(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend makes an important point, which I was coming on to but is worth mentioning now. Not only does the Command Paper set out the practical and legal changes that will occur to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market, but the establishment of the UK East-West Council will also help to bind Northern Ireland more closely to the rest of the United Kingdom. I welcome the comments by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who takes a keen interest in Northern Ireland. In fairness to him he recognises, notwithstanding his aspirations in relation to Scotland’s future, that there is real value in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England working more closely together, whether on trade, sharing our experiences on education, or sharing the richness of our heritage and our culture. Those things are important. The new UK East-West Council will ensure a more joined-up approach, so that there is more working together and more co-operation across the whole United Kingdom.
On the specific point my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) makes, the establishment of the new Intertrade UK body will ensure that a proactive approach is taken in instances where businesses in Great Britain have decided that making their goods available to customers in Northern Ireland is not worth the hassle. Those businesses will be approached. Intertrade UK will seek to understand why they are no longer doing business in Northern Ireland, and assist them to restore their trading arrangements with consumers and customers in Northern Ireland.
The Essex constituency that I represent has a vast horticultural industry that has been prevented from sending its products—seeds and all the other goods that people in Northern Ireland would love to purchase—to Northern Ireland. This is a new opportunity for those businesses. I praise the Department for its engagement with Kings Seeds, based in Kelvedon in my constituency. We have to work through many of the practical issues that have put up barriers. People to people, we can facilitate trade flows that benefit everyone.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention and for her ongoing interest in Northern Ireland, which is always great to see. She is right. Intertrade UK will cover not just issues related to the availability of goods in Northern Ireland, but trade across the UK, between Scotland and England, England and Wales, and so on. It is designed, in the new environment we find ourselves in, to encourage greater trade within the United Kingdom. We have a market in the United Kingdom in the region of 60 million people. It is the second-biggest market in Europe and we should be selling more of our own goods to our own people. The purpose of Intertrade UK is to encourage those enhanced, stronger trading links across all of the United Kingdom. Of course, the Union is not just a political union; it is an economic union. It was the economic union in particular that was harmed by the protocol. The new measures are designed to restore those trading relationships to a more healthy place.
In welcoming the restoration of the devolved institutions, it is important to recognise that one key difficulty with the protocol was the lack of democratic input for the political institutions in Northern Ireland. Laws were being applied automatically to Northern Ireland—new laws and changes to the law—on which Northern Ireland had no say whatever. We welcome the establishment of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which will now have the function to scrutinise laws that are coming forward. It will have the power to stop those laws applying, as I said earlier. The UK Government ultimately have the power of veto if laws are deemed to be harmful to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and its internal market. That is all progress.
I note that some who were critical of the new arrangements and said that the new Democratic Scrutiny Committee was powerless now complain that they are unable to obtain membership of it. Furthermore, I note that some of our detractors now talk about the risk of what they call “trivergence” whereby if the Assembly, exercising its power, vetoes a new law being applied to Northern Ireland, all of a sudden that might create a problem in so far as Northern Ireland will have different law from the EU and, potentially, different law from Great Britain. But in the new arrangements put in place as a result of the Command Paper, Northern Ireland goods will be available for sale in Great Britain regardless of the circumstances. There is a goods guarantee built into the legislation that this House has approved, which means that Northern Ireland goods, in all circumstances, can be sold in Great Britain. However, I note that those who said the new arrangements would be ineffective now complain that they will be so effective that they might be counterproductive when it comes to Northern Ireland’s interests. Which is it? Either they are effective or they are not. We believe that they can be effective, and we are prepared to test the new mechanisms to ensure that they protect the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.
Let me make a few general points. We welcome the commitments that the UK Government have given about Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom, including those given from the Dispatch Box this evening, but I also note that we hear much talk about border polls, and much talk, particularly from Sinn Féin, about the need for such a poll. It is worth recalling the history of Sinn Féin’s approach to border polls. As long ago as 2011, Gerry Adams told us that by 2016, Northern Ireland would leave the United Kingdom. We are almost 10 years on from 2016, and we are still in the UK. By August 2021, Gerry had changed 2016 to 2024; well, 2024 has arrived, and we are still in the UK. In May 2022, Mary Lou McDonald called for a border poll by 2027, but then she changed that to 2030, and just this month Michelle O’Neill shifted the Sinn Féin goalposts once again to call for a border poll by 2034. But they recognise the reality—that it is the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom—and all this talk of divisive border polls is designed simply to reassure the Sinn Féin base.
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the proposal. He mentioned at the very beginning of his question that the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement relies on the consent of both communities and then suggested reform, which certainly does not have the consent of one of them. However, I understand the point he makes. When people have asked me about future reform of the institutions, I have always said that this is a conversation that should be started within Stormont and by the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. The thing I hope for is not that particular conversation; it is for Stormont to be returned so that elected folk from Northern Ireland can govern for the people of Northern Ireland.
It is absolutely vital that the democratic institutions and lawmaking powers are returned to the elected politicians in Northern Ireland, and today is clearly very historic and symbolic. At the same time, however, we know that Northern Ireland’s economic lifeblood is linked to the rest of GB, and I concur with the rest of my colleagues who have spoken on this issue. It is vital that we ensure not only that there is the ability to diverge and have the freedom to secure Northern Ireland’s economic lifeblood, but that the prosperity of Northern Ireland remains. May I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that we have the full ability to do that, and that it will be backed up by this Government in Westminster?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted to give her the assurance she seeks, because this announcement will reduce neither our ability to diverge, nor our commitment to do so should that be in the interests of the United Kingdom.
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am happy to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer to his specific question on that school, but more generally I am proud of what the Government are doing in Teesside and Tees Valley to support education, not only with the recent announcement of new sixth forms, but also it is an education investment area receiving extra funding and resources. That is why we have seen standards in reading and maths increase considerably, and we are determined to keep going.
The Prime Minister is aware of how the RAAC issue has affected schools in Essex. We have a high number of schools that have been impacted. He has rightly said today that the Government are doing everything they can to get children back to school. I know there is a debate on this later today, but will he commit to fully funding both the capital and revenue costs associated with getting children back into school?
I hope he will commit to meeting the leader of Essex County Council, because it is pioneering some great reforms right now, where it is looking to support maintained schools as well as academy trusts. I think the Government could get some good insights into how we can get children back to school fast and look at the funding model.
(11 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid to officials in (a) his Department and (b) its non-departmental public bodies in bonuses and other payments in addition to salary in each of the last five years; how many officials received such payments; and what the monetary value was of the 20 largest payments made in each year.
[Official Report, 25 April 2013, Vol. 561, c. 1272-276W.]
Letter of correction from Anna Soubry:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on 25 April 2013.
The full answer given was as follows:
It continues to be a fundamental principle of Government policy that reward in the public sector should be linked to performance. The Ministry of Defence (MOD), in line with other Government Departments, rewards performance through the use of non-consolidated payments which reflect outputs, results and performance. These payments are colloquially known as ‘bonuses', although this is a misleading description because the performance-related element of pay is part of the Departmental pay bill rather than being an additional cost. In addition, the MOD operates a special bonus scheme (SBS) to reward civilian staff below the senior civil service (SCS) for exceptional performance in a specific task or for the achievement of professional qualifications which benefit the MOD and the individual. Both types of payments are non-pensionable and are a cost effective way of rewarding performance since they do not count towards pension costs, and so reduce the overall cost of employing civil servants.
Since 2010-11, the Government has restricted performance related payments for the SCS to the top 25% of performers (from 65% in previous years), saving the taxpayer around £15 million. They are only paid to reward excellence, for example to recognise and incentivise those responsible for delivering high quality public services and savings to the taxpayer. Pay decisions for non-senior staff are delegated to individual departments, enabling them to tailor reward packages that meet their own work force and business needs. Payments made since 1 April 2011 are detailed in Departmental transparency data which is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-consolidated-performance-awards--2
Details of how much has been paid in non-consolidated awards in financial years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are reproduced in the following tables.
Table 1: Details how much was paid to permanent members of the SCS in non-consolidated awards.
Performance year | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Financial year (FY) | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
Value of awards paid (£) | 1,501,700 | 1,594,500 | 995,500 | 505,500 | 362,000 |
Number of awards paid | 187 | 195 | 169 | 62 | 58 |
Performance year | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
Value of awards paid (£) | 333,915 | 838,393 | 557,293 | 616,916 | 1320,026 |
Number of awards paid | 16 | 27 | 23 | 21 | 13 |
1 There are still two awards outstanding that have not yet been paid. |
£ | |
---|---|
FY 2008-09 | 88,296 |
61,250 | |
50,000 | |
48,000 | |
37,675 | |
31,703 | |
30,780 | |
30,000 | |
30,000 | |
30,000 | |
27,600 | |
24,000 | |
23,085 | |
22,085 | |
22,000 | |
21,546 | |
20,480 | |
19,000 | |
17,163 | |
17,091 | |
FY 2009-10 | 84,563 |
75,000 | |
72,540 | |
55,350 | |
50,000 | |
50,000 | |
48,720 | |
48,000 | |
31,470 | |
30,750 | |
30,000 | |
30,000 | |
25,765 | |
24,101 | |
22,888 | |
21,337 | |
21,033 | |
16,200 | |
15,000 | |
15,000 | |
FY 2010-11 | 73,080 |
49,937 | |
49,900 | |
48,720 | |
35,113 | |
31,668 | |
26,715 | |
25,755 | |
22,888 | |
22,153 | |
17,000 | |
16,100 | |
15,750 | |
15,605 | |
15,000 | |
15,000 | |
13,800 | |
12,500 | |
12,500 | |
12,500 | |
FY 2011-12 | 85,831 |
69,459 | |
49,950 | |
49,500 | |
48,720 | |
33,833 | |
25,578 | |
20,554 | |
19,492 | |
19,184 | |
17,637 | |
15,415 | |
12,500 | |
12,180 | |
11,250 | |
10,000 | |
9,000 | |
9,000 | |
9,000 | |
9,000 | |
FY 2012-13 | 60,000 |
48,720 | |
48,720 | |
36,541 | |
35,729 | |
27,087 | |
14,559 | |
13,015 | |
10,842 | |
8,000 | |
8,000 | |
7,813 | |
7,000 | |
7,000 | |
7,000 | |
7,000 | |
7,000 | |
7,000 | |
7,000 | |
7,000 |
Performance year | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-131 |
Value of non consolidated awards paid (£) | 47,516,913 | 44,231,916 | 43,521,423 | 42,025,950 | 28,059,302 |
Number of awards paid | 71,940 | 66,585 | 65,504 | 64,944 | 51,829 |
1 Figures for financial year 2012-13 do not include special bonus scheme awards made in March 2013. |
Financial year | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value of non- consolidated awards (£) | 102,379 | 69,300 | 49,600 | 70,024 | 74,919 |
Number staff receiving non-consolidated awards | 184 | 186 | 171 | 163 | 166 |
Payment range non-consolidated (£) | 67-5,610 | 100-5,610 | 100-400 | 100-550 | 100-525 |
Value of SBS (£) | 2,750 | 4,050 | 6,050 | 7,350 | — |
Number staff receiving SBS | 5 | 11 | 8 | 17 | — |
Payment range SBS (£) | 250-1,000 | 250-1,000 | 250-3,000 | 250-1,000 | — |
Financial year | 2008-09 | 2009-10 | 2010-11 | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Value of non-consolidated awards (£) | 0 | 8,500 | 8,620 | 8,827.50 | 10,000 |
Number staff receiving non-consolidated awards | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |