United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Paul Girvan Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) pointed out, one of the most important principles of the United Kingdom is to have a common market and trade between the different parts—that is where the prosperity that attracts people to be part of the United Kingdom comes from. My view, which I have expressed in the House many times, is that the withdrawal agreement undermines the United Kingdom’s economic integrity as well as of course undermining its constitutional integrity, because as a result of the withdrawal agreement part of the United Kingdom will now have its laws made in Brussels and not in London or, indeed, in Belfast. That is why I believe this internal market Bill is so important. First, it ensures that standards within the UK internal market are maintained and that each part of the United Kingdom, for maybe very selfish, very parochial and even very temporary reasons, may want to make differences in its laws, regulations and standards, and, in doing so, damage not only the internal market but their own markets as well.

When it comes to the controversial clauses, I believe that the Lords have done a great disservice to Northern Ireland. I believe, as someone has already pointed out, that they are strong on assertions but very poor on arguments. The withdrawal agreement, while it promises unfettered access, while it promises that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs territory, while it promises that the integrity of the United Kingdom will be maintained, in reality means that we will finish up with a plethora of trade barriers. We will finish up with laws made that are different from the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom. We will finish up with Northern Ireland being part of the EU single market, rather than the UK internal market.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the withdrawal Act that has been put forward or the Northern Ireland protocol included in this Bill not send the message to those who are from the Unionist community, “Your views do not matter, but appease those who are nationalist and republican, and who are only interested in their links with the Irish Republic. Europe has done us a disserve in not giving us free access to both the Republic of Ireland and the UK, and forget about the links we have with the United Kingdom”? That seems to be the message they are sending.

[Sammy Wilson]

Any agreement that means laws can no longer be made in the United Kingdom, and puts economic barriers between ourselves and our main market, is bound to be a change in the position of Northern Ireland that is totally contrary to the Good Friday agreement, which requires consent.

Some have argued that the Bill puts a safety net in place and that some of the aspects—only some of the aspects; I have to make that very clear—of the withdrawal agreement which could damage the Northern Ireland economy can be countered through the measures in the Bill. That, by the way, is totally in line with the withdrawal agreement itself, which allows the UK Government to act unilaterally where there is economic or societal damage done by the withdrawal agreement. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, “Well, there you are. You’ve got your assurance in the withdrawal agreement.” But all the withdrawal agreement states is that the Government will have the right to act unilaterally. They must have the means to act unilaterally. The provision in this Bill gives them the means to act unilaterally. Ministers, notwithstanding what is in the agreement, can make new regulations and new laws that protect the Northern Ireland economy and the Northern Ireland market. That is why it is so essential to have these provisions.

What disappoints me is that we now have the Prime Minister today saying, “By the way, once we have a negotiated settlement and the work of the Joint Committee, then we can withdraw this.” That fails to recognise the nature of what we have entered into. The safety net is there not just for a one-off event, but because we will be continually walking the withdrawal agreement tightrope. Northern Ireland is still going to be subject to the rules of the internal market. Indeed, the withdrawal agreement makes it quite clear that the work of the Joint Committee will go on and on. At any stage, EU officials could demand that checks be placed in Northern Ireland and that UK officials would have to adhere to that. If those demands become unreasonable, we will then need a safety net. If we need a safety net, we do not need it until these negotiations are over. We need it while any part of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol is in place.

I would therefore like an assurance from the Minister that if the Government intend to withdraw the safety net—if negotiations turn out fine this week—what protection will there be for Northern Ireland from the depredations of the withdrawal agreement in the future? That is important. I believe that this Bill is essential. The Government owe it Northern Ireland, having signed a disastrous agreement this time last year. If the integrity of the UK is to be maintained, the provisions in this Bill and, indeed, other provisions will be necessary.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 Section 6

Paul Girvan Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say that with some trepidation because I may have called you Madam Deputy Secretary on the last occasion and now it is constantly in my head whenever I see you in the Chair.

As I did in the previous debate, I welcome the fact that we are now debating this issue in the House of Commons. On the last occasion, I indicated my concern about the lack of debate on these very important matters. I am particularly concerned today because of the confirmation of the Government position that many policy issues arising from this important and detailed measure may be dealt with by regulation. I want to add my strong support to other Members who have said that this issue would be much more appropriately addressed by primary legislation for a range of reasons.

The motion is technical, but the report does not contain a significant amount of detail about what will be done. What is referenced is the basic amount that we would expect to be done in terms of consultation with the stakeholder group—the project group being put together to bring this forward. I shall touch on the context for the motion and then some of the details of the proposal.

First, I have mentioned in the House before that I believe the measure of any process is how it treats our most vulnerable. The measure and test of the peace process in Northern Ireland should always have been how we treated our victims and survivors. It was the innocent victims and survivors of the many decades of the troubles who suffered the most in their loss and pain. They are also suffering today in 2019.

As I said in my maiden speech, I am always conscious when I stand in the Chamber that if I look to my left I can see the coat of arms of Rev. Robert Bradford and others who lost their lives to terrorism. Rev. Robert Bradford was the Member of Parliament for South Belfast. He served the constituency with honour and dedication, and he was cut down for purely sectarian reasons—because he was a Unionist politician. He was cut down while conducting a constituency surgery in a community hall in Finaghy. The caretaker was also killed. It was an appalling attack by the Irish Republican Army, not just on Rev. Robert Bradford, with the legacy of pain and loss for his family, but on democracy through the killing of a sitting Member of Parliament.

My challenge to this Chamber—albeit a relatively empty one tonight—is how many Members of Parliament remember what happened to Rev. Robert Bradford, or do they think that it is an inconvenient truth? I never walk through the doors without looking over and remembering the service that he gave and the life that he lost for his constituents. Frankly speaking, there is a party in Northern Ireland today that has never issued any statement of remorse, regret or condemnation for his murder. In the last few weeks, we have talked about the hate, bile and abuse that can happen in this Chamber, but we must always remember that that has been the case for some considerable time. Most of all, we must remember the consequences of such hate.

From speaking to many thousands of the victims and survivors of Northern Ireland over the years, I know —as do my colleagues—the pain and anguish that they continue to go through. I pay tribute to the WAVE Injured Group in particular, and to the many victims and survivors who have campaigned for many years on the proposal for a special pension. That proposal came about because many of the severely injured victims and survivors are now reaching pensionable and retirement age, but many of them do not have an employment-related pension because of the scale of their injuries in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The reality of the world at the time was that workplaces were different from today and it was difficult for people with severe disabilities to maintain and retain their employment. As they reach retirement, they therefore have to rely on the state pension, the disability living allowance or some small amounts periodically from the Victims and Survivors Service. The vast majority of those people are in that position through no fault of their own. They wanted to work, and they had had jobs. Some of them were young soldiers, in the Royal Ulster Constabulary or in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Many of them were just innocent victims going about their business, having coffee in a coffee shop or walking down the street. Some were severely injured in attacks targeting someone else; they were innocent bystanders and their lives were changed dramatically.

Those victims and survivors have told me that they suffer incredible and increasing pain, with new challenges as they age, as well as financial hardship. It is a travesty that despite a campaign over many years they have not yet received special support from this proposal being put into action.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Mention has been made of those with physical injuries that we can actually see, but many have suffered mental trauma and have not been able to work since. I ask that we include the mental trauma that many people have experienced alongside those with physical injuries when trying to address the issue in the future.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable contribution. One of the interesting aspects of the proposal is that it has been so long in gestation that the debate, knowledge and evidence of the impact of the psychological injuries has grown. The original proposal was for the severely physically disabled victims, but I welcome the recommendation in the commissioner’s report that both physical and psychological injuries should be covered. The key point is the impact on the ability to gain employment and thus an employment-related pension.

On the Victims Commissioners’ advice, I was vocal at the time about my deep disappointment that it did not reflect the strong feeling among many thousands of people across Northern Ireland that the pension should not go to victim-makers. Throughout the many years I have been involved in this project it has been clear that that was a significant view among the victims and in the wider population. I have spoken with the commissioner on many occasions and I have huge respect for her. She does many things well, and I know that many victims have respect for her. I met her monthly or bi-monthly over several years and repeatedly raised with her my concerns that if the victims pension included the victim-makers, many people would be deeply hurt by that. What I said was that surely we have a responsibility first of all to do no harm. In this case, the issue is to do no further harm and cause no further hurt to the very genuine victims who are desperately in need of this proposal. I acknowledge that this tricky issue has held up discussions for some time, but the biggest impact on progress has been the lack of a Northern Ireland Assembly. I strongly welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that this pension does not go to those who were victim-makers.

The Commissioner for Victims and Survivors has defended her report and said that she is caught by and operates under the definition of the 2006 order, but I find it unacceptable and I was deeply disappointed that the report made no reference to the existence of those other views. If I were a Minister or the Secretary of State and I was asking for this advice, I would want the advice to be clear: “There are these views on this matter, but also be aware there are that a significant number of other views, and if you progress down this recommended path hurt will be caused, victims will come out and say that they will not receive it, and that they are deeply upset by it.” That exists as a view and it should have been reflected in the commissioner’s report.

I find the fact that that was missing from the commissioner’s report deeply disappointing. I genuinely feel that it has led to her losing the confidence of a huge number of victims across Northern Ireland and that her position is unsustainable. That is the position that I have outlined to the Secretary of State, and I was therefore disappointed to see that the commissioner’s term was extended. It is key that any commissioner should have the support and confidence of the people she is supposed to speak about, and in this case what has happened has led to her losing that.

I want to move on to the specifics of the proposal in the report, which is the special pension for victims and survivors, and to touch on a number of very technical issues. As I mentioned, I am concerned about the proposal to introduce this through regulations because there were a number of aspects that need to be debated and aired for potential amendment. The proposal from the Victims Commissioner deals with the method by which people will be assessed, and she has asked very strongly that this is done in a way that is victim-centred. I asked the Minister and the Secretary of State to look carefully at the Victims and Survivors Service process. I was involved in the setting up of that new institution, and there was a lot of genuine intent about some of the mechanisms to assess the level of need of the victims and survivors, but within a very short period of time it became absolutely clear that victims and survivors were being re-traumatised or troubled by the process of questioning and assessment. They felt that this was a test that they either failed or succeeded at.

In due course, we have to change that process, so I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to look very carefully at it and to ensure that however people submit their applications and however the assessment is done, it takes account of the types of evidence and documentation already in the system—perhaps with the Victims and Survivors Service—to avoid victims and survivors having to go through the process again. It should be a victim-centred, sympathetic and empathetic environment, not a questioning environment or one in which people feel they are in the witness box giving evidence.

The Minister and the Secretary of State should also ensure that it is done swiftly. One of the big challenges with the Victims and Survivors Service was that the assessments take time, and dealing with hundreds or thousands of applications could risk people waiting six or 12 months before getting their assessment. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister could put their mind to how that can be done in a way that ensures victims and survivors can get financial help quickly while they are going through the process and waiting for it to end.

The Minister referred to the fact that we have had 1,000 days without devolution, and that to me is an absolute travesty. It comes back to the point that I raised in the earlier debate: this House has broken the precedent that it does not legislate on devolved matters. This House has legislated on devolved matters. Victims and survivors of the troubles—and the survivors of historical institutional abuse, those who are sitting on waiting lists, those who are dying on waiting lists, people who are waiting for their child to get an autism assessment, and people who are in desperate need of public services—ask me why those issues were picked for this House to decide to legislate on, despite the convention. Why pick those issues on which to break precedent and the convention of this House by legislating on them, while in this case the victims and survivors are suffering pain every hour of every day, and they have done so since they got their injuries 20 or 30 years ago?

These are victims in pain saying, “Why do we have to wait? Why are we being told, ‘No, no, this House doesn’t deal with that’? This House can only do that by regulation. This House does not legislate on that.” This House has legislated. It has legislated on cases that are considerably less urgent, where people are not in pain, where people are not in real financial need. As I said about the historical institutional abuse inquiry, I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to take swift action. This House and its legislative timetable, whatever is announced in the Queen’s Speech, could all fall. Who knows what will happen in the next few months? But this is the important point: the Minister can do this. He can introduce this provision as a piece of legislation. He can get the time to do that and he can do it very quickly. The message needs to go out to people in Northern Ireland—the victims and survivors who are suffering—that this is not a case of can’t; it is a case of won’t. I ask the Minister to make a promise to this House and those victims and survivors that he will decide to no longer go with “won’t” but to move to “I will”. I ask that he introduce it as quickly as possible to ensure that those victims get a special pension by and before 31 October, because he can do that.

Private Tower Blocks: Removal of Cladding

Paul Girvan Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

Absolutely. I fully agree because the leaseholders bought the properties in good faith; they did not know that these blocks had ACM cladding. If anyone is responsible, it is the Government because the ACM cladding should never have been used—it was dangerous—and that is why it is important that the Government deal with this issue to protect people from this predicament.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

On that very point, a lot of the retrofitting that used this type of cladding was actually done to comply with EU regulations on the energy efficiency of those buildings. As a consequence, those involved fell through the loophole of having to obtain an energy efficiency certificate for a building to comply legally with the associated legislation without, unfortunately, the safeguard of putting on something that met all the fire regulations and complied accordingly.

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has woven in the European perspective, but I would say to him that, fundamentally, the duty of care is with our Government—of whichever political colour—and there was nothing stopping the Government making sure that flammable cladding was not used, so to revert to blaming the EU is frankly unhelpful and not in the spirit of the purpose of this debate. This is about how we protect our citizens in this country, and how we learn from what has happened with the failure of regulation in our country to protect people in the future and deal with what is happening now for those who have dangerous cladding covering their blocks of flats.

Last summer, after vociferous campaigning, Ministers announced £400 million of funding for urgent fire safety repairs in social housing blocks that are at risk. This is welcome, but it did not come easy. The Grenfell survivors, having been through the most horrific trauma, campaigned with charities, local authorities and Members of Parliament. We had to fight tooth and nail to secure this funding, and it took a year. It should not have taken so long; the Government should have done it immediately. Now, we have to fight tooth and nail for a similar pledge for people to be protected in privately owned blocks. I hope the Minister will say something positive today about additional funding because this has gone on for two years, and it should not be like that.

Of the 345 buildings that I have mentioned are awaiting repairs, 226 are in private hands, and Ministers have done too little to make them safe. Of course, fire does not discriminate between private and public ownership. There is no logic in safeguarding social housing while ignoring private housing. Ministers have said that they expect private building owners to pay for these measures, although this has been backed only by an appeal to their good will and good nature, rather than stipulating it through legislation. The Government should make this a legal requirement.

Where repairs are being carried out, some private owners, as the Minister is fully aware, are passing on the costs to the people living in the flats as a service charge under the terms of their leases. This can amount to thousands of pounds, and it is simply unacceptable. As we know, freeholders who own these blocks are often in the shadows, obscured by front companies, and under data protection laws they can remain anonymous because of the risk of arson. If there is no law to compel freeholders and no public scrutiny, it is hardly surprising that many will fail to act.

In January, the Minister said that he could guarantee that people in high-rise flats with ACM cladding were safe to sleep at night, but thousands living in flats in high-rise buildings, encased in cladding that could spread fire with rapacious speed, do not feel safe and there is no good night’s sleep. The sleepless nights will continue until Ministers get a grip and move fast to take down the cladding.

My local authority, Tower Hamlets, is among those with the highest number of blocks with dangerous ACM cladding in the country: 41 are privately owned blocks, and nine are social housing blocks. Victoria Wharf in my constituency, which has been in the press, has ACM cladding like that at Grenfell. Residents have been charged nearly £7,000 per flat for temporary safety measures, such as 24-hour fire wardens. They are very concerned that no real action has been taken yet, despite the fact that the dangers are well known. The freeholder is Vuillard Holdings, which is registered offshore.

Currently, there are no legal means of forcing the owners to meet their obligations—and if there are any, they are not affordable for my constituents. Perhaps the Government could take legal action against these companies if they are not prepared to legislate to make the companies pay. Time and again, when Ministers have heard the anguished cries of people in this situation, they have offered no solace. Indeed, the Minister for Housing told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that he was “sorry to be opaque” when he was pressed on making funding available for private ACM-clad plots. I am sorry, too. This evening, instead of being opaque, I hope he will be transparent and demonstrate the urgency of the matter by announcing practical action backed by resources.

Specifically, I ask the Minister to address the following. Will his Department commit to creating new national funding for the removal of dangerous cladding from private blocks, administered by either national or local government? That would mean that works could start straight away. The funding must be additional, given the crisis in local government finance. Will he agree a series of deadlines along a clear timeline to remove all dangerous cladding? Will he amend existing legislation to force freeholders to pay for repairs?

I hope that we are about to hear an action plan about these important issues—making money available now, setting a timetable and making freeholders pay. In last year’s Budget, the Chancellor made £420 million of extra funding available to fix potholes. Do not get me wrong: fixing potholes is important—I tripped on one and had an injury—but the issue that we are debating is a matter of life and death for thousands of people up and down the country. For many in my constituency and the constituencies of Members across the House, urgent action is required.

After Grenfell, the Prime Minister said:

“My Government will do whatever it takes to…keep our people safe.”

Two years on, her Government have completely failed to honour that commitment, even when people are living in utter fear and despair for their and their family’s safety and are trapped in properties with no end in sight. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if one more fatality like those at Grenfell occurs in a block with ACM cladding because of this Government’s failure to act, this Government will be absolutely liable. They will have blood on their hands if they do not take action and if some other disaster happens.