon. and learned Gentleman used. From 2020 to 2023, purchases in Northern Ireland from GB went from £13.4 billion to £16.2 billion—an increase of 20.7%. Sales to the year ending December 2023 from Northern Ireland to GB rose by 12.4%, to £17.1 billion. He used a phrase at the beginning of his speech—I hope I wrote it down correctly—the “natural inclination of trade”. I would simply observe that the inclination of trade is a consequence of decisions that individuals and firms make, and those patterns change over time depending on what they want to buy or sell and what the market itself looks like.
The point I was making, without seeking gratitude, is that in every one of the examples I have just given, the Government worked to resolve the challenges we faced, working with stakeholders in Northern Ireland and with the EU, in what I think is a constructive and mutually beneficial way. That is what a responsible Government do, including abiding by commitments in international law on the world stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman advocates triggering article 16. That measure refers both to trade and to instances where serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties are liable to persist. Given that most goods are flowing relatively smoothly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, how can it be argued that we are facing those difficulties?
I would just make the point that if one goes to the port, the lorries come off and most of them go on their way—the goods are moving. That is in contrast to the argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman put towards the end of his speech, when he used the phrase “cripple” in relation to the Northern Ireland economy. I have seen no evidence that the Northern Ireland economy, which, by the way, has the lowest unemployment in the whole of the United Kingdom, is being crippled by the matters that we are discussing.
Mr Campbell
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. He just said most goods are flowing freely. Does he not agree that he should amend that to say, “In certain sectors, most goods are flowing freely, but in certain other sectors, they most certainly are not”?
Hilary Benn
It depends on the hon. Gentleman’s definition of “freely.” There are requirements that certain goods must meet. There is the retail movement scheme and the horticultural scheme, and certain paperwork and documents are required, looking forward to the customs requirements being reduced later this year—hopefully when the new arrangements come in—but the goods move, and I do not think that anyone in the debate can stand up and say that the goods are not moving in those circumstances.
As I have indicated, the Windsor framework represents a step forward. Although I respect the sincerity with which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim makes his argument, I do not believe that current circumstances meet the article 16 test. Pulling that lever in the current circumstances would actually throw away the progress secured by the framework and damage the good faith that has been built up in taking the framework forward. We all need to remember that, not long ago, we had a Government who signed an international agreement and then set about showing that they had no intention of honouring it. That did extraordinary damage to the United Kingdom’s international reputation.
Hilary Benn
The hon. and learned Gentleman has had quite a lot to say and I have given way to him three times, so I hope he will bear with me while I continue my remarks.
In the past, the idea that the UK would be a country that signed an international agreement and then reneged upon it would have been extraordinary to us all in this House, but that is what happened in very recent living memory, and it is why I put this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The last Government negotiated the Windsor framework. I stood up in the House and supported it. The Opposition supported it at that time, and I voted for it because I genuinely believed that it represented a significant step forward. But if we do not honour the most recent agreement that we have signed with the European Union, why would it wish to reach agreement on what this Government are currently seeking, in particular on an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement? This Government have come in saying that we want to do that, while the last Government appeared to say, “Well, the trade and co-operation agreement is all we want—we don’t want anything else.” This Government have a very different view: we want to negotiate an SPS veterinary and agrifood agreement, and that would help considerably with some of the issues that have been raised during the debate. The Government will continue to listen to the concerns of businesses and respond pragmatically.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I have listened intently to the Secretary of State’s contribution and I am somewhat bemused by some of what he said. He speaks of businesses in his constituency that are jealous of what Northern Ireland businesses have. What we have in Northern Ireland is increased costs, increased paperwork and impediments to trade. It is increasingly difficult for engineering, agrifood and horticultural businesses in my constituency. I have invited the Secretary of State to visit those businesses, but I am still waiting. I encourage him to come to Northern Ireland and listen to the businesses that are impacted by the protocol and the Windsor framework on a daily basis. I also heard today about two plants that have been added to the ever-lengthening list of plants that are not available to Northern Ireland, well whoop-de-do-da-day—how brilliant and great for Northern Ireland. When are we going to get real and address the real problems that exist with the protocol and the Windsor framework?
Hilary Benn
Kind though it is of the hon. Member to encourage me to come to Northern Ireland, as she knows I am in Northern Ireland on a very regular basis and a little while ago I had a meeting with her and two organisations, at her request. I meet businesses on a very regular basis. I met the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Brexit working group and I always do my level best to respond to requests for visits from colleagues in the House of Commons, including the hon. Lady, but there are only so many hours in the day.
I wanted to point out that the independent monitoring panel, which I met for the first time yesterday, has started its work. Establishing the panel was a commitment made in the safeguarding the Union Command Paper. Its job will be on the basis of the evidence and it will be provided with data on the flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to say whether the UK internal market guarantee is being met. The first six-month reporting period commenced on 1 January and will conclude on 30 June 2025, following which the IMP will publish its assessment and any recommendations. I commit to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, and all those who contributed to the debate, that I shall consider the report with the same attention to detail that he has shown in forwarding his argument today.
To conclude, this Government are committed to Northern Ireland. They are committed to the United Kingdom and to implementing the Windsor framework in a manner that is consistent with protecting Northern Ireland’s place within our internal market.
Question put and agreed to.
Independent Reporting Commission: Seventh Report
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Today I am laying before Parliament the seventh report from the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC).
The commission was established following the Fresh Start agreement in November 2015 to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity. The agreement set out the Northern Ireland Executive’s commitments around tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality, and led to a programme of work to deliver a Northern Ireland Executive action plan.
In the New Decade, New Approach agreement in January 2020, a commitment was made to continue this work, including through a second phase of the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme on paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime.
In this seventh report, which covers 2024, the commission notes that interventions through the Executive programme, alongside policing and criminal justice measures which work to tackle paramilitary criminality, are having a tangible effect on the communities where paramilitaries operate. But the IRC also notes significant concerns relating to continuing paramilitary-linked harms such as intimidation, coercive control, and threats.
The commission has set out a number of recommend-ations on how the effort to tackle paramilitarism and its continued impact in communities can be improved. It also asks the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government and the Government of Ireland to ensure that work to tackle paramilitarism remains a high priority beyond the lifetime of the Executive programme.
The commission has again suggested that the UK Government and the Government of Ireland should appoint an independent person to scope out the potential for, and explore what might be involved in, a process to end paramilitarism.
The UK Government and the Government of Ireland have been giving consideration to how progress could be made towards ending paramilitarism, and to the recommendations from the IRC and others, including the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on this issue. In April 2024, the then UK Government and the Government of Ireland committed to taking forward further work.
The two Governments have agreed to jointly appoint, in the period ahead, within the existing IRC legislative framework, an independent expert to carry out a short scoping and engagement exercise to assess whether there is merit in, and support for, a formal process of engagement to bring about paramilitary group transition to disbandment. This will include examining what could be in the scope of such a formal process.
I want to be clear that this is not the start of a formal process itself. This scoping exercise is also not a part of, or an alternative to, the existing law enforcement and criminal justice measures and the wider effort through the Executive programme to tackle the ongoing violence and harm caused by paramilitary groups. I also want to be clear that no financial offer will be made to paramilitary groups or to the individuals involved in them in exchange for an end to violence and ongoing harms.
I will be writing to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to set out more detail on this.
I would like to express my thanks to the commissioners and the secretariat for their continued work in reporting on progress towards ending paramilitarism.
[HCWS470]
Independent Monitoring Panel: Internal Market Guarantee
Hilary Benn Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 19 September 2024, I announced the appointment of Aidan Reilly, Anna Jerzewska and Alastair Hamilton as members of the Independent Monitoring Panel. I would now like to provide an update on how the panel will fulfil its core function, as set out under the “Safeguarding the Union” Command Paper, by scrutinising the performance of the internal market guarantee over six-monthly reporting periods.
I can confirm that, following agreement with the panel, the first six-month reporting period for the internal market guarantee commenced on the 1 January and will conclude on 30 June 2025.
The internal market guarantee relates to movements taking place under the UK internal market system. The guarantee undertakes that more than 80% of all freight movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be treated as “not at risk” of moving onwards to the EU, and therefore moving within the UK internal market. Relevant data will be provided to the panel to support it performing its monitoring functions.
The Government believe that this progress demonstrates our continued commitment to protecting the UK internal market. I look forward to considering the panel’s first report later this year.
[HCWS463]
Clonoe Inquest
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the coroner’s ruling in the Clonoe inquest.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 16 February 1992, a heavily armed unit of the Provisional IRA carried out an attack on Coalisland police station armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and three AKM rifles. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following the attack, the IRA unit proceeding to a car park where they were engaged by soldiers of the Army’s specialist military unit. This resulted in four men, Patrick Vincent, Sean O’Farrell, Peter Paul Clancy and Kevin O’Donnell, being shot and killed by the soldiers.
On 6 February, Mr Justice Humphreys, sitting as a coroner in the inquest into the circumstances of those deaths at Clonoe chapel, found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and that
“the operation was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”
The coroner further found that the soldiers did not hold
“an honest and genuinely held belief”
that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others.
These are clearly very significant matters that require careful consideration. I know that the Ministry of Defence is considering the coroner’s finding. Therefore there is, unfortunately, a limit to what I am able to say in relation to the findings themselves, particularly given that there is also an ongoing civil case relating to these events. However, it is clear the Government must take such findings very seriously. We owe a great debt to our armed forces—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no sub judice to the case that you have just mentioned. We must be clear on that. So please let us not try to use that as a barrier. I just want to be clear on that.
Hilary Benn
I accept that entirely, Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out, as I think your statement alluded to, that there is an ongoing civil case.
We owe a great debt to our armed forces. The vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the troubles did so with distinction. They operated in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. During the troubles, over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives in that endeavour. It is right that we hold our armed forces to the highest standards. We must also recognise the extreme circumstances that they faced. That is what sets them apart from the terrorist organisations who indiscriminately murdered over 3,000 people during the troubles.
David Davis
I thank the Secretary of State for taking this statement personally. I know that he did not have to, so I thank him for that. The Government gave notice at the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that protects soldiers and police who served during the troubles from prosecution. Last week’s frankly speculative judgment from the Northern Ireland coroner into the Clonoe shootings now exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now mostly in their 60s and 70s and no doubt hoping for a well-earned peaceful retirement. In his statement in December, the Secretary of State of spoke of
“recognising the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe during the troubles.”[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 419.]
So precisely what are the Government going to do to stop the vengeful pursuit of decent patriotic people? If the Government leave them open to persecution, it will frankly be shameful and serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. As he will be aware, this inquest was part of the five-year plan established by the former Lord Chief Justice, and because the hearings were held prior to the legacy Act 1 May cut-off, the inquest was able to be concluded. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not the result of anything that this Government have done.
The Government set out in our election manifesto and the King’s Speech our commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, because it did something quite remarkable in uniting the political parties and communities of Northern Ireland in opposition to it. It is a fatally flawed piece of legislation that has been found, in a number of respects, to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] This Government believe in upholding our commitment to the European convention on human rights, even if other Members do not share that view.
I set out in my statement to the House of Commons in December the approach that we are taking, and I will bring forward further proposals in due course. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the service of our armed forces, the police and security services during those terribly dark, difficult and bloody days of the troubles.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for his urgent question and the Secretary of State for his answer. I have a simple question: what does the Secretary of State think this ruling will mean for peace and reconciliation and for bringing communities together in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
That is a judgment that individuals and communities will have to make, having regard to what the coroner had to say. There have been a very large number of inquest findings in relation to the troubles, and the Government and I understand the concerns that have been raised by the coroner’s findings in this case.
The fundamental problem in Northern Ireland remains the legacy of the troubles and the fact that so many people still do not have an answer to the question of what happened to their loved one. I am afraid the previous Government made, in my view, a terrible mistake in deciding that civil cases and inquests would be closed off.
I also have to point out that the legacy Act did not prevent the possibility of future prosecutions, because it is possible, even under the law as it stands today, for prosecutions to be undertaken if the independent commission finds evidence that it thinks should be passed to the independent prosecution bodies.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker.
On a February night in 1992, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.
What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours?
The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question.
The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution?
The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability?
I will end by saying that if we in this House think the law is not fit for purpose, it is our job, and ours alone, to change it. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely understand the concerns, which he has expressed with such passion, about our armed services personnel, including in relation to this case. He has just said, “If this is the law, the law needs to be changed.” Is he suggesting that the arrangements for inquests and the way in which they are conducted—coroners sitting, hearing the evidence and coming to a finding—ought to be changed? [Interruption.] That is a very interesting observation from His Majesty’s Opposition.
The legislation passed by the last Government would have given the very terrorists who were killed in the exchange of fire, if they had survived, the ability to secure immunity from prosecution. That is what the last Government’s legacy Act did. It would have given anyone—soldiers, but also terrorists—immunity from prosecution. I am afraid that this Government take the view that that was wrong and the courts have determined that that was wrong. That is why we will repeal and replace the legacy Act.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Throughout the troubles, both state and non-state actors committed unlawful killings that have created harm and scarred families across both our islands. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government, working with the Northern Irish parties, must find and build bodies that honour the Stormont House obligations of articles 2 and 3-compliant investigations and ensure that no victim-maker—nobody who carries out an unlawful killing, whether UK state forces, IRA or UDA—has the right to suppress truth from families?
Hilary Benn
As I have previously indicated to the House, I am committed in all my discussions with many of those affected, including veterans, to finding a way forward that can command a degree of consensus in a way that the last Government’s legacy Act failed to do. I understand the strength of feeling being expressed in the House today—I really do—but there needs to be some reflection on how a piece of legislation came to be passed that engendered almost universal opposition in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, who, after all, lived through the troubles, did not feel that that was the right way to proceed, and time and again it has been found to be unlawful. In other words, we were left with a mess and we are doing our best to try to fix it.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for bringing this issue to the House. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to the principles of truth, justice and accountability. The violence carried out by the IRA during the troubles was abhorrent and inflicted deep suffering on communities across Northern Ireland. At the same time, upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle that applies to all, including the actions of state forces.
The findings of the Clonoe inquest highlight the importance of due process and transparency in dealing with legacy issues. It is vital that families seeking answers about the past are able to access justice and that all events are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny. That is the only way to build trust and support a lasting reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
There has been immense progress in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement and that progress was built on the principles of justice, democracy and accountability. We—all of us—must continue to uphold those principles if we are to secure a lasting and peaceful future for all communities.
The Secretary of State recently said that legislation to revoke the deeply flawed legacy Act, which does not command confidence across Northern Ireland, will be introduced when time allows. Will he offer details on when that might be?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. The answer to his last question is: when parliamentary time allows. As soon as I am in a position to indicate when that will be, I will tell the House.
I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the violence inflicted by terrorists being abhorrent. It is important that in this House we make it quite clear that there was always an alternative to violence: pursuing the path of peace. When people finally decided that that was the course of action that they should take, we saw a transformation in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The tragedy is that so many people were killed and murdered before we got to the point of the Good Friday agreement.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State asked rhetorically whether the law around inquests needs to change. The coroner had to answer four questions: where, when, who and how. He had no role in trying to answer why, but we know why: four depraved terrorists for the IRA and their warped ideology tried to destroy society and kill in our country.
Yesterday, the Defence Secretary was clear when he said that those who served in the SAS that day,
“deserve, and they will receive, our fullest support.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 21.]
I will not stand for a rewriting of the past. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Defence Secretary?
Hilary Benn
I do not support a rewriting of the past either. Of course we should stand with our armed service veterans, which is what the Ministry of Defence does. I will say, however, that the coroner—a judge—considered the facts of the case and came to an independent judgment about them. We are all of course perfectly free to express a view about the findings but, to come back to my point in answer to the Opposition spokesperson’s earlier comment: if Members argue that the coronial system applying to inquests right across the country should—[Interruption.] If I may just finish the point: if they argue that the system should be changed because there is a great deal of feeling about particular findings that the coroner reached, the House should give that careful consideration before going down that road.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 continues to apply? That means that no soldier and no terrorist, convicted of even the most heinous murders, can serve more than two years in jail. Those are the sort of compromises that have been necessary. When the Secretary of State accepts that the legacy Act would have given immunity to terrorists and soldiers alike, does he not recognise the principle of a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitations, as exemplified by what happened in South Africa? Is what was good enough for Nelson Mandela not good enough for Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Societies around the world that have faced terrible conflict have each taken their own path to try to find a way forward. The release of 400 prisoners in the two years after the Good Friday agreement was a very bitter pill to swallow for many in Northern Ireland, but I support that step—it was nothing to do with me at the time—because it was the right one to take to enable the Good Friday agreement to be reached. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have met people, including the family of a member of our armed forces who was murdered by the IRA, who expressed to me their bitter opposition to the immunity provisions of the legacy Act.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The sharpened tension in Northern Ireland is palpable after the ruling. The day after the shooting, the Provisional IRA issued a statement boasting that the men were in the East Tyrone brigade and on active service. Mr Speaker, you and I know the Bible, and it is very clear: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you live by a machine gun that you use to shoot a police station, you die by a machine gun—that is the way that I see it. For right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout this United Kingdom, to be told that the use of lethal force was not justified flies in the face of common justice, and feeds the feeling that the judiciary are not just complicit but active in their rewriting of history. What can the Secretary of State do to rectify that situation?
Hilary Benn
The findings of the coroner in this case stand for themselves and are on the record, and all of us are able to read them. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question about what the Government are doing, as I indicated to the House in my answer to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Ministry of Defence is, of course, giving very serious consideration to what the coroner had to say.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am astonished by the coroner’s findings. He was not asked to contemplate the question about why—getting inside the head of a soldier who is worried about whether they are going to be shot dead is very difficult. I served in Northern Ireland and some of the decisions that we had to take were instantaneous. There was no time to mull them over—it was either life or death. I lost a very good friend, Captain Robert Nairac. The Secretary of State says that the trouble with the last legacy Act was that it gave immunity to IRA members, but they already had immunity, not just through the letters of comfort but because they kept no records, so they cannot be prosecuted. The only group that will be prosecuted will be soldiers, like myself, who never asked to go to Northern Ireland, but went because we were told to protect civilians, and who served their country. They will be dragged in front of the courts because the Government seem not to care about them.
Hilary Benn
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself gave distinguished service, that I absolutely understand and recognise the point he forcefully makes about the circumstances in which our soldiers found themselves as part of Operation Banner. They had seen their comrades killed and they did not know what they were going to face; as he rightly says, in those circumstances soldiers had to make very hard split-second decisions.
The coroner had a job to do. He expressed his findings, Members of the House are expressing what they feel about those findings, and the Ministry of Defence is considering them. It is right and proper that we stand by our armed forces, which is why the Government and the Ministry of Defence give support to veterans in those circumstances. However, I would point out that many, many members of the Provisional IRA and the loyalist terrorist organisations were prosecuted, tried and convicted.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Based on the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, is it not now clear that the Secretary of State believes the Government cannot stand behind our brave soldiers in this instance because of our membership of the European convention on human rights? Therefore, surely that is a perfect reason why we must leave the ECHR.
Hilary Benn
That is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is indeed to stand behind our brave armed services personnel—
Hilary Benn
By repealing the Bill, indeed, which has been found repeatedly to be unlawful. I make no apology for saying to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and to the House that this is a Government who uphold the European convention on human rights. I recognise that some people say we should leave, which would put us in the same position as some other countries around the world with which I would not want the United Kingdom to find itself associated. The point about the European convention is that its rights are for every single citizen: those rights may accord people with a decision that Members of the House disagree with today, but tomorrow they may protect the rights of every single one of us. That is why we are committed to the ECHR.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
How will the Secretary of State ensure that veterans who served their country with distinction will not be hounded through the courts over events that may or may not have happened decades before?
Hilary Benn
As history shows, decisions about potential prosecutions are taken by independent prosecutors. Such decisions are not determined by the Government; independent prosecutors have to take decisions on the basis of the evidence and then courts have to decide whether they are going to convict or not. That is called the rule of law. A distinguished former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, set out very clearly that the British Army believes in the rule of law and is held to the highest standards, and I agree with him. I also agree with what the newly appointed veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland had to say about that in the comments that were reported over the weekend.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
There is tangible anger in Northern Ireland over this preposterous verdict, and the Secretary of State’s limp response today will not assuage that anger. This is a Secretary of State who wants to see IRA godfather Gerry Adams paid compensation because the wrong Minister signed his detention order 50 years ago. This is a Secretary of State who has today defended the retention of a coronary system that, time without number, puts the security forces in the dock, but never the terrorists. Little wonder that confidence in the Secretary of State is haemorrhaging in Northern Ireland, and this response only underscores why.
Hilary Benn
As I made clear at Northern Ireland questions recently, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on the interim custody orders relating to internment in 2020. The previous Government knew there was a problem and, for quite a long period of time, was unable to find a solution. In the end, the solution—sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act—has been found to be unlawful, but I have given an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that we are looking at all lawful means to prevent compensation from being paid in those circumstances. I believe that we are taking the right approach to the legacy Act.
On coroners, I say for, I think, the third time that if we have an inquest system that we support and that applies right across the piece, it is not possible to write legislation that says, “We will have the verdicts, judgments and findings that we like, but we will not have the findings that we do not like.” That is a decision—[Interruption.] Independent coroners make those decisions in respect of individual cases. I feel the anger of many Members of the House—[Interruption.] Will the hon. and learned Gentleman let me finish answering the question that he put? I feel the anger that is being expressed in the House, but we have an independent legal system in this country, which is one of the foundations of our freedom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The IRA itself claimed the terrorists shot by the security forces at Clonoe, describing their actions that night as being “active service”. They had just launched a cowardly attack on Coalisland RUC station, no doubt with murderous intent, but they met real soldiers and they lost. No doubt many innocent lives were saved by the security forces as a result of that evening: these were not innocent people, but hardened terrorists. Does the Secretary of State agree that this was a justified and necessary operation, within the guidelines of military interception, and will he condemn judicial rulings that seek to rewrite history, undermine our security forces and embolden bloodthirsty terrorists who wage war against innocent people?
Hilary Benn
I accept the characterisation that the hon. Member has ascribed to the individuals. Clearly, in firing 60 rounds at the police station, we know what their intent was. That was what the Provisional IRA and terrorists on the loyalist side did during the course of the troubles, and we have to speak of that as well. The coroner’s findings are there on the record. Members and public society are perfectly entitled to express a view, and I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised today. It is a very serious issue, and that is why it falls to the Ministry of Defence to consider the findings and what may follow.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a great pity that no one from the Defence Front-Bench team is here with us because I am sure that if they were, they could confirm that the DShK machine gun that these men had is a weapon of incredible power. If we were to look around the average city block, there would be nothing that a DShK could not hit and put a bullet right through. We now sit here warm and safe and consider the actions of, as we have heard, brave men who had to take an instantaneous decision to stand up and face that weapon and the people who had already demonstrated that they were prepared to use it. It sticks in the craw that we hear the IRA described here as a “unit”—as though they were some sort of army. They style themselves as an army, but they are not an army—they are a murder gang, simple as that. Is it not the case that the ECHR now skews the balance in their favour, and that we are hide-bound by the idea that there is an equivalence between the IRA and the brave soldiers of the SAS who stood up and did what they had to do to protect innocent lives?
Hilary Benn
There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence. Our armed services personnel, the RUC, security services and others were doing their best to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from the murderous onslaught that they were subjected to over the years of the troubles. That is why there is no equivalence between them and those who chose in those circumstances to use violence to try to advance their cause. In the end, the terrible violence that we are discussing was brought to an end by the Good Friday agreement—by people finally recognising that that is not the way to proceed.
Going back to the question asked about the cost by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), there was an alternative cost, which is what we would have faced if the Good Friday agreement had not been successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We should recognise what a significant moment it was, but we should stand with our soldiers.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Much has been made in recognising the service of our armed forces, including the members of the RUC and the PSNI, because not only did they defend our communities, they lived among them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the soldiers acted inside the rules of engagement in that they believed their lives were in danger from heavily armed terrorists, who were intent on murder, and that decisions taken in a split second by the military commander were, in his view, justified?
Hilary Benn
In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me. But I have read the summary of the coroner’s findings. They of course raise serious matters, which is why the Ministry of Defence is considering them.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As has been said, people in Northern Ireland are appalled at this decision by a coroner who, incidentally, would have had police officers protecting him during the troubles. I guarantee that had he been faced with armed terrorists and those officers had asked them to put their hands up and surrender, he would have been appalled. He would have expected them to be shot. People will be equally appalled by the measly mouthed response from the Secretary of State. Let me quote some of the things he has said: “I can’t comment on this”, “We have to take seriously the judgment of the coroner” and “I will defend the ECHR, even though it has been abused by terrorists.” When will the Secretary of State take the side of the soldiers who fought in Northern Ireland and not be afraid that whatever he says here might offend Sinn Féin, the IRA and their supporters?
Hilary Benn
I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the characterisation of the views that he attempts to attribute to me is incorrect, but I make no apology for telling the House about this Government’s support for the European convention, because this set of findings by the coroner has nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. The coroner was faced with a set of circumstances. He considered them and produced his findings, as inquests do all the time. People are entitled to criticise the outcome, but it is an independent coronial process.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Compounding the problems that the coroner has created with his comments is the fact that in the past whenever innocent people were killed, the judiciary has commented that attention should be drawn to those behind the scenes who send young men out to carry out the killing. These young men were sent out to kill; they had murder in their minds. It is a pity that the coroner did not mention who was behind that—why are their names not being brought to public light? Does the Secretary of State agree that something like that might have helped a little to minimise the compounding problem created by the coroner’s comments at the time?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened. Although we will repeal and replace the legacy Act, I decided to keep and reform the independent commission because I believe it offers the best means of trying to provide those answers in the round. The problem with the inquest system in certain cases is that it has no capacity to deal with sensitive information; the independent commission does. That is why I urge families in Northern Ireland who are still seeking answers to talk to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, because he is able to produce reports that can range as widely as he thinks appropriate.
Gavin Robinson
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would have intended to mislead the House, but I suspect that he may have misunderstood the point being made, and it has filtered into a number of his subsequent responses. In relation to the coroner and his powers, the point being made was that there are aspects of the judgment released on Thursday that are outwith the coronial law in Northern Ireland and outwith what would be expected of a judicial officer. I give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say not that the coronial law needs to change, but that the judgment does not sit within the remit and powers of the coronial system.
Hilary Benn
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a judgment for others to make, if that is the view they take. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, but it would be for others to consider it, and it may be a factor that the Ministry of Defence considers when it is looking at this set of rules.
Sir Julian Lewis
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts?
Stormont Brake Notification
Hilary Benn Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 20 December 2024, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly provided to me a notification signed by 35 Members of the Assembly under schedule 6B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, seeking to prevent a replacement of the Chemical Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation from applying.
The democratic scrutiny provisions in schedule 6B, commonly referred to as the Stormont brake, place important legal obligations on me as the Secretary of State. The Government take these legal obligations seriously, noting that they are designed to enable Members of the Legislative Assembly to raise concerns where a regulation would have an unacceptable impact on everyday life in Northern Ireland.
I have considered the concerns raised by MLAs and, specifically, the notification provided, against the tests provided for in law. I am grateful to them for their submission. I have yesterday written to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly giving notice of my determination that the conditions for the use of the Stormont brake have not been met, and setting out the reasons for this decision. However, in doing so I have been clear that, because of the concerns set out in the notification, the Government will take the steps necessary to avoid new barriers arising within the UK internal market through our classification, labelling and packaging regimes for chemicals. As part of this, the Government will explicitly consult on applying a consistent regime across the United Kingdom, should this be required to safeguard the UK internal market.
Industry and members of the public will be encouraged to contribute to the consultation when it has launched, which the Government intend to do as soon as possible. I have also committed to the Speaker of the Assembly to write to the Chair of its Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to advise on the opening of this consultation, so that Assembly Members may contribute to it.
This approach will ensure that our domestic regime does not undermine the smooth operation of the UK internal market, and Northern Ireland’s integral place within it, in all circumstances, which the Government is steadfastly committed to safeguarding.
This outcome is a direct result of the scrutiny that has been conducted by Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I am grateful for their consideration of the issues, and particularly that undertaken by its democratic scrutiny Committee.
This process—just as with the steps the Government took last year on the supply of dental amalgam in response to the concerns of MLAs—demonstrates the importance of the democratic scrutiny mechanisms under the Windsor framework. Objective consideration has been given to a notification given by MLAs, and action is being taken by the Government in response, even where, as in this case, the strict legal tests for the use of the brake have not been met.
I have placed a copy of my letter to the Assembly Speaker in the Library of the House for future reference.
[HCWS374]
Oral Answers to Questions
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are working with the Northern Ireland Executive to help to ensure the best outcome for Spirit’s aerospace production and its skilled and hard-working staff in the current commercial negotiations.
Gavin Robinson
It is welcome that the Secretary of State has visited the Spirit AeroSystems site a number of times. He will know of its importance to advanced manufacturing, and of its aeronautical history in Northern Ireland—it originated in 1908 as Short Brothers—and he will also know that at this stage there is a purchaser for about a third of the facility and a third of the staff. The current plan fails to recognise not only the integration of the units within Spirit AeroSystems, but its importance to the Northern Ireland supply chain. Will the Secretary of State join Unite and GMB in their call for the Government to support a one-sale solution, so that the integration of staff, work flows and supply chains continues to benefit for decades to come?
Hilary Benn
I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has said about the importance of the site and its history, but in the end there will be a commercial outcome. Airbus wants to buy the bit that makes the A220 wings, because it wants the site to produce more of them, and Boeing is seeking a buyer for the rest of the production. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware of what else is produced on site. I continue to engage with all those involved, but, as I have said, in the end this will be a commercial decision. We do, of course, want to see the production and the jobs remain.
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State will know that the facility would not be there had it not been for Government investment and support. Guarantees were given not just to the people of Belfast, but to the staff directly employed at Spirit AeroSystems. The Government have also engaged in discussions about Harland and Wolff and Navantia, and the fleet solid support ships.
The Secretary of State will share the concern that I felt yesterday about the news that the four Harland and Woolf shipyards across the United Kingdom would be going into administration, and he will know of the countless businesses throughout the UK that are owed tens of millions of pounds in respect of the work on those fleet solid support ships. We want their viability to continue, and we know of individual businesses that have been family-owned for generations and have succeeded. Can the Secretary of State indicate his endeavour to ensure that that viability will be at the forefront of his mind, so that we can deliver the fleet solid support ships in Belfast and Devon?
Hilary Benn
The administration announcement, which involves the other side of the runway, is part of a process to ensure that the takeover by Navantia goes ahead, because it is very good news. The right hon. Gentleman and I were present to celebrate that announcement, which provides security for the future. Ultimately the question of how to relate to those suppliers is a commercial matter for Navantia, but I am sure that it wants to build a good relationship with firms that will help Harland and Wolff to build the three fleet solid support ships.
Katrina Murray
While the contract with Airbus is welcome, there is concern about the split of the Spirit plant in Belfast. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that wider defence and aerospace contracts with companies such as Skyrora in my constituency that are held in Belfast by the non-Airbus part of Spirit will not be put at risk because of that?
Hilary Benn
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. We will know the answers to these questions when the commercial negotiations are concluded, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the specific issue that she has raised in relation to her constituency.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Government have a visibly strong relationship with Airbus in respect of its presence in north Wales. What representations is the Secretary of State making to ensure that there is equivalent investment for the Spirit AeroSystems workers in Belfast?
Hilary Benn
The fact that Airbus wants to acquire the A220 wing production and wants more A220 wings to be built in Belfast is, I think, a sign of its willingness to invest and to see that production grow and prosper.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
As I set out on 4 December, the Government have now begun the process of repealing and replacing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 through a proposed remedial order, and we will bring forward primary legislation, including to reform the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. In preparing for that, I will continue to talk to all interested parties.
Claire Hanna
Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney described Sean Brown as a man of “goodwill and integrity” who represented something better than we have grown used to. We meet the day before his family are forced back to court, and in the week of the anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre; the sole survivor, brave Alan Black, is waiting for a long-overdue ombudsman report. Those two incidents were among the most nakedly sectarian in a squalid conflict, but decades on, those in and out of uniform who created victims—rather than the victims themselves, who have lived with the consequences for decades—are still driving the process. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that his forthcoming proposals, which I know he is working on intensively, remove the NIO veto under the guise of national security? Will he commit to root-and-branch reform of ICRIR and to exposing collusive behaviour, and will he hold to the standards agreed by all parties in both Governments at Stormont House?
Hilary Benn
I have met both the Brown family and Alan Black, the sole survivor of the Kingsmill massacre. The trauma they have been through is hard for anyone else to appreciate. We all look forward to the publication of the ombudsman’s report on the Kingsmill massacre. I want to see a full investigation into the murder of Sean Brown, but there is an appeal on wider matters and I cannot comment further. I am committed to fundamental reform of the independent commission.
David Smith
My first full-time job in the early 2000s was setting up and running a peacemaking programme for young people in Northern Ireland, so I am pleased that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery was salvaged from the remains of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. However, I am concerned that in the discussions around legacy the goal of cross-community reconciliation is being treated as secondary to information recovery for individuals, important as that is. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that ICRIR works with key stakeholders to foster cross-community reconciliation in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Enabling families who have suffered for so long and who have not found answers to what happened is a fundamental part of facilitating the process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. The truth is that we have to work on both aspects.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that I agree with many aspects of the repeal of the legacy Act, but the Policy Exchange report this week, as the newspapers have reported this morning, raises significant concerns about the repeal of sections 46 and 47. May I urge him to return to the previous cross-party position that we have to block compensation payments to terrorists such as Gerry Adams?
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?
Hilary Benn
As I said a moment ago, the process of reconciliation and coming to terms with the past is a difficult and itself a troubled process. Lots of people have been on a journey and we need to continue to see that journey followed. People will express their views about the stance that different people have taken, but since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the First Minister, I welcome the fact that, for the first time, she attended the Remembrance Sunday commemorations.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I would like to return to the question that has just been raised by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). When the previous Government passed their legislation, the Labour party was in favour of the amendments made in another place that ruled out compensation to people such as Gerry Adams and others similarly detained in the 1970s. Why have the Government now changed their position?
Hilary Benn
The courts have found those clauses to be unlawful. The last Government passed legislation to enable terrorists to get immunity. The last Government passed legislation to deny people in Northern Ireland the right to bring civil claims, including against terrorists. The Conservative party has never apologised for doing both of those things. It is about time that it did.
Alex Burghart
Let us return to the matter of Gerry Adams. I am sorry to say that I must correct the Secretary of State. The High Court found that those provisions of the legacy Act were unlawful, but it is well within the Secretary of State’s power to appeal that judgment. He has dropped that appeal. I do not wish to teach the Secretary of State to suck constitutional eggs, but he will know full well that it is also within the sovereign power of this Parliament to give legal basis to the Carltona doctrine, which has been in place since the 1940s. Or would he rather pay compensation to Gerry Adams and people like him?
Hilary Benn
Nobody wants to see that. The Supreme Court judgment that ruled that the interim custody orders following internment were not lawfully put in place, in which the Carltona principle was much discussed, was in 2020. The last Government did nothing about that for three years, until they belatedly accepted an amendment in the House of Lords that has now been found to be unlawful. It is a complex and difficult question—the last Government found it difficult—but we will continue to follow the same path to see whether it is possible to discover a legal means of dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman has identified.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government’s mission is to encourage growth in Northern Ireland through increased investment, job creation and higher living standards. The Government are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to develop Invest 2035, the UK’s modern industrial strategy.
Chris Vince
Northern Ireland’s economy has strong and dynamic sectors, from agrifood to aerospace, and from shipbuilding to cyber-security. Does the Secretary of State agree that Northern Ireland has a vital part to play in the industrial strategy?
Hilary Benn
It certainly does. My hon. Friend alludes to a number of the great strengths of the Northern Ireland economy. The deal with Harland and Wolff, which I mentioned earlier, is another sign of the Government’s commitment. Of course, the Northern Ireland economy has access to both the EU and the UK markets.
Alan Gemmell
Does the Secretary of State share my optimism that UK Government funding for all four of Northern Ireland’s city and growth deals, confirmed in the autumn, provides a great basis for all of Northern Ireland to generate growth and opportunity?
Hilary Benn
I certainly do, and I have been greatly impressed by the commitment of those involved in developing the growth deals to investing in boosting economic growth in their areas.
Jayne Kirkham
Could the Secretary of State update the House on what recent discussions he has had with the Executive about steps to increase revenue, in order to help to deliver longer-term financial sustainability and grow the economy in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
I have had a number of discussions with the Executive on that subject, and I am pleased to see that the draft budget for next year contains a plan to raise further revenue to meet the £113 million requirement that was part of the budget restoration agreement. It is really important that the Executive raise additional funds to meet the challenges of improving public services.
Dan Aldridge
There are many dynamic tech and digital companies at the vanguard of the mission for economic growth in Northern Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree that these industries are critical to Northern Ireland’s economic future? What steps are the Government taking to support these industries in growing to their full potential?
Hilary Benn
There have already been discussions with businesses in Northern Ireland about the part they can play in the industrial strategy. Cyber-security is a really good example of the huge strength of the Northern Ireland economy; many companies, including from the United States of America, are investing in Northern Ireland because of the skill and expertise to be found.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their responses so far. One response highlighted Northern Ireland as having dual market access. On that basis, do they agree that initiatives such as the Dublin-Belfast economic corridor in my constituency need support so that we can make the most of our economic opportunities?
Hilary Benn
I do indeed think that the Belfast economic corridor is a really good thing. We support it, and I look forward to seeing it develop and succeed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Agriculture is really important to the economy of Northern Ireland. In Scotland, we breed excellent bulls, but it is very hard to sell them and get them into Northern Ireland because of the regulations and red tape, and vice versa for Irish bulls coming to Scotland. Will the Secretary of State see if we can make it easier for farmers on both sides?
Hilary Benn
I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises and I will come back to him.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
This week, the Prime Minister has spoken of the unbridled economic opportunities from developing artificial intelligence. It is not an unbridled opportunity for Northern Ireland, because instead of living under British regulations on AI, we live under much more restrictive EU regulations. When will the Secretary of State move to release Northern Ireland from the restrictions, under the EU, of foreign jurisdiction?
Hilary Benn
The substantive provisions of the EU AI Act do not currently apply in Northern Ireland, and they would apply only following agreement by the withdrawal agreement joint committee. Any decision would be subject to the democratic safeguard mechanisms in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
In his Union connectivity review, Lord Hendy, now a Minister in the Government, identified that upgrading the A75 would have significant economic benefits, not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. There was another fatal accident on that road in my constituency last week. Will the Secretary of State join the Secretary of State for Scotland in putting pressure on the Scottish Government to finally move on upgrading that vital economic route?
Hilary Benn
It is indeed a vital economic route, and like the hon. Member, I look forward to seeing it improve, not least in the interests of safety, as quickly as possible.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I welcome the industry-led deal that will see Navantia UK purchase Harland and Wolff’s four shipyards in the UK, including that in Belfast. The Government have worked closely with Navantia UK to secure the future of the yards, the fleet solid support ship programme, and around 1,000 jobs across the UK.
Chris McDonald
Does my right hon. Friend share my optimism that now that the future of the Harland and Wolff yard has been secured, the yard will be able to secure future orders?
Hilary Benn
I certainly do. That is one of the great benefits of the commercial agreement that has been reached with Navantia on buying Harland and Wolff, and the adjustments made to the contract to ensure that the fleet solid support ships could go ahead. This is a great facility, and it is open for business, including for other orders.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
A company in my constituency of Strangford is among those that will suffer because of Harland and Wolff being in administration. This small family firm—I will not put its name in Hansard—will lose half a million pounds. The impact on that company and others is quite catastrophic. What can be done to help those companies that, through Harland and Wolff being in administration, will either not be able to trade, or risk losing out entirely?
Hilary Benn
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. This is a product of the failure of the old Harland and Wolff. It now falls to Navantia to decide which of the invoices it wishes to pay, but it will want to secure a relationship with suppliers contributing to the fleet solid support ship programme.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I welcome the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Albania, Elisa Spiropali, who is in the Public Gallery?
Independent Review of the Windsor Framework
Hilary Benn Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 10 December, the Northern Ireland Assembly held a vote on the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework. On 12 December, the Speaker of the Assembly formally wrote to me confirming that the motion passed with a majority of the elected Members voting in favour, but not with cross-community support.
As set out in schedule 6A to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, this obliges me to commission an independent review into the functioning of the framework, in accordance with paragraphs 7 to 9 of the unilateral declaration of October 2019. I have today commissioned the right hon. Lord Murphy of Torfaen to conduct this review.
Lord Murphy previously served in government as Minister of State for Northern Ireland, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Wales. In his many years of public service, he has shown a deep understanding of the bonds between the nations of the United Kingdom, and an appreciation of the operation of all three strands of the Good Friday agreement, to which the Government are committed. This experience and knowledge, and the high regard in which he is held across communities in Northern Ireland, will be valuable as he undertakes the review.
Lord Murphy will work to provide me with a report of the review’s conclusions, no later than six months from today, on the functioning of the Windsor framework and its implications for social, economic and political life in Northern Ireland, and on the UK internal market, including any recommendations. I have today placed a copy of the review’s terms of reference in the Library of the House.
Following receipt of the review’s report, I shall lay a copy of it before Parliament and respond to its recommendations in accordance with my duties under the law.
[HCWS358]