Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. I can confirm that the agreement reached in December in the joint report remains, and that Britain will do all that it can to ensure that all our industries, particularly fisheries, are maintained and that our fishermen and the industry are well looked after.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I am sure that one issue the Minister and the Secretary of State will have discussed with the political parties in Northern Ireland is the problems they see with a hard border returning in Ireland. What are those problems and what does the Minister suggest that we do to avoid them?

[Mr Vara]

The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others have made it absolutely clear that there will be no hard border.

[Owen Smith]

That is not much of an answer. The Government should acknowledge that the parties all think that there would be problems with a hard border, as do the Chief Constable, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Irish Government and many Conservative Members. Should he not therefore acknowledge the problems and tell the House that the only way to avoid a hard border is for us to stay within the customs union and the single market?

[Mr Vara]

The people of Britain—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—collectively agreed to leave the single market and customs union, and that will be the case. As for the border, the December joint report made it absolutely clear that there will be no physical infrastructure and no hard border. There will be a frictionless border, and that is what is being negotiated and discussed.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill

Owen Smith Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is right that this is a modest Bill with relatively few clauses and few substantive measures. I thank her and her office for providing me with a draft copy yesterday evening, but it is a pretty poor showing that the rest of the House had precisely 10 minutes to look at the Bill before debating its contents, however modest they are. That does not strike me as a terribly long time to look at a measure that increases taxes on 1.8 million people in this country.

We support the Bill. As the Secretary of State said, it is a necessary measure to allow councils to raise the regional rate. It legislates in an area of clearly devolved competence, and it sets the regional rate at about 4.5%, which is above inflation. My first question—I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer it at the end of the debate—is, how did the Government arrive at that figure? Was it discussed with political parties or with the Northern Ireland civil service, or, indeed, with local councils in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State could have set a lower or a higher rate. How did she reach that figure?

Will the Secretary of State explain the cash impact on households in Northern Ireland? The explanatory notes are scant, so we do not have an impact assessment, and I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland knows the net effect on average households. It would be useful to learn that.

The RHI measure was a poorly drawn piece of legislation. It is right that we are extending the cap again today. As the Secretary of State said, the liabilities for the taxpayer were potentially £500 million—some people have even said £700 million—so it is absolutely right that we should legislate to mitigate that figure. We are amending the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, which were laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly, passed and amended there. It is Northern Ireland legislation, and we support its further amendment today. However, that raises an important question relating to yesterday’s debate that is vital in the halfway-house period—the limboland—for Northern Ireland. We have had 14 months without an Assembly or Executive, during which Ministers have not been accountable to people, either in Northern Ireland or in the House. We have legislation on issues that fall squarely within the devolved competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly when the Government choose to introduce them, but there are other issues on which the Government choose not to introduce measures. Yesterday, I mentioned the historical institutional abuse inquiry compensation scheme and the prospect of a pension for people who were severely disabled and injured in the troubles.

I was troubled by the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my question, in which she explained why she could not legislate on those things:

“Constitutionally, the inquiry”—

the HIA inquiry—

“was set up by the Executive and reported to the Executive. Unfortunately, the Executive were unable to take decisions on the recommendations before they collapsed…he”—

meaning me—

“will understand that the constitutional implications of the Westminster Parliament or Government taking a decision about something set up by a devolved institution mean that such decisions are not to be taken lightly.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 204.]

I completely accept that, but the Secretary of State is taking a decision—I presume not lightly—to legislate in other areas of devolved competence, including MLA pay, later today. We need to understand why it is deemed permissible to legislate in certain areas but not in others.

To that end, yesterday evening I commissioned the House of Commons Library and an independent Queen’s counsel to provide legal advice to the House, and I will happily place those items in the Library later today. I asked them to explain what the difference might be, constitutionally and legislatively, between those two areas. The Library agreed with what I assumed would be the fairly standard interpretation, which is that there is no constitutional reason why the Secretary of State cannot legislate on historical institutional abuse or on the victims’ pension—the pension for the severely injured and disabled. The Library says:

“As a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament can legislate with regard to any matter whatsoever in relation to Northern Ireland, relying on the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.”

It goes on:

“If the Assembly is unable to introduce legislation, UK Government Ministers may decide that it is either necessary or expedient to ask Parliament to do so.”

Of course, they may decide it is not politically expedient to do so or not timely to introduce those things. That is what we are dealing with here—

[Karen Bradley]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I hope that when the Secretary of State intervenes she will explain that.

[Karen Bradley]

I wanted to make the point that although, constitutionally, this Parliament can legislate on any matters regarding the United Kingdom, where a matter had been devolved we would be undermining the devolution settlement—that is the point. It would be extraordinary for this Parliament to decide to legislate, unilaterally, where, for example, such an inquiry was set up by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Government. We do not take these things lightly and we need to give them great consideration, although I have enormous sympathy with the victims, in both cases.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I was in the Home Office at the time we set up the inquiry on institutional abuse across England and Wales. We carefully considered, and had many debates in the House on, whether the issues in Northern Ireland and the existing Hart inquiry should be brought into that inquiry, but the decision was taken that they should not, because the Executive had already set up the Hart inquiry.

[Owen Smith]

I thank the Secretary of State for that intervention, but she cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot argue that it would undermine the devolution settlement to intervene and legislate in areas of devolved competence—for example, on the HIA or the pension for those who have been severely disabled—and then do so. She is doing precisely that today on the renewable heat incentive scheme, which was introduced in the Assembly, by the Assembly, for Northern Ireland, and on the regional rates, which is an area to do with local government that is entirely devolved to the Assembly in Belfast. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. One cannot speak out of both sides of one’s mouth on this issue, and I fear that that is what the Government are seeking to do.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks with great interest. Where would he draw the line? Does he appreciate the dilemma the Government face in respect of the micromanagement and microgovernance of Northern Ireland, and dealing with the discrete and modest legislative vehicles—the Secretary of State made that clear—that we have to have to ensure that there is decent governance there? He has not said where he would draw that line and perhaps it might be timely if he did so.

[Owen Smith]

I am glad I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he understands Northern Ireland and understands fully that this is delicate. I completely accept that the Secretary of State is in an invidious position on these conventions, but to an extent they are just that—conventions—with the key one being the Sewel convention, whereby, ordinarily, this Westminster Government do not legislate on areas of devolved competence. However, there are instances where it is morally or fiscally necessary to intervene and the Government do intervene.

It is, in essence, for the Government to choose where the line is set, but there are moral and fiscal imperatives in respect of those people who are in the HIAI and those who have been severely injured, and who ought to see the Government intervene on their behalf. If the Government were to do that, it would in no way undermine the devolution settlement because the precedent is already set, as we are seeing today on the RHI and as we have seen on other areas of legislation. Nor would it undermine the peace process and the talks process, because there is widespread support for those things. Legal counsel supports my opinion—

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I want to complete this point. I sought some support from KRW Law, a firm of lawyers at the Bar in Belfast. Its view is:

“There are three significant points which would support a conclusion that Parliament should in fact legislate”

particularly in respect of the HIA. It continued:

“(i) The Sewel Convention is a…convention, not a rule of law, and can be departed from for good reasons;

(ii) The constitutional obligation to avoid a vacuum in governance clearly has more weight in the present constitutional circumstances”

where we do not have an Assembly.

The hon. Gentleman raised that second point. The third was that the HIAI made a clear case for intervention. Therefore, I put it to the Secretary of State that there is clear precedent and legal support for her intervening to support some of the most vulnerable and damaged people, either under the terms of the abuse inquiry or in respect of those who have been physically disabled.

I raise the pension for those who were disabled and injured because they are here today—some are in the Gallery for today’s debate and some are meeting hon. Members from across the House. I think they would want to hear from the Secretary of State that she understands the nature of the issues they face.

[Karen Bradley]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Before the Secretary of State intervenes, let me quote her own words to her. She has said that the Government have responsibilities to

“provide better outcomes for victims and survivors—the people who suffered most during the troubles.”—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 33.]

She has an opportunity to make good on those words and legislate, and I hope she is going to tell us right now that she will do so.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am at a loss to understand what the point being made has to do with the RHI or rates in Northern Ireland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is speaking to the Second Reading, and I am sure he is consistent and will ensure he sticks to that.

[Owen Smith]

I give way to the Secretary of State.

[Karen Bradley]

I want to clarify the difference between the two issues the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The HIAI—the Hart inquiry—was set up by the Executive and therefore, constitutionally, it is a matter for the members of the Executive to make a decision on its recommendations. The Hart inquiry reported to the Executive after they had collapsed and therefore they were unable to do that. That therefore gives a legal difficulty: what would the Executive have decided on those recommendations for this Parliament to try to second-guess?

On the victims of the troubles, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have made it clear that this Government are committed to setting up the institutions that were agreed under the Stormont House agreement. We are committed to consulting on how that is done, and as part of that, we will deal with all the issues regarding the victims of the troubles, because I agree with him that those people have been waiting far too long to see remedy for what they went through.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the intervention, and let me answer it and the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). She makes my point for me. She asks what the Executive decided in respect of the HIAI and the answer is we do not know. We know that they said they thought they ought to implement its findings in full—they said that just before the Assembly went down—so we have some clarity on that. Crucially, we do not know what the Executive would have decided in respect of the regional rate and we do not know whether the Assembly would have decided to change the terms of the cap on the RHI, yet we are legislating in this place, in this Bill, to change those things, without any knowledge of what the Assembly would have done. So it precisely relevant to the business at hand—

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will give way in a moment. It is precisely relevant to the business at hand that we could be legislating under the same terms on these two issues but are choosing not to do so for some reason, be it political expediency, timeliness or the fact there are less pressing financial reasons for doing so. Those people who are here today—there are people who were injured by either side in the troubles—having been in paralysis, having lost limbs or having lost livelihoods for a long, long time now, are in need of our support.

I know that the Secretary of State wishes to give that support, so I cannot understand, and do not think she has yet explained to the House, why it is not a moral imperative—and a financial imperative for those people—to introduce legislation to implement a pension for the severely injured and to enact at the very least the relatively minor compensation arrangements that Sir Anthony Hart agreed under the HIAI.

The Secretary of State has the extra £1 billion that she managed to find for the Democratic Unionist party under the confidence and supply agreement, and part of that money could be allocated either to the victims of historical institutional abuse or to those who have suffered injury as a result of the troubles. That would be time well spent in the House, and nobody would reject or resent it. I do not believe for a moment that it would undermine either the Secretary of State’s efforts to get the peace process and the talks back on track, the Sewel convention or our desire to get the Assembly back up and running.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am very sorry that the Bill has had to come before the House, but it is clearly necessary for the good governance of Northern Ireland for it to be passed. The Secretary of State was right to describe it as modest and discrete, which it clearly is, but I am concerned about incremental drift, which was why I was testing the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). He sat down before I could intervene on him again, but the Opposition have certainly not said where their red line would be. He cited two examples, and there will be a lot of sympathy with his remarks—

[Owen Smith]

In case I did not, I meant to make it clear that I do not propose that we pursue other matters but absolutely do advocate that we legislate on historical institutional abuse and a pension for the injured.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I think he has established his red line. I therefore assume that he would not wish to make decisions on, for example, the Commonwealth youth games, which has been cited by a Back Bencher from his own party. I am thinking that the Opposition red line on governance in Northern Ireland, in the absence of an Executive, exists somewhere between those options. That is extremely helpful and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I, too, am interested in the metrics that have gone into making the recommendations in the Bill. It would be useful to know how the figures were arrived at. The House is de facto responsible for the scrutiny of these tax rises. Of course, imposing or levying taxes is a defining feature of any system of governance, and that is what we are doing today with the greatest of reluctance, notwithstanding the fact that we did with the same thing last year. We need to do everything we can to ensure that this does not become a habit.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, is currently considering the future-proofing of the governance of Northern Ireland and how its governance can be made more robust. In our consideration of the Bill, it strikes me that we might like to think about how district rates and regional rates operate and whether some other body might be able to levy them both. Of course, that rather unusual and peculiarly Northern Ireland feature does not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the council tax prevails. Has the Secretary of State given any thought to how taxes of that sort might be invested in local government? Given that local government in Northern Ireland has changed dramatically recently and the number of councils has been reduced, we might possibly be able to levy such taxes for particular purposes through local government, rather than the Assembly—that is, if Stormont is going to continue to be unstable, which is an eventuality that I regret we will have to allow for in our thinking.

Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill

Owen Smith Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Secretary of State take it from me that many people in Northern Ireland will be grateful she is doing that? As we heard in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee whenever the former Finance Minister, Alex Easton, came and answered questions from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—it became known as the Alex Easton section—the staff of hard-working MLAs work day and night to deliver the best deal possible for constituents, so this is very good news. We welcome the salary reduction, but people on the ground should not suffer as a result.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

I give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I too, welcome what I think I heard from the Secretary of State, but may I clarify one point? Is she saying that she does not intend to enact Trevor Reaney’s recommendation that the staff budget should be cut from £50,000 to £37,500? If that is what she has decided, it is an excellent decision.

[Karen Bradley]

That is exactly what I am saying. As I have said, I know how hard my staff work, and I am sure that the staff of all of us in this place work incredibly hard for our constituents. The position of the staff at Stormont should not be prejudiced by what is happening with their political masters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

We accept the need for a cut in MLAs’ salaries. The last Labour Government did that on three occasions when there was a similar period of the Assembly not sitting; in the first instance, we cut it from £43,000 to £29,000; in the second instance, we cut it to £21,000; and there was a third cut in 2006. I therefore have one note of caution for those who imagine this will prompt the Assembly and its parties to instantly come together: pay was cut three times and it did not necessarily work—I am not sure that it was the third cut that pushed the parties over the edge to do the deal. None the less, there is widespread support for this measure in the House and in Northern Ireland.

We recognise that, as Trevor Reaney said, legislative work is not the only aspect of MLAs’ work. Just as for MPs, there is a huge amount of work for them to do in their constituencies and elsewhere. Mr Reaney estimates between 50% and 60% of MLAs’ work is constituency-based, not legislative. However, clearly they are not doing their job in its entirety and therefore it is entirely justifiable that their salaries are cut.

We support the way in which the Secretary of State intends to do this, if she follows Trevor Reaney’s proposed mechanism of a phased step basis. That makes sense given that people have to make adjustments: MLAs have mortgages and families, and it is entirely fair, and compatible with employment legislation, that a measured step-wise approach is taken. I welcome the news that the Secretary of State will not enact Mr Reaney’s recommendation in respect of MLAs’ staff, however. As many Members have already remarked, they continue to work extremely hard and the fact that the Assembly is not sitting is no fault of theirs. Therefore, it is right that the budget is maintained.

Finally, I have a question. I am not sure whether I am misreading the Bill or whether I have read this in the notes somewhere and now cannot find it, but I understood that we were going to address in the Bill the anomaly whereby Members of the Assembly who cease to be Members of the Assembly yet are members of the Assembly Commission continue to be paid. That has been a concern and a cause of great consternation and surprise in Northern Ireland. Is that being dealt with in this Bill, and if not, will it be dealt with at some point?

Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill

Owen Smith Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This is, as the Secretary of State has said, a technical step today. For instant clarity, let me say that we will, of course, support these technical measures and the provisions in the Bill.

I wish to begin by remembering, on behalf of us all in the House, Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry who lost their lives in the IRA atrocity at Warrington 25 years ago today. There has been a commemoration in Warrington today where they are being honoured along with the 54 men, women and children who were injured on that day. I wanted to do that to mark their tragic death and to remind us all of the terrible cost of the troubles and to remind us, too, of the need to complete the journey to reconciliation between communities and to get to a true point of political stability in Northern Ireland. That is something that we should be reminded of today.

[Karen Bradley]

May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his words? I wish to put it on the record that I add my condolences and thoughts to his. He is absolutely right to reflect that today marks the 25th anniversary of a shocking event that none of us who lived through that time will forget, and it is a stark reminder of how far we have come.

[Owen Smith]

I welcome those words. I was sure that the Secretary of State would reflect on those events.

The Bill does in itself reflect the instability in Northern Ireland and the fact that reconciliation is required. We should remind ourselves, too, that it is actually the seventh year of suspension in the 18 years of the Assembly. It is a measure of some of the problems that we face that we are still in suspension now after 14 months. Other recent comments that have been made in respect of commemorations remind us, too, of the desperate need that we still have for true reconciliation between communities. Although the peace is robust—I know that we all feel that—the reconciliation is still all too fragile.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are discussing a set of technical measures today—it is not formally a budget, as the Secretary of State has explained to us—there are lots of questions to be asked. I hope to pose some of them, including questions about the form of the Bill—what is in it, what is not in it and what should be in it—reflecting some of the comments that have already been made by right hon. and hon. Members.

The first is about the form of the Bill. The Secretary of State said, “We have done something different this year.” She has not done what her predecessor did, which is rely on section 59 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to provide 95% of budgets. We have moved to what is in effect a version of the budget and the estimates process that we have for the rest of the United Kingdom at traditional points in the year. The Secretary of State has partially explained why she has done that—because it is an emergency measure—but I still do not completely understand why we have gone down that route. That prompts the question whether this is a further staging post on that famous glide path to direct rule. If that was in the Government’s mind when they went down this route, I urge them to think harder about how they redouble their efforts to try to get things back up and running.

If we are not dealing with a straightforward budget today and if these measures are allocating only 45% of the spending for 2018-19, we will have to have, as the Secretary of State has said, another budget Bill before the summer, which equally makes the point that this is a pretty poor substitute for the sort of scrutiny, intelligence and direction that we would have if we had a Stormont Executive and Assembly setting and scrutinising a budget. Some of the confusion that we have heard about today over the differences between allocations and appropriations and schedules 3 and 4 and about whether we are allowing for spending on the historical institutional abuse inquiry this year is because, effectively, what we have is a piece of cut and paste legislation here. If we read the schedule, it is pretty much exactly, word for word, the same schedule with the same description of the objectives and tasks facing the individual Departments in Northern Ireland as we had in the Northern Ireland Budget Act 2017.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the lists in that document cover the scope of each Department—the vires of the Department? Therefore, we will not see any significant change in that year by year, because that is the scope, the limits and the vires of those Departments in which they can spend. That does not change in this document.

[Owen Smith]

That is precisely right; that is the point that I was coming on to. I was going to say that this is a poor substitute for a proper budget process. What we do not have today is any real insight into how the money will be spent, or where the priorities lie beyond those broad headings. We have had some confusion around HIA funding today. Clearly, there is an implication that 45% of the money for the HIA is available to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to deal with in this coming year, so some clarity on that would be helpful. I will come on to the HIA in a little more detail later. This is a poor substitute. I think that we can all see that we should have better scrutiny, transparency and accountability, but we can only have that if we get the Executive back up and running, because this place cannot properly form a substitute for Stormont.

All this places Northern Ireland’s excellent, hard-working and diligent civil servants in a very invidious position. They are taking responsibility for providing services and are making increasingly autonomous decisions about services without really having a political master to serve, or a political backstop to watch their back if there is a crisis in any of the services that they are providing. We can all see that that is not a situation that we would wish to place civil servants in, and it is not a situation that can continue ad infinitum. I know that the Secretary of State is mindful of that, and I hope that it is one of the things that will spur the Department on to redouble its efforts in this matter—and indeed spur the parties on to try to find the wherewithal to build trust between one another, because they, too, will be effectively leaving those civil servants to carry the can unless we are able to get an Executive back up and running.

Three areas of public expenditure are not included in the budget today or are only referred to obliquely in the case of the HIA that could be included in the budget and could have been dealt with more fully today and in the coming months. The first is the HIA inquiry conducted by Sir Anthony Hart that several right hon. and hon. Members have already mentioned today. The inquiry reported before the Executive collapsed, recommending that the hundreds of men and women who survived historical abuse in some 20 institutions in Northern Ireland should be commemorated and, crucially, compensated for the abuse that they experienced.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that his taxpaying constituents in Pontypridd, mine in North Antrim and those of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should pay the compensation, or does he believe that the institutions that carried out the abuse should be made to pay the compensation, given the vast amounts of money that some of those institutions possess?

[Owen Smith]

It will be for the Government and, I hope, for the Executive to make a determination about the balance of payment. My view is that both will have to bear some costs. Some of the Church institutions that were involved will have to bear some of the cost, as happened in the Irish Republic. I think that the costs will be borne by the taxpayers where state-run institutions are involved. The reality is that we all have to recognise—I know that the hon. Gentleman does—that the abuse suffered by those individuals was heinous, and a way must be found for them to be properly compensated. This impasse in Northern Ireland cannot get in the way of that; we need to move forward. In fact, I have a particular question on this matter for the Secretary of State that she might want to listen to.

When I listened to David Sterling, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, giving evidence to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs just a month or so ago, my impression was that he is preparing legislation in respect of the HIA. He said explicitly that if there is no Executive in place—he implied by the summer, as that is when the legislation will be ready—he will ask the Secretary of State to introduce legislation in Westminster to give effect to the recommendations of the Hart inquiry. The Secretary of State left a gap at the end of addressing that question, so I just want to be sure that she will introduce such legislation, notwithstanding the fact that we would, of course, like Stormont to do so.

[Karen Bradley]

To be clear, I also heard the evidence given by David Sterling and I have spoken to him about this. Constitutionally, the inquiry was set up by the Executive and reported to the Executive. Unfortunately, the Executive were unable to take decisions on the recommendations before they collapsed. Given the hon. Gentleman’s closeness to this issue throughout his long political career, he will understand that the constitutional implications of the Westminster Parliament or Government taking a decision about something set up by a devolved institution mean that such decisions are not to be taken lightly. But, of course, if David Sterling should write to me with specific requests, I would consider them at that point.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification, but she has effectively doubled down on what she said earlier, and that is not good enough. These people have waited long enough. I think that the report came before the Assembly collapsed, and there is widespread political support across the piece that compensation ought to be paid. I therefore hope that, notwithstanding the complications and the sense that we would in some respect be rescinding a measure of devolution, we should find it in this place to legislate and provide the resources. That is the view of the Labour party, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will reflect on that.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I just want to provide some clarity. The report from Judge Hart, who headed up the inquiry, actually came just a very short time after the collapse. In fact, we raised this point with Sinn Féin. We established the inquiry with Sinn Féin, who knew that the report was coming, and we wanted to hold on to get the report and make the correct decisions before the collapse of the Assembly.

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Lady is right. I think that the report came a matter of days after the Executive collapsed. But that does not change my point, which is that there is widespread political support for action. David Sterling clearly thinks that it would be acceptable for us to legislate in this place. I have put on the record that the Labour party thinks that it would be acceptable for us to legislate in this place and that we think that the Secretary of State should do so.

The second area of omission that I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the legacy of the troubles. I know that the Secretary of State is reflecting on this and that it was part of the discussion between the parties in the recent talks that have unfortunately stalled. In the light of the failure of the talks, will the Secretary of State say a little more about whether and how she might bring forward resources and legislation on dealing with the legacy of the past?

[Karen Bradley]

It is probably worth confirming what I have said previously about dealing with the legacy of the past. No doubt, we will talk about this tomorrow during oral questions and the debates on the further legislation that we are bringing forward. I have been clear that the UK Government are committed to setting up the institutions that were agreed in the Stormont House talks process. We will shortly consult on how to set those institutions up, and we remain committed to doing that.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that confirmation. I am sure that people in Northern Ireland will find that reassuring. I also ask her to consider the plea made by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland for a separate set of resources to allow the few remaining legacy inquests to be undertaken in a timely fashion. Some of the people affected are, of course, ill and some have already died. Every passing month leaves injustice hanging in the air. We could also be dealing with that issue in this place.

My third point is that the Bill could and should have included financial provision for a pension for the seriously injured victims and survivors of the troubles. There are still around 500 seriously physically injured survivors, many of whom live in significant financial hardship due to their injuries and the loss of earnings during their lives as a result of the legacy of the troubles. Some believe that we cannot provide a pension for all those 500, as among them are some who were injured by their own hand. I believe that there are six loyalists and four republicans who were injured by their own actions during the troubles. I acknowledge those concerns and the difficulty that this poses. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members have considerable issues with what that would mean for the treatment of victims and for how we move forward in respect of legislation for victims.

[Bob Stewart]

Many soldiers have actually received compensation and pensions. Is the hon. Gentleman including them in the figure of 500, or are they separate?

[Owen Smith]

No, there are 500 civilian victims. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are separate provisions regarding injured soldiers. The reality is that many of the 500 have received some form of stipend or financial compensation, but for many that money has long since run out. The loss of earnings over a protracted period has left significant hardship as the daily reality for many men and women in Northern Ireland. This is another area where we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Notwithstanding the difficulties, the Secretary of State in particular right now should be thinking about how we provide for those people.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s genuine concern about this issue. Is he equally concerned about the military covenant and its full implementation in Northern Ireland? Will he be pushing the Secretary of State to ensure that that occurs?

[Owen Smith]

Of course, that is another very important issue. It is not necessarily related to the substance of this Bill, which is largely about financial measures, but I am sure that the Secretary of State has heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will be continuing to talk about the military covenant and its importance to all communities in Northern Ireland.

On pensions, the Secretary of State should know that some of the victims, particularly those represented by the WAVE group, will be here to listen to our proceedings tomorrow. I urge her to show leadership and find the resources to provide them with the amount of money that they need. It will be a tiny amount of money for the state in the grand scheme of things—£2 million to £3 million a year—but it will be a lifesaver for individuals.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that this is not just a question of financial provision, as we will require legislation. The Democratic Unionist party is prepared to put forward a private Member’s Bill to propose such a pension for seriously injured victims and survivors in Northern Ireland. Will the Labour party support that Bill?

[Owen Smith]

That will depend on the nature and the terms of the Bill, and on how all individuals are treated under it. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as I said earlier, people have concerns about the definition of “victim” and the nature of some of the individuals who might benefit from such a pension. My view is clear. As I put on the record a moment ago, we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Even if some people injured by their own hand were eventually in receipt of a state pension, that would be a price worth paying to provide the necessary resources for the vast majority of innocent victims.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Select Committee has met representatives of WAVE and looked at their proposals. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about how to design a pension that gave people who suffered mental health problems as a result of the troubles the right sort of compensation? I suspect that that might include far larger numbers than the 500 people and £4 million a year that he cites, but I cannot see how we could produce a scheme that did not help those people as well.

[Owen Smith]

I know from the hon. Gentleman’s time on the Select Committee that he is very familiar with this issue. He is absolutely right. I referred to the 500 seriously physically injured victims and survivors, and the £2 million to £3 million quantum that is the annual sum associated with their receiving some form of pension. He is also right that a further significant issue to be considered is the people who have been injured permanently and psychologically as a result of the troubles. No, I do not have an absolute idea about how this would be achieved. I have of course read the commission’s report on how it might be achieved, and other pieces of work have been done. That would need to be taken into account. I repeat, however, that time is passing for all the victims of the troubles, and time is the one thing they cannot afford. I therefore urge us all in this House to get past these difficulties and see a way clear to providing the resources that are needed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When we had the debate here on the Northern Ireland covenant, the hon. Gentleman said in response to many of the questions that he would go back to Sinn Féin to see how we could move the thing forward. In the period between that debate and now, has he had the opportunity to talk to Sinn Féin to see what its position on the Northern Ireland covenant would be, and is he going to give us good news that it will agree to it?

[Owen Smith]

No, I have not.

I know that the Secretary of State agrees that this should be the last year that we are passing a budget in this place instead of at Stormont. Will she outline a little further what she is doing now to ensure that that is the case?

For our part, notwithstanding the slightly less than successful intervention by the Prime Minister in February, we continue to believe that there is an important role for the Prime Minister in galvanising parties in Northern Ireland and acting as a rallying point to try to bring people together, ideally in some sort of prime ministerial and Taoiseach-led summit of all the parties. These things have worked in the past and we cannot understand why there has been so much refusal to consider it in the past 14 months. We also believe that the Secretary of State should be thinking about asking an independent chair to come in to try to take those talks to fruition.

If we simply continue with the cycle of failure that we have seen in the past year—if we do not try to shake things up somehow and inject new energy and dynamism into this process—we can all see the danger that we do drift towards direct rule. I know that she feels that that would be a grossly retrograde step for Northern Ireland, so I urge her to tell the House today, and in the coming days, what she is doing to make sure that it is not where we end up.

Northern Ireland Finances

Owen Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

May I begin by wishing the Secretary of State a very happy birthday for today? I thank her for advance sight of her statement. Of course, we saw most of it last week when the Government effectively published the budget for Northern Ireland in a written statement that came out at 5 o’clock on a Thursday evening, and I have to say that I think that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs; it is a bit discourteous to this House and, more importantly, the people of Northern Ireland to announce what is a £10.5 billion budget affecting key services for 1.8 million citizens in such a manner, with no opportunity for this House to question, challenge or, certainly, to amend those allocations, and in the absence of any accountable devolved Government in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Secretary of State would not think that was a suitable way to set a budget for her constituents in Staffordshire or mine in Pontypridd, and I hope she will explain to the House why the Government felt they needed to do it in that fashion.

Dare I suggest, Mr Speaker, that the real reason for this slightly stealthy announcement is that the Government are a bit embarrassed that just days before the Conservative party is going to vote through the latest rounds of cuts for public services affecting citizens in England, Wales and Scotland, the £1 billion partnership with the Democratic Unionist party means that Northern Ireland alone is being spared? We absolutely welcome that investment in Northern Ireland, but we also need to see investment in health and education and other key public services in every part of the UK, not just the bit where the Tories need DUP votes.

Turning to the substance of the budget, the Secretary of State said last week and repeated a moment ago that, in the absence of an Assembly and with decisions being taken by wholly unaccountable permanent secretaries, some fundamental decisions cannot be addressed. We agree, but it seems to me that some pretty fundamental decisions were taken last week by the Secretary of State, and I wonder whether she might answer some questions about them today.

First, on the decision to put up taxes in Northern Ireland through the regional rate, can the Secretary of State confirm whether that was discussed in detail and agreed with any or all of the parties in Northern Ireland? Secondly, in respect of the decision to significantly increase the budgets for some individual Departments, can she explain to the House the reasons for an increase for the Department of Justice of £36 million, or 70%, on last year, an increase for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of £40 million, or 110%, on last year’s budget, or the increase for the Department for Communities of £38 million, or 30%, on last year? I am sure that there are good reasons for all those increases and for the significant cuts that are made to some of the administrative Departments elsewhere, but the House and the people of Northern Ireland deserve some explanation why the decisions were made and by whom.

As I said, I welcome the extra resources for Northern Ireland, including the extra £80 million for health and education and the extra £100 million to transform the health service in line with the Bengoa report, but will the Secretary of State spell out how that £80 million on health and education will be divided? Who will make the decision about the appropriate allocation? Is that something that the DUP co-ordination committee will be discussing with the Conservative Government, or has it already been discussed?

The Secretary of State talks about big health reforms, and she will be aware that some of the reforms mentioned in Bengoa and other health plans related to hospital closures and other changes to the configuration of health services. Does she imagine that such big decisions could be taken by civil servants? If not, what exactly is the £100 million to be spent on?

The gravity of the issues at hand and the scale of the decisions being taken merely serve to underline the grave crisis that we face in Northern Ireland 14 months after the Executive collapsed and power sharing ended. I welcome the Secretary of State reiterating her commitment to the Belfast agreement and the principles of consent and power sharing that underpin it, especially in the light of recent attempts by some to undermine the agreement. However, we need more than more tireless activity; we need to see some success in the forthcoming negotiations if we are to get to next month’s 20th anniversary with a real sense of optimism about the future of the agreement and of power sharing.

The Secretary of State was at pains to point out that she does not anticipate any failure in the negotiations, but the House and the country will have been struck by the acknowledgement that she thinks that she may need to consider alternative means of keeping the agreement and political accountability alive in the absence of an Executive. That raises important questions about feasibility, given that some parties will not want to take part in a shadow or other form of Assembly, and about the form of any alternative. It also raises a significant risk, of which I hope she will take particular note. Moving to an alternative form of Assembly would take pressure off the parties to come to an agreement that allows them to re-engage in meaningful power sharing. Does she acknowledge that risk in any shift away from the agreement?

Finally, I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that this is the last time we push through a budget using this unsatisfactory process and the last time that a budget is set by this House and not Stormont, where it ought to be set.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about my birthday. I was not expecting to spend it making a budget statement, but there we go. I join him by saying that I hope that this is the last time that I have to stand at the Dispatch Box having taken such action, because we all agree that such decisions should be taken by locally elected politicians. The people who elected their politicians in Northern Ireland want them to take such decisions. I genuinely believe that those politicians want to take those decisions. There are, as he knows and as we have discussed previously, some issues on which the parties cannot agree, but I believe that we can get to a point at which a devolved Government can get up and running. That is what I am determined to achieve. Everything that I have done and set out today is in line with that aim. I want to see a devolved Government back in Stormont. The decisions that have been taken, while difficult, are those that needed to be taken for the public services, but I have taken them in the light of the fact that I do not want to undermine the constitutional arrangements and devolution settlement in Northern Ireland.

As for timing, the hon. Gentleman will recall that I committed to lay a budget by last week when I appeared in front of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee the week before last. That is why it was important to get the written statement out last week, and I am here at the earliest opportunity to explain things to the House and to take questions from right hon. and hon. Members. However, it is important to put it on the record that I did not publish the statement until I had had the chance to show it to all the main parties represented at Stormont and until they had had the opportunity to see the allocations. My fervent hope is that they will actually deliver the budget, which is why it is important that they were all consulted on the work that had been done.

I pay tribute to my officials and the civil servants of the Northern Ireland civil service. They have worked incredibly hard and selflessly to help to deliver the budget in a way that is uncomfortable for many. They want political direction from politicians, and it is difficult for them to do without it. They have gone above and beyond anything that we would expect of civil servants.

As for the decisions on the allocations, I looked at the key Departments. The hon. Gentleman asks about Justice, and I wanted to ensure that there was money to protect the policing budget, which he will recognise is very important. He asked about the £100 million from the confidence and supply arrangement for health transformation. That was money that the Government recognised and agreed needed to be spent in Northern Ireland because of its unique circumstances. I actually visited the hospital in Derry/Londonderry only last Monday and met consultants and managers, and it was clear to me that health transformation is a priority and that we need to ensure that the money is spent. I have taken legal advice to ensure that the money goes towards the priorities on which it is designed to be spent.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the alternative approaches, and he will know that many have suggested ways to arrange some form of functioning Assembly or scrutiny at Stormont. I am considering all the suggestions, a number of which have been made by the parties, and I would welcome further suggestions. I am taking legal advice on them all, because I do not want to do anything that undermines what we have achieved in the 20 years since the Belfast agreement. However, if there is a way of getting ourselves back on the road to a functioning devolved Government in Stormont, with scrutiny being applied by locally elected politicians, we should endeavour to try to find that route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I know the right hon. Gentleman served as a direct rule Minister, in 2004-05 or around then. He was distinguished in doing so—

[Owen Smith]

It was 2005-06.

[Karen Bradley]

I am being corrected by the Opposition Front Bencher.

Northern Ireland

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I also thank her and her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—whom I am delighted to see back in his place in this House today—for all the efforts they have both made, alongside the Irish Government, to facilitate agreement between the parties.

All of us in this place know that these are very difficult issues, and I commend all the parties in the talks, especially the DUP and Sinn Féin, on the total engagement they have shown on behalf of their communities. I have to say that I must also commend the Secretary of State on the Herculean optimism she continues to hold to in still hoping for a deal to be done and on the clear statement that she is rejecting the calls to accede to direct rule with immediate effect. Optimism is a vital ingredient in Northern Ireland, even when it is at its most difficult to summon, so I will not criticise the Government for remaining hopeful.

But clarity and contingency planning have also been important features of the process, so people know where they are in that process and what will follow if there is no progress. On those questions, I fear that many in Northern Ireland will be little the wiser after the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon, because she told us, in a crucial passage, that “it became possible” in the recent talks “to identify a basis for a possible agreement” to form an Executive, including “on the difficult issues of language and culture”. That is a very optimistic statement, and it is a view that has been echoed by the Irish Government and Sinn Féin, but it is hotly disputed by the DUP, whose leader told us that there was no prospect of these discussions leading to a deal.

Ambiguity has also played a very important part on occasion in the Northern Ireland process, but both accounts cannot be accurate, and I hope the Secretary of State will accept that she has a duty to provide clarity to the people of Northern Ireland, not just because they deserve to know what is going on in their peace process, but because some, including some in this House, are using this period of confusion to advance their own agendas: to undermine the Good Friday agreement, which some see as an obstacle to Brexit, or to damage the concept of power sharing, which some have never supported. That is a reckless and dangerous game to play, because we in this place must never forget that the Belfast agreement ended a conflict that led to 3,500 lives being lost. Nor should we forget—especially those who are so quick to assert that the Brexit referendum is to be respected—that the Belfast agreement itself was copper-fastened with its own referendums, north and south, and they too must be respected and protected.

So I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the Government’s support for the agreement remains steadfast, and I ask her to confirm that she sees the Good Friday agreement as the only viable long-term option for the peaceful governance of Northern Ireland, and that the Government believe that its unique form of power sharing is indispensable to the agreement.

Coming back to last week and the events in Belfast, a simple way for the Government to clear up this confusion is to publish precisely where there was agreement and where the gaps remain—not in order to apportion blame, but to provide greater reassurance that progress has been made over the 13 months. So will the Secretary of State commit to providing further detail and to publishing some of those details?

One area where the Secretary of State has offered some further clarity today is on the possibility of a fresh election in Northern Ireland, and she should know that that would be met with glacial enthusiasm. Why does the Secretary of State think there is potentially an advantage in another election, the fifth in three years, in Northern Ireland? What would it achieve? Although she does have a statutory duty to call one at some point, that has been true since 27 March last year, and she and her predecessor have resisted the temptation to date.

The Secretary of State has also said that she is considering how best to give some certainty about the budget in Northern Ireland. We understand and accept that, and urge only that she consults properly with the parties, so that we can ensure maximum acceptance of, and agreements on, those budget allocations as part of the contingency planning. I hope she can commit to that too today.

Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State to consider what she will do to take forward some of the pressing issues facing Northern Ireland if her optimism is misplaced and a deal cannot be struck? It is not just on the issue of MLAs’ pay that people in Northern Ireland want to see action. Vital questions on the treatment of victims, both of the troubles and of historical institutional abuse, need to be resolved not just with consultation, but with legislation. These people have been waiting for far too long, so will she commit to looking at that in the absence of a deal?

Will the Secretary of State also commit to taking forward issues of human rights and social justice that are enjoyed naturally in other parts of the UK but denied to our citizens in Northern Ireland? In particular, can she confirm that one area of discussion between the parties was on the issue of equal marriage, and that agreement was reached to take matters forward through a private Member’s Bill in Stormont? In the absence of a Stormont Bill, would she consider legislating similarly to extend equal marriage rights to Northern Ireland? We believe that she should, and we will support her if she does so. To be clear, a Labour Government would legislate on that if Stormont could not do so.

Political problems are nothing new in Northern Ireland, but the current impasse has left the Northern Irish people without an accountable Government for almost 400 days. This is a profound crisis, and the Government have a profound duty to try to resolve it, and to preserve the Good Friday agreement and the principle of power sharing. We will continue to support the Government in trying to resolve the crisis, and we will support them on legislation wherever it is necessary, but we will hold them to account to preserve the Good Friday agreement in its spirit and its letter.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the tone of them. It is important that we in this House show unity and a unified front when it comes to resolving these issues and re-establishing devolved government in Northern Ireland. If both sides of the House work together with that purpose in mind, we will have all the more reason to hope that that can be achieved. He asked about a number of matters, and I will try to address as many of them as I can.

On the topic of legacy, to which I made reference in my statement, we have been working with the parties and the Victims’ Commissioner on a consultation programme. As I have said, I would very much prefer to do that in the context of devolved government in Stormont, but we clearly have a responsibility to the victims of the troubles, and it is absolutely right that we should deal with that. We will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the matter of legacy is dealt with, but as I say, we would much rather that it was done in the context of having devolved government in Stormont. We are committed to the institutions as set out in the Stormont House agreement, and we will be consulting on that.

We are also committed to the Belfast agreement, as I said in my statement, and to all successor agreements. The position in the Conservative party manifesto at the last election, and the position of this Government, is that the Belfast agreement is the right approach. It has led to great success for Northern Ireland, and more success can come. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Brexit. The joint report that was signed before Christmas makes specific reference to a commitment to the Belfast agreement and to respecting the institutions in the agreement.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the talks, and about what the British Government would publish. I want to make it clear that the talks that we have facilitated—we did not impose them—have been between the parties, particularly the two main parties. Therefore, any documentation or anything that has been written down is a matter for the parties; it is not a matter for the British Government. He also asked about an election. I have a statutory duty as Secretary of State to call an election, but I want to ensure that we have exhausted every avenue and every viable option to re-establish devolved government at Stormont. That is what the Government want to see, and that is what we are working towards. We will do all we can to achieve that, and I thank him for his support in that regard.

Draft Transparency of Donations and Loans etc. (Northern Ireland political parties) order 2018

Owen Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 General Committees

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.

May I start by saying that we in the Labour party welcome the moves the Government are making today to introduce transparency in Northern Ireland? They are long overdue and we would like to be able to support them wholeheartedly, but we cannot because of one aspect of the statutory instrument—the timing of the commencement of this introduction of transparency.

I welcome the Minister’s explanation of exactly what the order does. There were a lot of long sentences and acronyms, but the matter is actually quite simple—the history, why there is some controversy around it, and why we in the Labour party and other parties feel we cannot support it as it is drafted. The simple truth is that Labour tried to introduce transparency across the whole UK in respect of political donations in PPERA 2000, but there was agreement between then and effectively 2014 that Northern Ireland would be exempted from those provisions because, as the Minister rightly said, of concerns about the security and safety of individuals, the exposure of whose names as donors within Northern Ireland might lead them to be at risk.

We supported the extension from 2006 of the rolling over, if you like, of restrictions, which allowed political parties in Northern Ireland to report the nature of their donations to the Electoral Commission, but for those not to be made public. We supported the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, which, again as the Minister said, changed that legislation and allowed the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland to publish from 1 January 2014 the details of individual donors if the Secretary of State—this is the key power that he was given in that Act—moved through an Order in Council, as the Government are doing today, the ability for the Electoral Commission to do so.

At this point, I want to pay tribute to the work of Naomi Long, the former Member for Belfast East, to ensure sure that that was placed on the statue book in 2014, and for being a resolute campaigner—both she, and her party more broadly—for transparency before and after that date.

The question—the controversy—today is essentially about the date of the commencement of this provision. The provision is retrospective: it looks backwards to the mid-point of this year, and applies to all donations that might have been made since July, but it could have been applied right back to 1 January 2014, as the original 2014 legislation envisaged.

The question is quite simple: why did the Government choose not to do anything between 2014 and 2017? Why, at the beginning of 2107, after seemingly having no interest in this matter for the previous three years, did they choose to write to the political parties in Northern Ireland, asking their opinion about whether the time was now right for the 2014 legislation to apply, potentially from the first date of retrospective action, 2014?

There is concern about that letter and the subsequent decision to make this only prospective, and apply it only going forward, because of one particular donation. That is a donation of £425,000—the biggest donation, as far as I know, in the history of Northern Ireland politics—to the Democratic Unionist party, £300,000 of which was spent during the referendum campaign on a wraparound advertisement on the front page of the Metro newspaper, which was never distributed in Northern Ireland, nor indeed had any impact, one would assume, in Northern Ireland as it is not read there. However, that was probably the biggest single item of political expenditure by a party in the history of Northern Ireland. In comparison, in the election prior to the referendum, the DUP spent around £90,000. So £300,000 on one single advert in Metro was a very large amount of money.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am listening with great attention to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He mentioned newspapers. In my edition of The Irish News—a publication with which I am sure he is familiar— of 14 July, he is quoted as saying,

“the decision not to back-date”—

that is, the decision of the Secretary of State—

“funding transparency to 2014 was the best decision, because it had the support of the majority of North’s parties.”

That is what the hon. Gentleman said to The Irish News in the middle of July this year. Either he is flip-flopping on the issue now, or he is playing fast and loose for party political reasons on a sensitive issue at a sensitive time. Which is it?

[Owen Smith]

It is very simple. When the facts change, I change my mind. I make no bones about it. When the political parties in Northern Ireland change their view about the rationale for concealing this and for leaving the date as only prospective not retrospective, I change my mind. I will explain why I changed my mind about this. The truth is that there was no political pressure from the parties in Northern Ireland for the Government to get on with introducing this legislation after 2014—I completely and freely concede that. Nor was there— as the Minister rightly points out—in the submissions made by the political parties in response to the Secretary of State’s letter of 4 January 2017, any indication that they would like it to be retrospective other than in the submission from the Alliance party. What has changed since that date is that there has been growing concern about the source of the £425,000 donation to the DUP, and about the lack of transparency around that source.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

The figure is actually £435,000, not £425,000. Will my hon. Friend also note that the official Government consultation took place in January before this unprecedented donation came to light?

[Owen Smith]

That was the point I was making. I have seen both £425,000 and £435,000. I thought I would err on the side of caution and conservatism and plump for the lower number. I think that £435,000 might be the total donation, and £10,000 was spent in Northern Ireland specifically. However, the point that my right hon. Friend makes is precisely the point that I was making. Concern has emerged over the last year, and certainly over the last six months.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will give way in a moment; the hon. Gentleman has made his intervention.

[Chloe Smith]

The right hon. Member for Exeter is precisely on the point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State began this action in January. Can the hon. Member for Pontypridd explain why we have not received any further communication from the parties about changing their view, as he claims they have done? Did they not see that we were having a fully open process for the whole of 2017 in which they could have communicated that? They have not done that. I tell him that they have not. We have not received any such communication. There has been no change, and he is dancing on a pin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

Let me read out to the Minister some of the responses that I have received from the political parties in Northern Ireland, and I will also read out the view of the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland. I will start with the commission, as it is the only statutory consultee that the Government are meant to consult as a result of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014. It is profoundly disappointed that the Government have chosen not to backdate the donations to 2014, it welcomes the transparency that is going to be introduced prospectively—

[Chloe Smith]

Unlike the hon. Gentleman.

[Owen Smith]

Not unlike the hon. Gentleman because those were my opening words to the Committee today, so the Minister really ought to listen. But the Electoral Commission is profoundly disappointed that the provision will not be retrospective, which is also my view. Ann Watt, the head of the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission, said:

“While all reportable donations and loans received from 1 July 2017 will now be published by the commission, we would also like to see the necessary legislation put in place, as soon as possible, to allow us to publish details of donations and loans received since January 2014.”

Her predecessor, Séamus Magee, who retired in 2014, said:

“The deal on party donations and loans must be part of the DUP/Conservative deal. No other explanation…Every party in Northern Ireland understood that the publication of political donations over £7,500 was to be retrospective to Jan 2014.”

I put it to the Minister that part of the reason that some of the political parties did not respond saying that they wanted it to be retrospective is that they naturally understood that that would be the case, given that that was what the legislation allowed for. When the Minister responds, I am sure she will tell us why she has arbitrarily picked the date of 1 July 2017. There is no reason that I can see, either in statute or in ministerial comments, for coming up with that date.

Let me read some of the views of the parties. Conor Murphy, a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Newry and Armagh, said on behalf of Sinn Féin:

“The British Government’s refusal to backdate new laws on political donations is aimed at covering-up so-called Brexit ‘dark money’ that was paid to the DUP”.

He also said:

“If the DUP and the British Government were serious about transparency in government then they would support the retrospective publication from January 2014 of all donations over the reportable threshold.”

Robin Swann, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, has told me in writing today that his party would not oppose retrospective introduction of the legislation, and a similar view is now held by the Social Democratic and Labour party. In addition, the view of the Alliance party, which was clear back in January, was that it, too, wanted publication. The truth is that the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland and those of the Labour party have changed as a result of growing concern about the DUP donation.

[Simon Hoare]

For the hon. Gentleman’s interest and information, I am a Catholic Unionist who was on the remain side, so I am not necessarily particularly keen on what the money was spent on, but can I just take him back to his own words? He talks about January and about a donation in the referendum. That quote was in The Irish News in the middle of July this year. He was clearly behind the curve compared with all those people who were saying from January that it should all be backdated. Why is he flip-flopping?

[Owen Smith]

I will have to live with the terrible accusation that I was behind the curve—I freely confess that to the hon. Gentleman. However, we are now up with the curve. Our view is now very clear, which is why we will oppose the statutory instrument today.

The very simple question is this: why are people concerned about this DUP money? The reason is that the money came from something called the Constitutional Research Council—a little-known, recondite, Scottish-based Unionist think-tank of sorts—which is interesting because it had never before made a political donation of any sort. In the institution’s history, it has made one declarable donation. It does not have a website or accounts, and it seems pretty shady to me in lots of ways. It is one of those unincorporated associations that have been used to channel money to the Tory party in previous general elections.

There are significant doubts about the source of the money, and questions about what it was for and where it came from. Was it from overseas? Was it a legal donation? Of course, the DUP could clear all this up by telling us the exact source of the money.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am amazed at the allegations that have been made by the hon. Gentleman. First, the donation was declared. Secondly, the name of the organisation was given. Thirdly, the Electoral Commission accepted the bona fides of the group that was named. Finally, the uses to which the money was put were immediately transparent, because they were laid out to the Electoral Commission. All of that satisfied the rules of the Electoral Commission. For that reason, I find it difficult to see how he describes the money as shady. All the obligations required under the law were met.

[Owen Smith]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I can very easily describe the money as shady. The Constitutional Research Council is not a body that has on its books access to the best part of half a million pounds’ worth of resources. It is not a body that has made political donations other than one other self-declared donation of £6,500 to an hon. Member who campaigned for Brexit. It is not a body about which we have transparency—the person who is responsible for running the CRC has not said where the money has come from, and it has refused to reveal who its donors are. That may be its right under the nature of its unincorporated association, but I think it is shady. Given the suspicion that the DUP was used as a vehicle to channel money that could not be deployed elsewhere during the Brexit campaign, these are the right sort of questions that anybody who is interested in transparency in this House ought to be asking.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, no matter what he proposes, the information that has already been made public voluntarily is no different to what the registered interest would be; that the transparency he seeks is already there; and that he could not ask for any more information than has already been revealed? Unless he is proposing a change—

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

As my right hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, why not backdate it then? Why not accept the view that is now uniformly held by all other political parties in Northern Ireland save the DUP? The hon. Member for North Antrim is right that the DUP revealed—I think it was voluntary—that the Constitutional Research Council made the donation, which would be in line with the legislation. However, he does not want any more scrutiny on that money because there are serious questions about where the CRC got the money from. If it was not from Richard Cook, the man in charge of the organisation, who was it from? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us?

[Ian Paisley]

Once again, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would change the law and get the Electoral Commission to do that with all donations to all parties? What has been put out voluntarily is more than the Electoral Commission likes to be revealed. The name of the donor and the amount of the donation are available, and the Electoral Commission has the address and other such details. The hon. Gentleman is making a specific difference between this donation and any other donation made to any other political party, including his own. He has accepted that nothing else would be revealed under the changes that he has suggested.

[Owen Smith]

In that case, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman or any DUP Member should object to this measure being backdated to 2014. If there is nothing to hide, everybody should simply get on with revealing it and he can agree on that point.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it would be impossible to backdate the details of one particular donation? All the donations to all the political parties would have to be backdated. He has already outlined why his party supported the non-revelation of where donations came from. People who donated money from 2014 in the anticipation that their name could not be revealed would find their names out in the public domain. It cannot be done for one particular donation—it would have to be done for every donation, which would remove the good faith that was there when people made donations before or since 2014.

[Owen Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right that it would have to apply across the board for all political donations. Séamus Magee, formerly the head of the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission, tweeted:

“Every party in Northern Ireland understood that the publication of political donations over £7,500 was to be retrospective to Jan 2014.”

I presume that anybody who made a donation in Northern Ireland after January 2014 did so in full knowledge of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, which made it clear that their donations would be revealed if the Secretary of State were to pass an order in this place, which he could have done in January 2014.

[Ian Paisley]

If that is the case, why did Labour members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee subsequently vote to block that? Why did they support not revealing that information?

[Owen Smith]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but the Labour party’s view is that this measure should be retrospective and should be backdated to 2014. We agree with the head of the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission that it is deeply disappointing that the Government are choosing not to do that. In truth, the issue is important beyond Northern Ireland, not least because the money was used to prosecute the Brexit campaign outwith Northern Ireland, and because it speaks to a broader issue of transparency and honesty in our politics.

Politics has come into malodorous disrepute in recent years, and all new generations of politicians bear the onus and have the responsibility to clean it up and bring us back into good repute. Unfortunately, this affair stinks. It stinks because the Government have chosen to come up with a date of July 2017 that deliberately excludes from publication the DUP donation—the largest donation and biggest item of political campaigning expenditure in the history of Northern Ireland politics. There must be a very simple reason for that if the Government are genuine about wanting further transparency and are honest about feeling that Northern Ireland needs to be brought into line with the rest of the UK. It will not have escaped the notice of people across the country that it is deeply ironic that the DUP, which only last week was protesting that Northern Ireland had to be absolutely in line with the rest of the UK, is unable to accept that Northern Ireland should be in line with the rest of the UK on this issue. The DUP wants special dispensation and special status for Northern Ireland on political donations.

That irony will not have escaped people. What must equally not escape people is that we need to move into a new era of openness and transparency. That is why Labour will be voting against the draft order and asking the Government to go away and think again or, if not, to justify why they have come up with the arbitrary date of July 2017, which precludes publication of important public information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Mr Hosie, for giving me the opportunity to speak, even though I know that some Committee members may object to the fact that I am not a member of the Committee. I do not know whether they are questioning my right to speak, but this issue relates to Northern Ireland. There have been queries as to whether an intervention should be accepted from both my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and myself, but thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I am surprised by the reaction of the Labour party to this measure, for a number of reasons. It has been accepted for a long time, and indeed was accepted by the last Labour Government, that there were very good reasons why political donations in Northern Ireland, and the source of those donations, were not made public. That was because of the security situation, and the fear people had that being identified with a particular political party would make them a target. Thankfully, that issue is not as strong today, but nevertheless there remain some reservations in people’s minds, because of the ongoing terrorist activity that takes place in Northern Ireland. However, the DUP, along with other parties, supported the original measures to introduce transparency in political donations.

All the political parties, apart from the Alliance party—even when the controversy about the money for Brexit was still going on—accepted the date which is in today’s legislation. That is the first point. I know that the shadow spokesman may have had quotes from other parties about this issue, but since the consultation took place and the terms of the legislation were known, no political party has made the case to the Government to have the date changed. There have been complaints, and strangely enough they have all been about one particular donation—not about the general principle of the start date when the information should be made public.

[Owen Smith]

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm—because the chronology is important—that the consultation to which he refers, and to which the parties gave their responses, was in January 2017, and the information divulged by his party, that it was the Constitutional Research Council that gave it the £425,000 or £435,000, came only in February after the consultation had closed?

[Sammy Wilson]

And since then there has been ample opportunity. Of course the information about the donation was known before January 2017.

[Owen Smith]

Not its source, though.

[Sammy Wilson]

I will come to the source in a moment or two. I think there has been an intervention already highlighting the answer to that. Since then there have been no representations to the Government from political parties that the date should be changed, because of course the date that was set was agreed by all the parties except the Alliance party, on the understanding that people who made donations up until that date knew that the information would not be revealed.

Let us come to the particular issue. I take issue with the Labour party for a number of reasons. First, it seems there is a fixation on the money spent on the successful campaign to get the United Kingdom to leave the EU. Perhaps the reaction from the Labour party today is more a reflection of its animosity towards the decision made by the people of the UK to leave the EU than it is about the source of the donated money.

[Sammy Wilson]

We did spend money in Northern Ireland on the campaign and of course it was a UK-wide campaign, not a Northern Ireland one, as the right hon. Lady knows well. We took part in the UK-wide referendum and many of our members spoke on the issue at meetings across the United Kingdom, not just in Northern Ireland. We took our place in the UK-wide campaign.

[Owen Smith]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson]

Let me just finish my point. I suspect that some of this is directed more at the views of those in the Labour party who wish the referendum result had not been as it was, who are doing their best to overturn that result, and who have taken umbrage at those parties that successfully campaigned to leave the EU.

[Sammy Wilson]

I shall leave that point right now, Mr Hosie.

[Owen Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sammy Wilson]

Only if I am not going to be led down a route that will get me in trouble with the Chairman.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful.

[The Chair]

Order. Face the Chair, please, so everyone can hear.

[Owen Smith]

Thank you, Mr Hosie. The hon. Gentleman is very generous with his time—as I was, of course, in accepting interventions during my speech. I just want to place it on the record that our approach has nothing to do with the Labour party’s views about Brexit; it is entirely to do with our views about transparency or otherwise. In that context, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell us who it was who asked the DUP to spend that money not in Northern Ireland but in GB.

[Sammy Wilson]

Let me come to the point on transparency. There are certain rules that are laid down by the Electoral Commission, and they were met entirely by the party. The first rule is about where the donation came from. That was declared. The second rule is about how much. That was fully declared. The third is about what it was spent on. As has been outlined in the debate, what it was spent on was completely transparent; so all the requirements for transparency were met. They satisfied the Electoral Commission and have been registered with it. Indeed, the reason we are having the debate is that the money, its source and the use to which it was put were revealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Again, I do not know about the fine or the source or the reason for the fine. If they were fined, that shows that there was transparency about this. That is the point I have been trying to make very clearly. It was known how the money was spent. If the rules were broken, then sanctions were imposed on it. I would have thought that that undermines the right hon. Gentleman’s argument about some dark cloak here, dark money and lack of accountability and transparency. Otherwise the Electoral Commission would not have been in a position to impose a fine, because it would not have known, because it was under a cloak of darkness. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to make his mind up. The fine actually makes the point for me.

To close, I believe that the terms of the order reflect—I will give way in a moment, because I would like to hear whether the Labour party still supports the exemption for political donations from foreign sources exclusively. Do Labour Members regard it as only affecting Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland, or would they like to see further legislation to stop that inflow of funds, which is totally hidden and used by Sinn Féin and is one of the reasons why they can spend so much on elections, because they do have sources of funding which other parties in the United Kingdom cannot obtain?

[Owen Smith]

We believe that there should be transparency and we believe that there should not be foreign moneys coming into our politics. That is very clear. In that context, I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can confirm whether he knows definitively whether this money from the CRC came from foreign sources or definitively came from within the UK, and if he does not know that, does he not think the DUP should have found that out?

[Sammy Wilson]

If it came from foreign sources, the Electoral Commission would have taken the requisite legal steps to fine the party and to fine other sources; otherwise, the Electoral Commission would have an interest in that.

In closing, this debate has been agreed by the parties. It was not contested by the Labour Party, right up until the very latest time. It is a debate which I believe safeguards those who give donations in good faith. It is a debate which, if moved, would not move this issue about the donation around the Brexit campaign one inch further, because no further information would be given. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will support the order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset for his comments and support. I will deal with a few of the remarks made in the debate and then, in wrapping up, I will emphasise why the Committee should vote for this order.

In chronological order, I will begin with the arguments of the hon. Member for Pontypridd. Frankly, I find it amazing that he is opposing transparency. He will no doubt say that his first words were to support transparency, but his second words were to say that he would vote against it. That is a shabby state of affairs. Our words should echo our deeds. The Government are committed to transparency, which is why we have introduced this order; the parties are committed to transparency; the public are committed to transparency; and the Electoral Commission is committed to transparency. He cannot bring himself to vote for it. He is not committed to transparency.

[Owen Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say that he is committed to transparency.

[Owen Smith]

I am, as I said at the beginning of my remarks. I hope the Minister will explain to the Committee why she is not in favour of transparency in line with the original legislation that her Government passed in 2014. That offered more transparency than is currently on offer—Labour wants more transparency, not less. All she needs to do is tell the Committee that she will take this measure away, rethink it in the light of changed views in Northern Ireland and in this House, and adopt what was originally intended by her Government, backdated to 2014.

[Chloe Smith]

That was a lovely long intervention, so that is the hon. Gentleman’s lot—I will not take another one from him. I will explain exactly those points.

I remind the House that the Conservative manifesto for the 2017 election in Northern Ireland pledged to increase transparency. We are delivering on that. The Labour party is choosing not to. That is amazing.

We wrote to the parties in January. This year, Northern Ireland parties have engaged in two elections and in sustained political talks, so to offer the position in January, to seek views and then to take action from July is a reasonable approach. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already explained that he thinks that it is not right or fair to impose retrospective regulations or conditions on people who donated in good faith with the rules as they were set at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman allows me to move on to my next, rather important point.

[Owen Smith]

What is the answer?

[Chloe Smith]

The answer is that we are a responsible Government who are introducing the draft order on transparency, and while we have no intention of providing for the publication of pre-2017 donations, we intend to work with the Electoral Commission to review the operation of the broader framework for donations and loans in Northern Ireland when these transparency arrangements have bedded in. That is rather important, because it reminds us that what we have today is the beginning of obtaining an important amount of data; from today, we will be able to better see the full situation.

On that, I turn briefly to the comments from the hon. Member for East Antrim, although he is not a voting member of the Committee. I welcome his affirmation that parties wants to move to full transparency. He also reminded us that only one party proposed backdating, and I reiterate that we have not received any communications from parties indicating that their positions have changed since January.

I also say to the hon. Gentleman that I understand his argument regarding Irish donations. The draft order will provide transparency and will be the beginning of our having some valuable data. When that transparency has bedded in and there is a fuller understanding of how Northern Irish parties are funded, my officials and I intend to work with the Electoral Commission to look at other aspects of the operation of the donation and loan systems in Northern Ireland, to review whether there might be a case for further reforms.

The Government welcome the Electoral Commission’s support for the draft order. We think we should get on with it; to delay will lead to even greater secrecy. Those Members who vote against the draft order are voting to delay transparency and to avoid the normalisation of Northern Ireland’s politics, and they are voting against the ability of anybody to hold politicians to account. Funnily enough, we are talking today about the standards of politicians and the clarity of our conduct. Our votes should mirror our views. If we believe in having transparency henceforth, let us vote for it.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Owen Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

No, I will not. The hon. Lady may think that the answer is not good enough, but it has the merit of being true.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Will the Minister simply confirm whether women rape victims in Northern Ireland will be at risk of potential prosecution as a result of these measures—yes or no?

[Chloe Smith]

No.

[Owen Smith]

The Minister and indeed the Prime Minister need to reflect on that answer, because I have a letter here from Barra McCrory, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, who said, in answer to my question on this very issue:

“It is, however, a potential offence to withhold information regarding an act of rape. The legislation does not distinguish between a victim and third parties to whom a disclosure is made; each is potentially liable to prosecution.”

How on earth can the Government countenance making women in Northern Ireland who are subject to rape imprisonable under the law? How can she accept that?

[Chloe Smith]

The fact is that we are not doing so. As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), there is clear guidance on the form that makes the legal position very clear, and we have sensitively handled that as an exception for precisely those reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that vote in Australia. I was proud, as I know he and other colleagues were, when we passed the legislation here in this House to enable same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Australian Government will indeed act on that vote very soon.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), may I just have it confirmed—as has just been intimated to me—that his point of order flows specifically out of exchanges at Northern Ireland questions? Otherwise, points of order come after urgent questions and statements, and we would not want to change that good practice, would we? Does his point of order relate to, flow out of and connect with Northern Ireland questions?

[Owen Smith]

Entirely.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh—not just profoundly, but entirely! I am deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman, as will be the House, I hope.

[Owen Smith]

Thank you for granting this point of order, Mr Speaker, which relates to an incredibly important issue that was raised in Northern Ireland questions. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) whether women in Northern Ireland who were appealing for exemption under the so-called rape clause that currently applies there might be liable to prosecution because of the way in which that measure intersects with the criminal law in Northern Ireland, I was astonished to hear the Minister say no. She gave a one-word answer saying clearly that such women would not be liable to prosecution, but I have a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland that directly contradicts that. What can you do, Mr Speaker, to get Ministers back to the House to correct what I believe to have been a misleading statement?

[Mr Speaker]

Pursue. The hon. Gentleman is well familiar with the mechanisms available to Members in this House. He has effectively, through the device of a point of order, repeated a point that he made—I think probably in some consternation—to the Minister during Northern Ireland questions. If he is dissatisfied with the answer because he thinks that there is a clear conflict, and he wishes to pursue the matter, he can do so either by written questions or, if he judges the matter to be pressing, by the other device to bring the matter to the attention of the House, with which he will be well familiar—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is not hailing a taxi. I can see her perfectly well, and we will come to her. She need not worry. We are saving her up. If the hon. Gentleman so wishes, he can use that device.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Owen Smith Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point about the impact on victims, but nothing in this Bill gives that authorisation to me; nothing changes in the day-to-day operations of decision making in Northern Ireland. This Bill is firmly not direct rule; we are seeking to give the headline approvals for Departments to operate within their usual flexibilities. The Northern Ireland civil service has published separate estimates, and we have published separate estimates on its behalf, but this is in that space that exists. I have met the victims and survivors groups on two occasions, and there has not been a response to the recommendations as yet. It is right that an Executive, having asked for that report, should be the one that responds to it. I know that this is something of great hurt and great pain, which is why I hope earnestly that we are able to see a resolution of it quickly. I believe the families want that sense of progress against the recommendations.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I hesitate to intervene, as I am about to make a speech, but I seek further clarity on this point. We have all met the SAVIA people today. Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s support for devolution and his desire not to start direct rule, is there anything stopping him legislating, as he is going to in respect of the extra moneys provided as a result of the Democratic Unionist party deal, for an interim payment in order to heal, to some extent, the wounds suffered by people who have been subject to historical abuse?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it presupposes that there is broad agreement on the recommendations from the Hart report—

[Owen Smith]

There is.

[James Brokenshire]

I am talking about all the recommendations contained in it. My understanding is that we do not have that formal response back, because we have not had the Executive in place. Therefore, this Bill is not about specifying how the Northern Ireland civil service should operate and take certain actions—that takes us down the pathway on day-to-day decision making and what the Northern Ireland civil service should do. That is why I say firmly and clearly that what needs to happen is that we have that Executive back in place to receive that report. I know, from what the head of the Northern Ireland civil service David Sterling has said to me, that it had been preparing advice and a response that an incoming Executive can take up very quickly. That is the right way to respond, but of course I recognise keenly the frustrations that victims and survivors have felt. I know that from the direct exchanges I have had with them.

[Owen Smith]

It is clear that there is cross-party support for the Hart report recommendations—certainly for the compensation and for the notion of an interim payment. I believe all the party leaders sent a letter to that effect in the summer, and we have heard again here today support from representatives of the DUP. Only today I have seen an email from David Sterling to SAVIA saying that he wants to act quickly, so may I ask the Secretary of State to do all he can, including potentially legislating, so that he does indeed act quickly?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sure David Sterling will hear keenly what is being said across the House today on the points that SAVIA has been making to all of us in its meetings and on the desire to see the Hart recommendations advanced, responded to and, where they have been accepted, taken forward. I am sure this House has given that message to David Sterling in relation to what has been said. As I say, and as the hon. Gentleman will know, David Sterling has equally been receiving representations from political parties in Northern Ireland and from SAVIA directly. We have heard about the response he has given and the situation we are currently in—not having an Executive or other means by which to provide direct political instruction. None the less, I know that the Northern Ireland civil service takes its responsibilities and its duties within the law—within the framework in which it is operating—keenly to heart. I am sure it will act appropriately, recognising the points that parties in Northern Ireland have made on this issue, and will do what it can to advance this issue in the difficult and frustrating circumstances we find ourselves in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I join the Secretary of State in condemning the actions of the people who left a viable pipe bomb in Omagh on Remembrance Sunday—on a day and in a place designed to cause maximum harm and shock. It is truly contemptible of those people. I equally condemn the actions of the men who conducted what can only be described as a knee-capping last night in Londonderry-Derry—a city where, even as we speak, there is apparently another incident involving what the police believe to be a viable pipe bomb.

All these awful events are a timely and salutary reminder of Northern Ireland’s past—a past that we all hoped that we had long since left behind, but which I fear we have not always left behind. These events are also a reminder of the propensity of violence in Northern Ireland to fill a vacuum when politics fails, and I am afraid that we are here today because politics has failed. This Bill is, unfortunately, a testament to political failure. It is a failure by the majority parties that were in government together, power sharing in Northern Ireland, and that have fallen out and been unable to come back together. I am afraid that it is also a failure of the Secretary of State’s Government to bring about the restitution of trust and the reconstitution of the Assembly and its institutions.

The Secretary of State has been at pains to say that this is not direct rule. I understand why he wants to emphasise that point—technically, of course, he is right—but that is not what nationalists in Northern Ireland will see in today’s events. That is not how they will characterise it, and that needs to be reflected as they unfortunately now lack a voice in this place for the first time in a long time. The reality is that we are living in something of a twilight zone between devolution and direct rule, with real problems for accountability and transparency, as so many Democratic Unionist party Members described earlier in the debate.

Today’s budget is only a quick fix until the end of March, so there will be a further one. It is difficult to credit the Secretary of State saying that this is the budget that the Northern Ireland Executive would have brought forward in the event of devolution and that this is effectively a continuation of the trajectory set in the budget in December last year. Twelve months have now passed, and it is quite hard to see a direct line of accountability between that indicative budget and the sums before us now.

Let me be clear that we will support the Bill tonight. We absolutely believe that the Secretary of State has no choice but to bring forward this budget, and we accept all the arguments he has made in that regard. Northern Ireland’s public services need to be supported. The roads budget is running out of the money to fill the potholes, and there are significant problems in housing, health and education, all of which need to be addressed with extra resources in Northern Ireland. However, this budget does raise questions about the transparency, accountability and sustainability of this approach. DUP colleagues who raise such questions are right to do so, and other hon. Members across the House will also raise these points.

[Lady Hermon]

The hon. Gentleman has signalled his support for the Bill. Will he also signal to the House his support for the issue raised, quite rightly, by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds)? When the matter is brought before the House, will the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and the leader of his party firmly support the termination of representative money to Sinn Féin MPs, who do not take their seats and represent their people in this House?

[Owen Smith]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, that is a slightly separate issue from those we are discussing today. We can discuss that matter on another day, and I will be happy to address it at that point.

I hope to address the profound concerns about the Government’s mishandling of the wider political process, but I will first talk a bit about the budget. The Secretary of State has effectively said that this is a flat budget for the Northern Ireland Departments in aggregate, with perhaps a 3% uplift to reflect inflationary pressures over the period. But within that headline figure, there are shifts between Departments, with cuts for some and increases for others. I cannot help but bring to the attention of the House—although my thunder was stolen—the quite extraordinary 32% increase on last year’s figure received by the Executive Office, compared with a 3% reduction in the budget for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and a 0.3% reduction in the budget for the Department for the Economy. Those are curious decisions that the Secretary of State was not able adequately to explain away to the House. I accept that this is complicated, but those decisions seem to be fairly fundamental.

Such decisions raise real questions about the accountability of decision making in this twilight zone. It is true that there is an increase for education in this budget versus the education recommendations made by the Secretary of State in April and the summer, but that raises a question that the House should ask: who has made the decision to increase education spending in Northern Ireland? There was a decision to cut it, and I am very pleased that that decision was reversed and that there has been a slight uplift in education spending. But someone made that decision. If it was not a Northern Ireland Executive Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, it was a civil servant. That civil servant is wholly unaccountable and does not have a clear line of accountability now to elected politicians in Northern Ireland or to the Secretary of State. So while we may well support the decision, we must ask questions about it.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is easy to blame the Secretary of State or the civil servants? Does he also accept that if, this time last year, the then Sinn Féin Minister, who was responsible, and who should have taken responsibility, for laying out the budget for this year, had done his job, it would have been clear who was responsible for the ups and downs of spending in that Department, and that the same is true of other Departments? The fact that Sinn Féin was scared of making budget decisions, and brought the Executive down rather than take hard decisions, means that we are in this situation today. I know that the Labour party has an association with Sinn Féin, but could the hon. Gentleman find it in his heart to at least acknowledge that Sinn Féin is responsible for the problem we face today?

[Owen Smith]

I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in terms of a connection between the Labour party and Sinn Féin—that is certainly not something I recognise, and it is certainly not a connection I speak to. I am not blaming the Secretary of State, and I am certainly not blaming hard-working civil servants, for making these decisions. I am merely pointing out, as the hon. Gentleman did, that decisions have been taken, not by Ministers and not by the Secretary of State, but by civil servants, and we have no means of questioning those civil servants or holding them accountable for those decisions.

A further decision—it is not included in the fine print, but I understand it is on the stocks in Northern Ireland—involves closing four out of the eight children’s outdoor education centres there. That is an important decision for the children of Northern Ireland, and it is apparently to be made by civil servants in the suspended Northern Ireland Assembly. The question for the Secretary of State is, does he support that decision to cut outdoor education centres? If he does not, is he at least lobbying David Sterling and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland civil service to tell them that he is not in favour of it?

The Secretary of State talked earlier about SAVIA and the need quickly to bring forward changes and interim payments for the victims in the historical institutional abuse inquiry. Is he lobbying David Sterling to say he should get on with that and find the money for those people, who have joined us today in the Gallery? If the Secretary of State is absolving himself of responsibility for these decisions, or if he is accurately presenting the fact that he does not have responsibility for them at present, what is he doing to influence the decision making that is taking place?

I gently put it to the Secretary of State that people in Northern Ireland will not accept it as entirely credible that Northern Ireland Office Ministers have no influence over these decisions, especially in this twilight zone. In the invent of a major economic or security crisis in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State would, of course, expect to be held accountable for helping to solve it—Northern Ireland Ministers would not be responsible for that. I hope that the Secretary of State would recognise that. I also hope that he would recognise that, in this curious period we are in, he will need to step up to the plate and take more responsibility.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman is making the point that commenced this debate: from tonight, there is effectively no political accountability for the head of the Northern Ireland civil service. No matter how good or objective he is, he is not answerable to the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive. More importantly, from tonight, he is not answerable to this place or to the Secretary of State. That is not tenable for any more than a few days, let alone weeks or months. I urge the shadow Secretary of State to join in urging that we appoint Ministers urgently from this place and get on with administering Northern Ireland and accounting for it properly.

[Owen Smith]

I accept the point the hon. Gentleman makes—that the NICS is currently effectively unaccountable is an unarguable fact—but I do not share his view that the remedy is instantly to bring in direct rule Ministers. The answer we have to seek, in keeping with the guiding light for us all in this process—the Good Friday/ Belfast agreement—is to get devolution back up and running. That has to be the key focus of the Secretary of State and us all, because he is right that direct rule will be a massive backward step for Northern Ireland. Some parties may be more sanguine about the prospect of direct rule Ministers stepping in in Northern Ireland, but I am not. We in the Labour party are not sanguine about that, and we think it would be a hugely retrograde step. Experience tells us that as soon as we have direct rule Ministers back in Stormont, it will be the devil’s own job to get them out, and we will want to get them out, because the hon. Gentleman will want Northern Ireland’s local politicians to take local decisions.

[Conor McGinn]

Can we be clear about this? The alternative to a functioning Executive and Assembly is not a consultative Assembly and not direct rule; it is the onward implementation of strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday agreement. There will not be direct rule in isolation. An intergovernmental conference will have to be convened, and Northern Ireland would be governed in partnership between the Irish Government and the UK Government, as envisaged in the provisions of the Good Friday agreement.

[Owen Smith]

I would not put it exactly like that, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we are in untried, untested waters. We will need to see that the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement are preserved, however we take forward the talks process, and that means, crucially, that a way must be found for those north-south institutions, and for east-west institutions, to work. That may require a greater role for the Assembly than we have had in previous periods of direct rule. We may need to be imaginative about that, and I hope that the Secretary of State is thinking about that.

[Ian Paisley]

The shadow Secretary of State knows my personal commitment to devolution. I would love to see it working, but at some point we have to stand up and say, “The emperor has no clothes.” That is essentially what is happening in Northern Ireland. The worst thing this Parliament can allow to happen in Ulster is for a sense of drift to take hold. Leadership has to be respected. A firm grip has to be taken of the situation, and it must be taken by Her Majesty’s Government. I urge the shadow Secretary of State to urge that that happens quickly.

[Owen Smith]

I am encouraged to hear the hon. Gentleman remind the House of his support for devolution. I remind the House that the DUP has always strongly supported devolution, even in periods when some in Unionism were less keen on the prospect of devolution. History is important in all this.

The question for us, therefore, is how we see devolution restored, and there is a question here for the Secretary of State. It is not a matter of blame but a statement of fact that we are almost 11 months on from the collapse of the Northern Ireland institutions: 11 months of dialogue, largely behind closed doors, between the two largest parties, Sinn Féin and the DUP, which has come to nought; 11 months, effectively, of banging our heads against a brick wall and failing to make substantive progress. The Secretary of State will tell us we have made progress, but people in Northern Ireland want to know where it is, because it has not been spelled out to them—or to me—at any point over the past 11 months. It is clear that what we have been doing repeatedly over those 11 months has not being working, and there is no reason for us to assume that it will be 12th time lucky.

The question for the Secretary of State, therefore, is what is he going to do differently—not what is he going to do the same as he has been doing for the past 11 months —to take this process forward? My colleagues and I would like to urge him to do some specific things and to consider some extra ways in which he can take the process forward. We do so built on the experience we have with our proud record of helping to facilitate breakthroughs in devolution, including the establishment, of course, of the Good Friday agreement and all the institutions that stem from it.

I urge the Secretary of State, first, to set out a road map for how he is going to get the institutions back up and running and how he is going to provide us with some clarity on the steps he plans to take over the next few months. Keeping us in the dark and, out of thin air, having a series of meetings behind closed doors between the two parties is not working and is not delivering a breakthrough.

Secondly, and most importantly perhaps, will the Secretary of State consider the prospect of an independent chair to come in to help to give new energy and impetus to the talks? Labour Members know that that was incredibly important as a vehicle for taking things forward. Indeed, I think that it is true to say that without Senator George Mitchell, in particular, we might not have seen the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—that is how important independent eyes have been in this process. If he is not prepared to learn from the experience of George Mitchell and others, such as my right hon. Friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, why not? Why are we not considering that step, because it has worked in the past and should be considered in the future?

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

As a veteran of many talks processes, I urge caution on the part of the hon. Gentleman about the idea that an independent chair would be a panacea in resolving these issues. That has not been so in the past—I have sat under independent chairmanships —and it is unlikely to be so now. In fairness to the Secretary of State, the current impasse is not of his doing. Other parties really do need to step up to the mark and show their commitment to devolution in Northern Ireland. In that respect, the DUP will not be found wanting.

[Owen Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that the Secretary of State is not exclusively—or, indeed, primarily—responsible for the impasse. That is down to the political parties in Northern Ireland that have failed to come to an agreement—that, too, I am afraid, is a statement of fact. The right hon. Gentleman is also right that independent chairs have not always taken things forward. As he will know, the Haass talks, for example, were an attempt to get someone with experience of making progress in Northern Ireland to do so again, but that failed. However, there are other instances from the past. George Mitchell, the example that I cited, was important in taking things forward, as indeed was Richard Haass in his first incarnation in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, we have indicated, in our willingness to break the current impasse, that we would form an Executive today and continue the negotiations in parallel. The problem is not that the DUP is holding back the formation of an Executive; it is that Sinn Féin refuses to form an Executive until its demands are met. There is a clear difference, and the hon. Gentleman does a disservice to the talks by failing to make that distinction.

[Owen Smith]

I am not sure that that is entirely fair. As I said, in the absence of a nationalist voice in this House, we need to make sure that we seek fairly to represent both sides of the debate. The nationalists have argued that an aspect of the current impasse is the failure to make progress on the issue of the Irish language, and in particular on a stand-alone Irish language Act.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to tell me that we will make progress on that and that the prospect of a stand-alone Irish language Act is on the cards, that would obviously be a breakthrough, but I am not sure that he is going to do so.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

What I am going to say to the hon. Gentleman is that for me and my constituents, health and education are far more important than the Irish language. They want our Assembly Members back in there taking decisions while they work through outstanding issues such as the Irish language.

[Owen Smith]

I would not disagree with that. I am sure that that is the view of constituents from all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. It is certainly a reflection of what I hear from constituents from all parts of Northern Ireland.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, to his party and to the Secretary of State that this perhaps illustrates that we are not making a breakthrough by simply relying on dialogue between the two major parties. Those parties clearly have a mandate—a commanding mandate—in Northern Ireland, but they do not have a veto on the process, so one of the other options that the Secretary of State should be considering is roundtable talks. Such talks have also been difficult. They have sometimes been unwieldy and sometimes very, very problematic, but they have also been the reason for breakthrough. They have been points at which pressure and public scrutiny have been brought to bear. They have allowed the smaller parties to have their say and, perhaps more importantly, to bring in their ideas and put pressure on the other parties. I urge him to consider whether roundtable talks could have the role in the future that worked in the past.

Thirdly, such roundtable talks have worked particularly well when the authority and power of the office of the Prime Minister has been brought to bear to try to bring about a breakthrough. Whatever power and authority the current Prime Minister might have—some might think that she has a little less than some previous incumbents in the role—she should be deploying every last ounce of it to try to achieve a breakthrough. We are often told that she still persists in her difficult role at this difficult time because she has a great sense of duty and public service. I can think of no greater public service that she could do right now than serving the peace process in Northern Ireland by intervening personally —getting her hands dirty—to try to bring about the breakthrough that we all so desperately require. If she will not do so—if she persists in having only long-distance telephone calls, which, as I have said, I fear are neither use nor ornament in this process—why not? Why will she not invest more of her time and effort in trying to bring about a breakthrough? If this Government are so paralysed by the debacle that is Brexit that they cannot deploy their Prime Minister, it says something pretty damning about them.

[David Hanson]

I support my hon. Friend’s comments. He will know that I was one of the last direct rule Ministers. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Tony Blair MP, as he was at that stage, spent five whole days at St Andrews with all political parties, with junior Ministers, and with the Foreign Minister and Taoiseach of the Irish Republic to try to get devolution restored. Devolution was restored because of the intensive effort of the Prime Minister of the day to barter on some of the difficult challenges. I urge the current Prime Minister, even in these difficult circumstances, to set aside a period of time to meet the parties and hammer out some of the difficult issues that all parties face so that we ensure that devolution is restored and that people like me are not direct rule Ministers again.

[Owen Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks, because he speaks with real, lived experience of this. He knows exactly what happened at St Andrews, and he knows that it has been precisely the role of Prime Ministers in trying to push through change and to get people to find agreement that has led to a breakthrough.

It is entirely true that not all the instances when we have deployed Prime Ministers have been successful. It may be that Prime Ministers in the current era enjoy less power and influence. Indeed, the Taoiseach may enjoy less power and influence over some of the players in this, too. However, this is another tool in the Secretary of State’s armoury, so I cannot understand why he will not deploy it. It is utterly inexplicable that the Prime Minister has been to Northern Ireland only once—and then for a scant 20 minutes—during her entire period in office. It is beholden on her now to get involved. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is interjecting from a sedentary position. I do not think he has said anything that would lead me to believe that the Prime Minister has engaged personally in any of the talks process. She has made a few phone calls, but she has not, in any substantive fashion, sat down face to face in Belfast with any of the leaders of the parties, and she is not involved in a roundtable. There is a duty on the Secretary of State to lead—

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Surely the importance of the Prime Minister bothering to visit Northern Ireland is that it would give hope to the people of Northern Ireland that someone beyond the failed Executive—from the highest level in this Parliament—has their best interests at heart, and is prepared do something about the abhorrent situation that we are facing.

[Owen Smith]

I think that people in Northern Ireland will not understand why their Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—seems so distant from this process. I cannot understand why she is not getting stuck in. I think she ought to, and I think the Secretary of State should urge her to.

If the Secretary of State fails, and if the other avenues that I propose do not work, he needs to start spelling out what he is going to do. DUP Members have stressed that they want him to spell out when he is going to introduce direct rule Ministers. If he does that, he will also need to spell out what he is going to do to try to keep the institutions alive, to allow such things as the north-south arrangements to persist and to be properly served, and to enable proper input from the Irish Government during direct rule. That needs to be considered so that the spirit as well as the letter of the Good Friday agreement is adhered to.

I point the Secretary of State to the experience of the previous Labour Government in the period before d’Hondt had been deployed and before we had Ministers and an Executive in Northern Ireland. In 1999, a budget was given to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the then Minister, of whom questions were asked beforehand. The Secretary of State could perhaps deliver the next iteration of this budget in April to a shadow Assembly so that he could be properly scrutinised, with people with a really detailed understanding of the minutiae asking him the correct questions. I think that that would be a step forward.

Let me make some suggestions about the priorities that the Secretary of State should have in the event of his failure to bring into being the new institutions. First, he should consider the victims of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland, some of whom are sitting in the Gallery tonight. This is a desperate state of affairs. Just two days after the Hart report came up with clear recommendations, the Assembly collapsed. The victims have sat for 10 months without any progress being made on those recommendations. I put it to the Secretary of State that there is widespread agreement across the parties about the way forward, particularly in respect of the notion of an interim payment for the victims. I cannot understand why he will not deploy all his best efforts to bring about quick action. As I have said, David Sterling has indicated in an email to the victims today that he wants to act quickly. I urge the Secretary of State to support him in doing so.

Secondly, may I ask the Secretary of State to consider the plight of another group of victims in Northern Ireland: the victims of the troubles? He will know that there has been a very live debate about the notion of a victims’ pension for the 500 or so people who are most mentally and physically scarred by the troubles. There is political disagreement about whether we can afford to allow that to capture a few people who were injured, as it were, by their own hand. That is controversial in Northern Ireland, but I think there is a moral imperative to look beyond the political difficulty. If the Secretary of State is in the position of being a direct ruler, I urge him to act on that moral imperative and provide a pension for all victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but if the Secretary of State were to act on the hon. Gentleman’s advice about a pension for people who injured themselves by their own hand, it would be met with absolute dismay by the innocent victims in Northern Ireland. They would not be able to understand or countenance the use of taxpayers’ money to pay a pension to people who went out to commit murder. That would simply be wrong.

[Owen Smith]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point—indeed, I mentioned the political disagreement. Equally, however, many victims on all sides of the troubles find it difficult to accept that the actions of a few people who injured themselves by their own hand should hold up the process for all victims—including the many hundreds who are innocent—and preclude them from getting the pensions that they need to support themselves, especially as they get older and more infirm. I understand his point, but a moral argument needs to be made. Perhaps it will take a period of direct rule to introduce that argument.

Thirdly, may I raise something else that I suspect will prompt some interventions: the so-called moral issues in Northern Ireland, particularly equal marriage and abortion rights? Those two areas are incredibly divisive, complex and politically parlous, but I urge the Secretary of State to think hard about them, not least in the light of the referendum that is being held in the Republic. He needs to think about how he might consult in Northern Ireland so that progress is made on those important issues.

One of the greatest tragedies of the recent period of impasse in Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland does not have a voice on the thorny issue of Brexit and the border. Northern Ireland is likely to be strongly affected by Brexit economically, socially and politically, and perhaps even in terms of the peace process. It is tragic that Northern Ireland has remained voiceless throughout the process. I fear that the Government have engaged in reckless gunboat diplomacy on Brexit, and although the Northern Ireland Secretary voices platitudes about not wanting a hard border on the island of Ireland—we all support that view—he has unfortunately not proposed any substantive ways of preventing that from happening—[Interruption.] He says that that is nonsense. If he wants to stand up and tell us exactly how he will prevent the introduction of a hard border on the island of Ireland, I will be pleased to take that intervention, because I have heard nothing substantive from the Government.

[James Brokenshire]

I point the hon. Gentleman firmly towards our proposals on customs and agriculture, as well as on issues such as the common transit convention. On a whole raft of issues, we have set out our determination to achieve that aim and how we believe it will be achieved. We are engaging in the first phase and into the second phase to make sure that that happens.

[Owen Smith]

None of those proposals has been taken remotely seriously by our interlocutors in Brussels. None of them answers the question of how we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. None of them is currently thought to be a serious runner—[Interruption.] Well, I wait to see the Brexit negotiations reaching the conclusion that the Secretary of State is right and we do not need to consider some sort of special arrangement for Northern Ireland. At the moment, the country can see that no progress is being made on the matter, that the Government are employing gunboat diplomacy and that, unfortunately, we are not in a position to tell the people of Northern Ireland that they can remain safe and secure in the knowledge that a hard border will not replace the current porous border.

[Nigel Dodds]

Will the hon. Gentleman spell out his party’s Northern Ireland policy? In order to avoid the hard border that he talks about, does he agree with the EU and others that Northern Ireland should remain in the customs union and single market while the rest of the UK departs from them? Is that his policy?

[Owen Smith]

I agree with the EU that it is absolutely essential that we avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland—that is absolutely clear. I agree with the EU that the Government do not seem to have serious or realistic proposals for fixing the problem. I agree with the EU that one potential outcome that would solve the problem would be if Northern Ireland remained in the customs union and had some sort of special arrangement. That is a very interesting idea that we ought to consider.

[Dr Murrison]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, as the Northern Ireland Committee found out on its recent visit to Newry, that the bulk of Northern Ireland’s trade is with Great Britain? What does he think his proposals would do to that?

[Conor McGinn]

rose—

[Owen Smith]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I will respond to the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has to do one and then the other.

[Owen Smith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I stand corrected.

In no way, shape or form should we damage trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland. Nor should we damage trade across the border. Both would damage the Northern Irish economy. At present, we have no clarity from the Government about how they are going to square that circle. It is for the Government to tell the country and the people of Northern Ireland how they will fix the problem that they have created.

[Conor McGinn]

Of course there is a very simple way to meet the DUP’s stated objectives—two objectives I share—of not having a hard border on the island of Ireland and not having a new border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain: for the whole United Kingdom to stay in the single market and the customs union.

[Owen Smith]

I have some sympathy with that very interesting idea, but I am not sure that it is entirely within the purview of this debate. Perhaps we will debate that in the Chamber tomorrow.

If this is not direct rule, it is getting perilously close. We are getting close to the landing strip on the Secretary of State’s famous glide path. If the Secretary of State is to have one more go, as I believe he wants to and must, at getting Northern Ireland’s Assembly back up and running, he has to consider the changes that we have outlined today. He must think about whether he needs an independent chair, lay out a real road map, get the Prime Minister to get her hands dirty in Northern Ireland, and make sure that we have a clear indication of what his priorities will be if he fails. We heard at the beginning of the debate about a bomb being placed in Omagh on Remembrance Sunday. We know that there is a bomb in Derry right now and that there was a kneecapping in Londonderry last night. These are echoes of Northern Ireland’s terrible past, but they must not be harbingers of its future. It is for us in this generation, and for the Secretary of State and his Government, to make sure that they are not.

Northern Ireland Update

Owen Smith Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and for his great efforts in keeping me briefed at all crucial points during the talks. I know he agrees that it is profoundly disappointing that 10 months after the breakdown of Stormont, and following two elections and countless and—I hate to say it—increasingly meaningless deadlines, the larger parties remain deadlocked, unable to agree with one another on the agenda for change and unwilling to show trust in one another.

I also put on the record my support for the work of the Northern Ireland civil service in keeping services going and for the work of the Irish Government, particularly Simon Coveney, the Foreign Minister, alongside the Secretary of State, in trying to bring about a resolution. We agree on all of that, but we disagree, I suspect, over what more could have been done during those 10 months—and could still be done—to bring about a resolution.

First and most importantly, we believe that the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get stuck into this problem and try to bring about a resolution of the impasse. It is inexcusable and completely inexplicable that she has only visited Northern Ireland once during her 15 months in office—and that for a 15-minute photo call at an agricultural show during the election campaign. She has not attended a single substantive session of the talks in Belfast or made a single substantive intervention to try to move things along. I know that things have been difficult recently, but the odd phone call to the Taoiseach is just not good enough. The days of Prime Ministers—or Presidents—flying to Northern Ireland to fix things might be past and overstated, but they could at least give it a go. Our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, has not done that. The Opposition want her to make a greater effort.

Secondly, the time must have come to consider drafting in some outside help for both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. The Labour party has a proud record of bringing about progress in the Northern Ireland peace process, and independent chairs and observers have proved useful in the past. At this juncture of the impasse, will he consider doing likewise and bringing in a fresh pair of eyes?

Thirdly, will the Secretary of State tell us any more about his intentions now that this round of talks has failed? We will support him wholeheartedly, of course, in bringing forward a budget. Public services in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, need investment, not cuts. He will have to tell the House how he intends to consult with the parties on priorities and ensure that funds are spent equitably.

There are reports in the press that the Secretary of State has been discussing with the parties other ways to sustain and find a role for the Assembly, even under direct rule. Can he tell us what that might mean? Let me be clear: direct rule will be a profoundly damaging, retrograde step in the peace process. A shadow Assembly of some sort, perhaps scrutinising or even advising direct rule Ministers, would be a way to sustain vital north-south and east-west relations and institutions—things that are crucial to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That might provide some mitigation. It is certainly an idea that Labour Members will be willing to explore as a means of sustaining the talks, and perhaps as a bridge back to devolution.

Given that ultimate objective that we share, may I urge the Secretary of State to resist, given what he has said today, short-term pressure to cut MLAs’ pay? Cutting politicians’ pay is always a popular thing to argue for, but we need this generation of Northern Irish politicians to work and talk together to try to bring about power-sharing. While he is right that patience is wearing thin in Northern Ireland, he should resist steps that would undermine the ability of the parties, particularly the smaller ones, to negotiate and engage.

Finally, may I give the Secretary of State a foretaste of what life will mean for him under direct rule and ask him to agree that this morning’s report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes shameful reading for his Government, particularly in respect of Northern Ireland? It shows that more children will be driven into absolute poverty in Northern Ireland by the universal credit changes and the pernicious two-child policy than in any other nation of the UK. Will he therefore commit to using his forthcoming budget to undo that harm to the children of Northern Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments in support of the proposals to bring forward a budget Bill and about the necessity of having the financial stability that will help the Northern Ireland civil service to continue with the work that it has already been doing in ensuring that public services are delivered and that there is that focus on the people of Northern Ireland. I acknowledge the rightful support that he has given to all those in the Northern Ireland civil service engaged and involved in this important work.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the profound disappointment at not finding a resolution to date. Northern Ireland needs devolved government. I profoundly believe in devolution and the sense of locally elected politicians making decisions locally and being held accountable by an elected Assembly locally. That is profoundly in the best interests of Northern Ireland. He talks about other options. My focus remains very firmly on how we see devolution restored; I think that anything else is a backward step. There are, yes, concerns about the delivery of public services while we are taking the step that we have outlined today. Ultimately, this simply cannot carry on for ever. We need to ensure that political decision making is taking place.

The hon. Gentleman highlights issues around the process and the steps to follow on from it. I stress that bringing forward the budget Bill should not mark an end to the talks. Indeed, the parties themselves have indicated that they remain committed to finding a way forward in seeing how discussions between the DUP and Sinn Féin can continue in order to find resolution on, yes, a small number of issues where difference firmly remains between the two parties. While there has been positive progress on a number of fronts during certain weeks, we are not, as I have indicated to the House, at the point of reaching agreement.

The hon. Gentleman highlights the potential role of the Prime Minister. She has been actively involved in talking to the parties. She has had meetings with the parties at No. 10, bringing them together. She does remain actively involved, including through continued discussions with the Taoiseach, in finding the right way that we can work together as two Governments to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach that is respectful to how these issues in respect of Northern Ireland are undertaken.

The hon. Gentleman makes points about interventions and suchlike. Clearly, we do keep these issues under careful review, and I do not rule anything out in respect of the way forward. We want the engagement between the two parties that has been undertaken in earnest, in a concerted way, to continue. They have shown that they can make progress in that format, and we want to support them in continuing with that. I earnestly want to see the restoration of the devolved settlement—of the institutions that are at the heart of the Belfast or Good Friday agreement and underpin the framework that we have in Northern Ireland. I want that to be restored at the earliest opportunity, and we are doing all that we can as a Government to see that it is brought about.

The hon. Gentleman makes certain points in relation to the economy and various other things. Universal credit is about making work pay. It is about how we get people back into work, seeing those pathways, and seeing that things are supported. We are looking very carefully at how it is implemented in Northern Ireland. In response to his comments about the position of Northern Ireland, I would point to the picture of prosperity, of jobs, and of an economy that is growing—and to tourism, with more people coming to Northern Ireland. That is a positive picture of what Northern Ireland is and what it can be. I encourage him to underline that in the messages that he gives.