Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. That is exactly what the clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are about—ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland continue to trade as part of the United Kingdom with unfettered access, which is of benefit to companies in Liverpool, so I hope she will support the Bill when it comes back to the House.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Last week alone, three journalists were issued with violent threats by loyalist paramilitaries. The BBC has seen evidence that loyalist paramilitary groups have over 12,500 members, and there are more dissident groups than during the troubles. Does the Secretary of State agree that a toxic combination of deprivation and a failure to deal with the legacy of the past has created a fertile breeding ground for paramilitary groups?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure the hon. Lady would agree with me that obviously there is no place for violence or threats of any description to anybody in Northern Ireland, including media and political players in Northern Ireland. It is completely unacceptable. There is no excuse for it, and actually arguing that it is in any way acceptable because of any other particular issue is, I think, a fallacy and the wrong position to take. I have to say that we are making huge investments. There has obviously been about £20 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive this year, between the block grant and the extra support that the UK Government have put in, on top of having what are financially the biggest city and growth deals in the United Kingdom to ensure that we are levelling up. That is something we are determined to do for the people of Northern Ireland, as we are for the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Louise Haigh]

On Monday, the Secretary of State told the House that he had ceased engaging on legacy issues at the request of victims groups, but he knows that the largest cross-community victims group in Northern Ireland, the WAVE Trauma Centre, has expressed serious concerns at his lack of engagement and, indeed, has described him as “dangerously deluded”. Can he confirm to the House exactly when he will meet those at the WAVE Trauma Centre and when he will present an update on legacy proposals to this House?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am a little bit surprised by what the hon. Lady just outlined, as it was actually the WAVE group that, back in March, asked us to pause on engagement as it and its members were focused on covid, which I think was a reasonable position. I think it was right, as people were focused on covid. However, as I have said a few times to the hon. Lady and to this House, I think that action on legacy, which is such a sensitive and important issue, to make sure we can help Northern Ireland move forward and put the troubles in the past is an important thing to do. It is also important to get that information for the victims and the families of victims who have been looking for that information now for far too long. We are determined to do that by engaging with the people of Northern Ireland, as well as our partners in the Irish Government and the United States and the political parties in Northern Ireland, and when we have done that, I will come back to this House. However, this has to be something that is done with the support of and engagement with the people of Northern Ireland.

Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. First, may I pay tribute, on behalf of my party, to the widow of Pat Finucane, Geraldine, and her whole family? As with so many victims I have met, the dignity, determination and strength they have shown in the face of horror unimaginable to many of us in this House is humbling, and I know how difficult today has been for them.

The murder of Pat Finucane in 1989, gunned down in front of his young family in his kitchen by loyalist paramilitaries, involved shocking levels of state collusion. It is welcome to hear the Secretary of State repeat former Prime Minister David Cameron’s apology, but he is right: it is not enough. There has never been an adequate investigation into Pat Finucane’s murder and Supreme Court justice Lord Kerr has said that previous investigations have had profound “shortcomings” that

“have hampered, if not indeed prevented, the uncovering of the truth about this murder.”

That this crime could happen at all in our country is shocking, and that it has never been investigated to a lawful standard is unjustifiable. We have to ask ourselves, as we do with all legacy issues from the troubles: do we accept a lesser standard of justice for citizens in Northern Ireland than we would if this terrible crime had happened in our own constituencies? The Secretary of State references the Manchester inquiry. Do victims in Northern Ireland not deserve the same transparency and justice?

I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State, but the decision he has taken today will be a desperate disappointment to the Finucanes, and I struggle to see how he can make the case that it prevents him from remaining in breach of his human rights obligations, as the Supreme Court found last year. Indeed, an initial reading suggests that it is at odds with some of the central conclusions the Supreme Court reached. He says that through a series of processes the state can cumulatively meet its article 2 obligations. That was the same argument made by Sir James Eadie for the Government, who said that although the de Silva review had not been article 2 compliant, previous investigations, taken together, meant it was. It is of fundamental importance that the House is aware that Lord Kerr rejected that argument in the Supreme Court case last year. Furthermore, he said that the legal standard had not been met because:

“Sir Desmond did not have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. Those who did meet him were not subject to testing by way of challenging probes as to the veracity and accuracy of their evidence.”

If Sir Desmond had been able to compel witnesses and had had the opportunity to probe their accounts, it may have led to the identification of those in the police and the security services involved in the targeting of Mr Finucane.

It appears that nothing the Secretary of State has announced today will make up for these most fundamental shortcomings in previous reviews, and the family have described his approach as farcical. Is he not concerned that all this does is leave him open to further legal challenge and to being back here in a few months’ or years’ time? Waiting for a legacy investigation branch review, which the police themselves acknowledge they are not operationally independent enough to conduct, and an ombudsman’s review of existing evidence is simply delaying the inevitability of the only right and legal course of action. I note that he is not ruling out a full public inquiry in the future. Why does he not grasp this opportunity to deliver it now?

The troubles were a dark and violent time in our history. More than 3,000 civilians, soldiers and police officers lost their lives. Many have never received justice. The trauma of loss and grief from losing loved ones to such violence has been compounded by the prolonged failures of successive Governments to deliver the truth about what happened to them. That trauma echoes through the generations and is felt at a societal level in Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on the Secretary of State urgently to bring forward legacy proposals that would deliver the truth for all victims. It remains the most significant outstanding element of the Good Friday agreement, 22 years on. However, I regret to say that the Secretary of State’s unilateral approach so far in dealing with legacy has been harmful and hurtful to victims across Northern Ireland. If we are finally to take responsibility in this House for helping Northern Ireland deal with the legacy of its past, then he must urgently engage with all communities, victims and of course our partners to the Good Friday agreement, the Irish Government. This was the essence of the Stormont House agreement, which his Government committed to legislating for just this year.

Today’s announcement is a painful setback for those who have campaigned for the truth for decades and in the faith that the Government are committed to reconciliation. I would strongly urge the Secretary of State, in the further difficult decisions that lie ahead, to remember the deep responsibility that he has to deliver the truth to all victims and to reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we all should be working to find a holistic approach to the legacy issues for Northern Ireland. It is something we agreed to do and pledged to do as part of the new decade, new approach agreement that saw the return of Stormont this year. I think it is a hugely important piece of work, and it is something we owe to the next generation and the current generations of people across Northern Ireland of all communities. There are still, as she said, far too many families across societies in Northern Ireland who do not know what happened to members of their family and do not have the details of what happened during the troubles. We should all be working across parties and across society to look at how we can get that information so that families can have a way to reconciliation and information that allows that to happen. That is how we allow Northern Ireland to continue not just to build on the peace process, but to really look forward to a more prosperous and forward-looking future. That cannot change what happened in the past, but it does give families and people an opportunity to know more and to understand across all communities.

I have to say I differ from the hon. Lady in what she understands is our approach today, because it is quite the opposite. I have been clear and consistent all the way through that we want, and I want, to make sure that we are engaged not just across all political parties in Northern Ireland, but across civic society and in dealing with our partners in the Irish Government, to whom I speak regularly on these issues as well. We will continue to do that work. People were rightly focused over the last few months of this year on dealing with covid-19, but it is right that we start to move to talk to people about the future relating to the troubles of the past and how we move forward. We are doing that across civic society and across all parties, and we will be doing so.

I also differ from the hon. Lady in what seems to be her lack of confidence in the PSNI. The PSNI is independent. Its review and investigation is independent of Government, and I have confidence in its ability. We saw just this summer phenomenal work from the PSNI, with partners, on dealing with issues in Northern Ireland. I have absolute confidence that it will deal with this review in the right way and in a proper way. I support the opinion that the PSNI has outlined: that it will potentially seek to have an independent force work on this issue. We will support and help it on that, but that is a matter for the PSNI. I believe it is right that we allow this process and the police ombudsman process, which is equally independent, to happen and then to look at the findings from them, because until we know what comes from those reviews and investigations, it is too soon to know whether that would bring compliance with article 2. The hon. Lady seems to want to prejudge that, but we should let the police do their job.

Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 General Committees

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than necessary, because the Labour party clearly supports the statutory instrument, which ensures that the existing regulatory regime continues to operate in substantially the same manner as before the end of the transition period.

I know that the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Naomi Long, has consented to the devolved aspects of the SI being legislated for in Westminster, as the Minister said. However, given that the SI and the provisions in the protocol will require separate licences to be issued by the NIO to individuals in Great Britain for possession or use of explosive precursors, will the Minister outline how the NIO intends to ensure the ongoing continuity of those licences as regulations from the EU change over time? The impact of Northern Ireland aligning with a certain set of single market rules and regulations is not limited to explosive precursors but applies to all product requirements and safety, so it would be helpful to understand the NIO’s thinking on how the inevitable changes to these regulations and others will be monitored and implemented under the protocol.

Democratic input from representatives in Northern Ireland must be actively sought and understood in Westminster for that monitoring and implementation to be effective. Today’s regulations may be niche, with minimal impact on businesses and communities, but tomorrow’s almost certainly will not be, with much broader implications. Is it clear to the Minister what would happen if, for example, an Executive Minister refused for devolved aspects to be legislated for in Westminster? What will the process for democratic engagement and input into those decisions look like? Has he considered whether joint committees between Westminster and Stormont might be an effective way forward for the ongoing scrutiny of such regulations?

These regulations might represent the necessary legislative building blocks to ensure readiness at the end of the transition period in a niche area of security co-operation, but in other areas of security co-operation there is simply nothing of the same readiness, as the Minister knows. I would be grateful to him if he provided the Committee an update, perhaps in writing, on security concerns on data adequacy arrangements for policing co-operation, access to SIS II—the Schengen information system—European arrest warrants, ECRIS—the European criminal records information system—and Europol, all of which are necessary for ongoing security co-operation with Northern Ireland after the transition period. I will not detain the Committee any longer; the Opposition give our unqualified support for the SI.

Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the preparations for the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)]

My Secretary of State is on the way to Northern Ireland this afternoon, and has asked me to respond to this question on his behalf. We continue our work to implement the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate way that minimises the disruption to people’s day-to-day lives and preserves the gains of the 22 years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. We are helping traders to prepare for the end of the transition period. We published business guidance in August, and are updating it all the time as arrangements are finalised. We have established the trader support scheme, backed by £200 million of Government funding. More than 7,000 businesses have signed up, and hundreds more are joining them every day. We are considering further support measures for agrifood traders, with further details to be announced shortly.

We are getting on with the work that we need to do so that our systems and facilities are ready. We are putting in place the IT systems that are needed to process goods movements, supported by £155 million, which we announced in August. We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive on the delivery of expanded points of entry for agrifood, with the contract now awarded and work under way on arrangements on day one and thereafter.

We are getting on with putting the legislative framework in place for manufactured goods and food safety among many other issues, and our programme is well on track to be delivered in full by the end of the year. We are delivering on our unequivocal commitment to unfettered access. We have provided for robust protections in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill for mutual recognition and a prohibition on new checks and controls. We will re-table those clauses when the Bill returns to the House.

We laid a draft statutory instrument in Parliament, which was approved on 10 November by this House, and is scheduled for debate in the other place on 30 November. That will ensure that on 1 January Northern Ireland businesses can continue to move their goods as they do now. We are working with the Executive to introduce a longer-lasting second phase of that system, to focus its benefits on Northern Ireland businesses, to be introduced in the course of 2021.

We are working intensively and in good faith through the Joint Committee to pursue the solutions that we need to support our approach. We have already agreed a phased approach for medicines rules in Northern Ireland, ensuring that those critical goods can continue to flow. We have agreed an approach to scoping the application of the electricity directive in respect of Northern Ireland’s single electricity market that will ensure that the single electricity market continues to deliver for Northern Ireland.

We are working to ensure that UK internal freight is not subject to tariffs, and to remove export declarations from Northern Ireland to GB trade. We continue to pursue specific solutions for supermarket trade, noting the huge social and economic importance of avoiding disruption. That essential work will continue at pace in the coming days but, of course, I cannot give a running commentary on discussions with the European Union.

[Louise Haigh]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. There are 43 days until the end of the transition period, and it is hard to express the frustration, anxiety and fears that have been relayed to me and to the Minister by countless businesses and communities in Northern Ireland, as the clock has started to tick. Northern Ireland needed every second of this transition year to get ready for the biggest changes to its trading relationship that it has ever known, but vital time has been squandered, first with the denial that any checks would take place at all and then with the extraordinary spectacle of the Government threatening to tear up their own oven-ready deal and breach international treaties that they had signed into law—an approach that the Minister has just confirmed they are sticking to when the Bill returns to the House from the other place.

The result of that recklessness and incompetence is that thousands of businesses still do not know the bare basics of how they will trade with Great Britain in just six weeks’ time. As the president of the Ulster Farmers Union said this morning, we are in a transition, but we do not know what we are transitioning to. The whole purpose of the protocol was to protect the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, and the relationship east-west is as important as the relationship north-south. The Government’s reckless approach to negotiations and their incompetent failure to prepare risk significant disruption, a maximalist interpretation of the protocol and completely unnecessary checks. Ministers should take their heads out of the sand and give businesses the answers for which they have been begging throughout this transition year.

First, on the customs declaration service, which will handle over 1 million declarations in January alone, experts say that they need 18 months to get traders ready for the new system, so why has the industry not had the final version? Given that those experts now say that it is simply too late for the system to work, what are the contingency plans to avoid widespread disruption on 1 January? Will there be flexibility to allow businesses to adapt to new systems? What is plan B?

On the trader support service, which the Minister mentioned and which is supposed to guide businesses through the complex new customs arrangements, can he confirm that the Government are not seriously considering leaving it until 21 December for that system to go live? Why have businesses had no information whatsoever on the tariff rebate system, as confirmed by the chief executive of Manufacturing NI this morning? Where is the border operator model promised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster over summer? Without it, traders are completely in the dark on what data they will need to provide in order to move goods.

Finally, on food imports, which the Minister referenced, a compromise is now desperately needed—and the EU has a huge responsibility of its own to deliver this—in order to reduce checks that some supermarkets and food producers say could lead them to pull out of Northern Ireland altogether. It is absurd that food destined for Northern Ireland supermarkets should be considered a risk to the EU single market, so is either a temporary waiver requirement or a permanent trusted trader scheme about to be confirmed? Again, why have the Government refused to engage directly with Northern Ireland retailers?

Northern Ireland desperately—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that when I grant an urgent question, it is for two minutes, but we are now over three minutes? I did give the hon. Lady some time and I think the Minister will have picked it up.

Pat Finucane

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell—that rather exposes the idea that we are not being quite so genuine when other Members occupy the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) on securing the debate and on his extremely powerful contribution about the merits of a public inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane. We have heard from Members with real lived experience of Northern Ireland about the merits of such an inquiry, and we have heard powerful, heartbreaking testimony about that murder and about many more from the troubles that remain unsolved and were never fully investigated.

Let me respond first to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he makes a powerful case. He and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) are right to say that none of us is arguing for a hierarchy of victims. All of us want to see truth and justice delivered for the families of victims of the troubles, just as they would have received had their loved ones lost their lives anywhere else in the UK.

One of the tragedies of the troubles is that the killing of Pat Finucane was not distinctive enough to merit a public inquiry. Such brutal murders—many of which have never received even the pretence of an investigation, let alone one that is fully compliant with article 2 —numbered in their thousands, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. That remains one of the most significant and enduring elements of the Good Friday agreement that we have yet to deliver on in Westminster.

It is therefore reasonable to ask why the killing of Pat Finucane merits a public inquiry and more attention than any other murder during the troubles, not least the killing of police officers, veterans and civilians. As has been spelled out, however, the answer dates back to the Weston Park accord and the findings of Judge Cory, who recommended public inquiries into a number of murders. As we have heard, of the four inquiries that he recommended, only the killing of Pat Finucane remains outstanding. None of the subsequent investigations has met the legal standards that are held by the British Government. All have fallen short of the public inquiry that for too long the Finucane family have been campaigning for. Disgracefully, they have been forced yet again to take the Government to the highest court in the country in order to be told that the Government remain in breach of article 2 of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

As we know, the Court stopped short of directing the Government to set up an independent inquiry, but the Labour party is clear, as indeed are the Finucane family, that it is the only legal way forward for the Government to proceed. If the Minister considers that they can meet their obligations in another way, we believe it is incumbent on him to lay out what options he considers are available to the Government.

Northern Ireland is a society that has made so much progress towards reconciliation in the past two decades, but the intervening years have served to demonstrate that families, communities and society as a whole will struggle to take the difficult remaining steps towards reconciliation until a solution is found to deal with the legacy of the past. It is dangerously naive to think that a veil can simply be drawn over so many atrocities and outrages that occurred over so many years.

We have an opportunity now for Northern Ireland to escape the grip of the past with a mechanism that delivers the truth about what took place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said, Operation Kenova and the outstanding work of Jon Boucher demonstrate that that is still possible, that there is a way forward and that a victim-centred approach can deliver the truth. That is what the majority of the victims, including the Finucanes, have been fighting for all these years. They have been fighting for a truth process that acknowledges the injustice of the past, clears their loved ones’ names and enables reconciliation. That was the essence of the Stormont House agreement and the basis on which consensus was reached. I say to the Minister, achieving that will be impossible without building that consensus.

Everything that has been achieved in Northern Ireland has been achieved on the basis of consensus. The Belfast, St Andrews, Hillsborough Castle, Stormont House and the New Decade, New Approach agreements were all made possible by painstakingly building consensus across communities and parties, and in partnership with the Irish Government. It would be foolish to think that that legacy should or could be any different.

Ministers committed 10 months ago to find that broad- based consensus on legacy, underpinned by the Stormont House mechanisms, so the departure from that approach in March this year caused enormous anger and shock from victims and people across Northern Ireland society. Trust in the Government’s approach has been understandably fractured in Northern Ireland. We are desperate for the Government to get this right.

I will repeat in public what I have said to the Secretary of State in private. We will work with the Government and help them to achieve consensus on this issue in a way that respects the Stormont House agreement and delivers on legacy. There must be no party politics for Labour and the Conservatives on this. As co-signatories to the Good Friday agreement, we deeply feel the duty for Westminster to get this right, whichever party is in power. It falls to our generation of politicians to take grave decisions and finally deliver on legacy.

I say to the Minister, it is time for the Northern Ireland Office to start engaging. I urge the Government to think carefully about their next steps, to work to build that broad-based consensus. Families have had to campaign for too long for the basics that would have been afforded them, had their loved-ones been murdered anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If we do not resolve this now, victims and survivors will be here in another 10 years’ time having the same debates, and the people of Northern Ireland will continue to suffer for our collective failure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

Yes, I can. That is why the Government are very pleased that the Bill has completed its passage through the House this week. The provisions in the Bill ensure that there will be no new checks, controls or administrative processes on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and provide a power for Ministers to disapply or modify the requirement for export declarations or other export procedures on such movements.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

It is very welcome to hear that a slimmed-down Finance Bill is coming later in the year, but not a single clause in the internal market Bill changes the fact that new requirements on trade between Britain and Northern Ireland will be coming into force in 13 weeks’ time. Why is a coalition of business groups still waiting for answers on 60 of the 67 basic questions that it put to the Secretary of State in June on how the protocol will work? Why is there still no border operating model? Why has the necessary infrastructure been described by the permanent secretary for environment and agriculture as undeliverable? Is it not time for both the EU and the UK to act in Northern Ireland’s interests and deliver the certainty that businesses are crying out for?

[Mr Walker]

The hon. Lady rightly calls for certainty, but in making the criticism that she does, she appears to be criticising the protocol that her Front Benchers have been arguing that we cannot interfere with. It is essential that we deliver on the protocol and deliver certainty for businesses, and the steps that we have taken in the UK Internal Market Bill help us to do so. I am not going to take lectures on upholding the integrity of our Union from a party that refuses to rule out backing a divisive second independence referendum in Scotland.

[Louise Haigh]

Those are absolutely ridiculous comments from the Minister. We have been supporting the protocol and the implementation of it, and it is the divisive, law-breaking UK Internal Market Bill that has undermined the implementation of the protocol. While criticism from five former Prime Ministers, the leaders of three Northern Ireland parties, the Speaker of the US Congress and the resignation of the Government’s most senior law officer may not have concerned the Government, I wonder whether the comments of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland have. Sir Declan Morgan said that the threat to break the law may have undermined public confidence in the legal system. I wonder whether the Minister now regrets the comments made by the Secretary of State and the actions of Governments over the past fortnight.

[Mr Walker]

We have been repeatedly clear through the passage of the Bill that we are respecting and delivering on the protocol. We remain absolutely committed to the peace process, the Good Friday agreement and to acting within the UK’s constitutional set-up, and that is what we will continue to do.

Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the UK’s commitment to its legal obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)]

We are fully committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many practical steps to do so. The protocol was designed to maintain the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the gains of the peace process, and to protect the interests of all people in Northern Ireland, and that is what this Government will do and will continue to deliver on. Throughout the last year, as we have taken steps to comply with our obligations under the protocol, we have always sought to honour both our international obligations and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.

The protocol itself states that it should

“impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities”

and it explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence. As we continue to implement the protocol, this overriding need must be kept in mind. The Government have consistently said that people and businesses in Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the whole of the UK market. Our manifesto made a very clear commitment to that. The approach that we will take in this legislation builds on that commitment and on the specific commitment that we made in the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, to legislate for unfettered access by the end of the year. This has been one of the most consistent asks from Northern Ireland businesses since the protocol was agreed, and we are now moving to provide certainty.

Our approach guarantees that we will be able to deliver the objectives that we set out for implementing the protocol in a way that protects the interests of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland. We are working hard to resolve any outstanding issues through the Joint Committee and will continue to approach those discussions in good faith, but we are taking limited and reasonable steps to create a safety net that ensures that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and in line with the protocol.

[Louise Haigh]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

This week starts a crucial period in our trade negotiations with the EU. Labour wants the Government to succeed—to secure a deal in the national interest and to protect the Good Friday agreement—so it is very welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s confirmation of their commitment to the protocol. But it has been deeply concerning ahead of these talks that the Prime Minister has appeared to undermine our legal obligations and his own deal. The resignation of the Government’s chief legal adviser this morning suggests that concern over the Government’s approach runs to the very top. It risks jeopardising the progress of the negotiation and the chance of securing a much-needed deal.

The protocol was not foisted on the Prime Minister by Brussels, by a previous Government or by Parliament. The Prime Minister personally renegotiated it, campaigned on it, legislated for it and ratified it in an international treaty. With these latest moves, some fear that the Prime Minister is once again using Northern Ireland as a political football to suit his wider political means. We cannot forget that at the heart of this are the people and businesses of Northern Ireland who risk paying the price. For them, this is not the latest episode in a Brexit drama but a profoundly worrying moment that will shape their livelihoods, their businesses and their future. It reopens the uncertainty that they hoped had been settled, takes us backwards in negotiations and undermines trust with the European Commission.

Ultimately, this is about trust. How can the people of Northern Ireland trust this Government with the careful progress made over the past two decades when they tell them that the protocol is necessary to protect it and then suggest that the protocol undermines it? How can the British people trust a Government who swore that they had an oven-ready deal only 10 months ago and now tell them that the deal was ambiguous and contradictory? How can our partners and allies around the world trust us to enter trade negotiations on multilateral arrangements?

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Treasury Solicitor resigned today in response to the Government’s plans to bring forward legislation that will undermine our legal obligations? Will he confirm whether a ministerial direction has been given on the internal market Bill? Will he further outline what legal advice he has seen and whether the ministerial code will be breached if MPs are asked next week to vote on provisions that will undermine those legal obligations?

There was no need for it to come to this. The elements of the protocol left to negotiate are not insignificant, but neither are they insurmountable. With trust, progress could easily have been secured. At the start of a new chapter for our United Kingdom, we cannot afford to be seen as a country that cannot be trusted. As Margaret Thatcher said,

“Britain does not renounce treaties. Indeed, to do so would damage our integrity as well as international relations.

In those interests and in the national interest, I urge the Government to stop the posturing, rediscover their responsibility and secure the deal that was promised to the people of this country.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady should wait until she sees the legislation tomorrow, because I hope she will then see that we are delivering on the very promises to which she just referred. She commented on the Prime Minister’s campaigning and our manifesto pledges, which I referred to in my opening remarks. The Bill, as she will see, will absolutely deliver on them.

The UK internal market legislation that we will bring forward this week delivers on our commitment to legislate for unfettered access, which Northern Ireland businesses have consistently asked us to do to ensure that we deliver certainty. The legislation will give the certainty that the people, businesses and economy of Northern Ireland have been asking for, and supports the delivery of the protocol in all circumstances, in line with the approach we set out in our Command Paper in May.

The safety net that we will implement, which we will outline this week, will deliver on the commitments made in the general election manifesto. Specifically, we will implement the provision in the protocol that Northern Ireland is fully part of the UK customs territory by ensuring that goods moving within the UK will never even inadvertently have to pay EU tariffs. We will ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have true unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom without paperwork, and we will ensure that there is no confusion about the fact that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to the EU state aid regime for the duration of the protocol, Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in that area.

Those steps are rightly part of the UK internal market Bill, the overriding aim of which is to ensure that the UK’s own internal market operates effectively, and I hope all Members will support that endeavour. The House will of course have an opportunity to debate these matters when it sees the details in full when considering the Bill. Further, the Bill will strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory and ensure that the UK does take back control of its laws in an organised way after 31 December—exactly as we promised in the manifesto that won a resounding victory and mandate from the people of this country at last year’s election.

I cannot comment on the details of the Treasury Solicitor’s resignation because I have not seen his resignation letter, but we wish him well. We will continue to work at pace with the EU in the Joint Committee, and I stress to the hon. Lady that she should not presume what the outcome of the Joint Committee will be. We continue to work with the EU on that to ensure that we can reach a fair and positive outcome for Northern Ireland. That has always been and continues to be our priority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The simple answer is yes. Particularly with people having waited so long, to see an insensitive, ill-advised and inappropriate comment like that was the last thing that anybody needed. It should never have been made in the first place, and we should all condemn it and move forward to make sure that victims get what they have morally and legally been waiting far too long for.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

May I begin by reflecting on the fact that this summer we lost the great John Hume, a peace campaigner and politician who, more than any other, is responsible for the peace these islands enjoy today? I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to his extraordinary wife Pat, his family and our friends in the Social Democratic and Labour party.

Yesterday would have been the 40th birthday of Tim Parry who, along with three year-old Johnathan Ball, was killed by an IRA bomb in Warrington in 1993. The peace foundation set up in their name supports victims of terrorism nationwide, but at the end of this month that service will close unless Ministers deliver on the funding that they have promised in the House. In this week, of all weeks, will the Secretary of State step up and secure the future of this vital service?

[Brandon Lewis]

First, I join the hon. Lady in her comments about John Hume and his family. I was honoured to be able to attend the funeral, which was a great example of how something can be done so sensitively, delicately and appropriately, even at a difficult time such as with covid. It was a real honour to be there.

As I said earlier, a range of victims have waited too long for things such as victims’ pensions and victims’ payments, so we need to see that moving on. We need to see a whole range of areas moving on. I hope that, with the work we can do with the Northern Ireland Executive, not least with the introduction of the independent fiscal council, we can see the Executive start to allocate their funding and move on with these projects.

[Louise Haigh]

I think the Secretary of State may have misheard me: I was talking about the Warrington Peace Centre, which previously enjoyed funding directly from the Home Office. I hope he will consider that and raise it with his colleague the Home Secretary.

The father of Tim Parry, Colin, has said, on the anniversary of his son’s 40th birthday, that the appointment of Claire Fox to the House of Lords offends him deeply. Given her continued refusal to apologise for defending the Warrington bombing, may I ask whether the Secretary of State was consulted on her peerage? Has he raised any concerns with his colleagues in No. 10?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I think it has already been outlined, Claire Fox will be sitting as a Cross-Bench peer. She has already provided her own answer to that question, and I will let her words deal with the matter. I will certainly talk to the Home Secretary about the issue that the hon. Lady raises about the funding for the Warrington bombing. What we have seen over the past few weeks is that there is still a need and a determination for us to keep a focus on security issues. I also want to take a moment to pay huge credit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners for the amazing operation that they ran just two weeks ago, arresting some 10 people, which is probably the biggest step forward that we have seen in a generation in ensuring the peace and security of the people in Northern Ireland.

Draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Video Recording with Sound of Interviews and Associated Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2020

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 General Committees

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Ms Buck, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for his constructive approach and the helpful briefing that he and his office provided. As he has outlined, the amendments relate to technical matters. They are intended to allow the PSNI to use the latest digital recording and will bring Northern Ireland into line with the technology used in the rest of the UK. It is important that we continue to provide the tools necessary for the PSNI to do its job, and I want to place on the record my thanks to the Chief Constable and PSNI officers for the work that they have done, particularly during an extremely challenging period in Northern Ireland.

It is welcome that the Government have accepted the suggestions placed on record during the consultation and the response from the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the PSNI. We are happy to support the order today.

I want to press the Minister on a couple of issues, particularly on the implications that stem from the further digitisation of interviews under caution. Can he confirm the standard under which digital evidence must be stored, as there are clear implications for cyber-security and the effective storage of digital evidence? On interpreters, which the amended code of practice covers, in order to enable those being questioned to fully understand the updated code of practice—this was an issue raised by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission—what discussions has he held with the PSNI to ensure that it has sufficient resourcing so that the provision is made available and all those interviewed under caution are fully aware of their rights?

Given that maintenance of the old recordings was becoming difficult, as the explanatory memorandum makes plain, has the Minister been reassured that the existing evidence will remain technically viable? If not, what plans does the PSNI have to update and refresh the existing stock of evidence? That is important more broadly as the decay of existing records presents a significant challenge for legacy investigations, which are currently conducted by the legacy investigations branch, and the PSNI will clearly take another form when the Government introduce their new legacy proposals, as proposed in the ministerial statement on 18 March.

Many of the cases date back as much as four decades to the beginning of the troubles, and evidence currently held on VHS or tape will remain viable only for so long. However, the effort and manpower required to update and refresh the thousands of recordings that relate to legacy investigations will be substantial, as will the digitisation of evidence over the period of the troubles. The PSNI has estimated that this could cost many millions of pounds, so can the PSNI be reassured that Ministers will provide the resources necessary to undertake this mammoth task, which will be pivotal to the success of any legacy process? We simply cannot proceed with investigations over this period in any form if investigators do not have access to all relevant evidence.

There are implications not only for legacy investigations, but for legacy institutions, particularly the oral history archive, as laid out in the Stormont House agreement and underpinned by an international treaty signed with our partners to the Good Friday agreement, the Republic of Ireland. The proper archiving of the material is no small task, particularly for institutions such as the PSNI, and a concerted effort should be made to facilitate and enable the long-term preservation of any relevant material. This necessitates updating and aggregating the existing collection and proposing sensible workable accommodations with regard to the legal requirements of the deposit of collections. Can the Minister reassure us that the PSNI will get the support needed to undertake that work as well? It would be wrong to lose out on a vital piece of evidence when an important historical record with its contemporaneous recordings begins to decay. I will not hold the Committee up any longer. We are happy to support the order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I think we are all looking forward to being completely free of the shackles of the European Union. We in the UK Government remain committed to supporting the Executive to achieve the devolution of corporation tax, so that they will have the power to make the decision that my hon. Friend has outlined. In the Stormont House and subsequent “Fresh Start” agreements, we made it clear that these powers would be devolved and provided, subject to the Executive demonstrating that their finances are on a sustainable footing for the long term. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to take the steps necessary to place those finances on a sustainable footing, such as by putting in place the fiscal council, which I hope they will do very swiftly.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

There are 600 job losses at Bombardier, 400 at Thompson Aero and another 200 at risk from the cancellation of the Airbus neo—new engine option—project. Northern Ireland cannot afford to lose these jewels in the crown of its economy, so will the Secretary of State ensure that the Government step in with a strategy and support for the aerospace sector similar to that provided by France, Germany and the US?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady asks a very important question about the aviation industry more widely. Obviously, I have spoken to the chief executive of Bombardier in particular, and my colleagues at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) have been in constant co-ordination and contact with the relevant companies.

The UK Government have provided some £2.1 billion through the covid corporate financing facility to the aerospace sector and airlines more widely, and additional flexibility for UK Export Finance to support £3.5 billion of sales in the next 18 months, as well as putting £0.5 billion into our aerospace research and development over the next few years. We are determined to do everything we can to support all sectors of our economy, including the Northern Ireland economy.