Gavin Robinson MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2024 · BBC Charter Review · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentions information that should be shared, and accountability. What about transparency in commissioning? He has raised this issue on a number of occasions over the years. Is he satisfied that there is transparency in the commissioning process? Is there opportunity and fairness in the process, or is there a greater opportunity to inject transparency through the charter review?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope, if I agree to allow the hon. Member for Walthamstow to intervene once more, and once more only, that she will agree that it is right to sort that issue, too.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I had not intended to intervene on the hon. and learned Gentleman, but on that point, Invest Northern Ireland, the body charged with encouraging foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland and with growing our economy, cannot point to one example of business investing in Northern Ireland as a direct result of the Windsor framework.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right. That is where it becomes thoroughly obnoxious for people in Northern Ireland. They say, “Whatever the constitutional views are, and whatever the Labour position on this and the Conservative position on that, why am I being impinged on? Why am I being treated differently? If a workaround is available that allows goods from the Republic of Ireland into the GB market, why is there not one for me?”. When we talk about market access and the UK internal market system, we are in principle talking about a marketplace—somewhere to both buy and sell, where trade flows in both directions. However, when Government Members talk about market access, they all too often consider one direction only, and not the implications for businesses in Northern Ireland. I will conclude with a point about the democratic scrutiny mechanism and the vote that is due on Tuesday. The arrangements are a complete inversion of the commitments that were given in the Belfast agreement. They were brought forward following Boris Johnson’s bedazzlement with Leo Varadkar in the Wirral. The protections that were offered to the people of Northern Ireland were stripped away in haste as a result of that political union. It has left us in a position where, even though cross-community support will not be attained, articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework will continue. There is a strong argument, which others have made, that we should not countenance that process with our presence, but as I said at our party conference in September and since, we will be there on Tuesday. If the vote proceeds, we will vote against the continued application of the Windsor framework, in the knowledge that if we demonstrate our opposition, we will not leave anybody on other Benches or in the European Union with the chance credibly to argue, “They weren’t even interested enough to vote—they didn’t even turn up.” With our vote and our voice, we will demonstrate our opposition to the continued application of the framework.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I want to give the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) another example. She will have heard colleagues in interventions, she will have heard the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) at Prime Minister’s questions and she will have heard me at Northern Ireland questions raise the issue of the general product safety regulations that come into force next Friday. What is the best answer we had from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? “We are in discussions.” What do we hear from Labour Members? “It’s in train.” Information should have been given to businesses long before next Friday, but have I ever heard a Labour Member say, “Actually, in January 2024, the Conservative Government extended the February 2023 agreement to adhere to the requirements and standards of EU safety markings—the CE markings on goods—and general product safety”? Why are we in a situation where our Government—the last Government, but still our Government—agreed to adhere to EU standards on general product safety, only to find that, come next Friday, it will all be too problematic for GB businesses to trade with a part of the United Kingdom? It is wrong. It should not be the case, and it is not at all satisfactory that we are talking today about the aspiration to have a solution when this comes in on Friday. Businesses should already have the information.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not respond to the hon. Lady’s last line; I will leave it to others to determine. She and I have engaged with each other—sometimes helpfully, and sometimes crossly—for years. When there are opportunities to work together to benefit my constituency or anybody else’s in the United Kingdom, I will do it. What I am actually doing at the moment is sharing agreements that were reached. She and her colleagues voted for them, yet we are still waiting for their implementation. Let me give another one: an agreement outlined in “Safeguarding the Union” required a labelling regime across the United Kingdom. The reason for that was that there were no cost implications or benefits for businesses in Scotland, England and Wales if they simply chose not to supply our market in Northern Ireland. We have heard every hue and cry from drinks manufacturers and food manufacturers across the United Kingdom, who have said that this is costly and will cause them difficulty, yet Asda, Sainsbury’s and Tesco simply put it on their best-before date line. It costs them nothing, but what does it ensure? No divergence of trade within our own country. What does it ensure? Access to the Northern Ireland market and the removal of a disincentive. What have we heard? The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has no interest in honouring the very aspect of the agreement that Labour supported back in February. It is now saying, “Yes, we will take the power, but we will not use it, unless—”. Unless what? It is repudiating a commitment from an agreement that it supported, but it will not say what is the trigger point. At what point is it OK for it to step in? At what point should Northern Ireland be disenfranchised before our sovereign Government and our sovereign Parliament will take steps to protect the consumer interests of the people of Northern Ireland? We do not know, but what we do know is that even when they have been prepared to engage in discussions that are of practical benefit to the people of Northern Ireland to resolve these issues—and Labour supported those—there has not been full and faithful implementation. It is not governed by the Vienna convention, but we are not seeing that full and faithful implementation.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a fair point, and illustrates the requirement to honour the agreement—supported by the Minister and her Labour colleagues back in February—to eradicate routine checks within the UK internal market system. Does that deal with all the issues? No, it does not. Does it deal with what is in the red lane? No, it does not. Does it deal with the constitutional impurity of the overarching framework? No, it does not. But is it a step forward? Does it remove the frustration of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), who does not share my constitutional outlook? Yes, it does, and it should have been delivered in October. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has also included in the Bill aspects on customs and parcels—another commitment made back in February and supported by the Labour Government. It was to be implemented in October this year, but they delayed it. The Minister and Members should know that we did not get overly exercised by the delay, because we recognise that it will be implemented by the end of the financial year. However, owing to the practicalities, the fact that attention was diverted because of the general election and all the rest, it did not happen in October. It is happening, which is good, but it is being done in a way that recognises the overarching imposition that we have from relationships that are totally unnecessary. If the business run by the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is bringing in thread, wool and felt from Etsy to make craft, I defy any Member to stand up and indicate how that will have a material impact on the integrity of the single market. I defy any Member to stand up and give me an example—other than from “The Lord of the Rings”—of where a tree has come from GB to NI and been planted, and has then got up and walked across the border. It does not happen, yet we are told that sending a tree from Stranraer to Belfast would destroy the sanitary and phytosanitary integrity of the single market. It is a nonsense. We are having to live with, and try to work through, the practical solutions to the overarching imposition that this Parliament agreed to, in spite of the concerns raised by people like me who were here during the Brexit years, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) was. We raised concerns, but we were ignored. So when people stand up in 2024 and say, “Why are we still talking about an issue that started in 2016?”, it is because Members on both sides of the House did not listen to the warnings, the concerns, and the opportunities for compromise and agreement. Moreover, in repeating the same approach today, we are storing up greater potential for frustration in the future.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the position that my hon. Friend outlines in her contribution. I wish it was not the case that so few Members will get to contribute. Indeed, I arranged for my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) to lead for my party on the Bill—but he decided that I should—because I want to ensure that people get the opportunity to contribute. Just as we make our point today, we will make it on Tuesday. I encourage other Unionists to vote with us. It will trigger a review that I think will be important; I hope that it will not be dismissed in the way that the concerns being raised today or in the past are being dismissed by Members here. The review will take evidence and suggest how the arrangements may change. The purpose of Intertrade UK and the independent monitoring panel was to provide an evidence base for us to draw on when the review was triggered, but another aspect of the Government’s inability to honour the commitments they entered into back in January and February is that their reluctance and lethargy means that that information will not be available. That is a shame. It is a complete shame that the work was put in to make sure that we could have these discussions in a robust, evidence-based and honourable way, but the information simply will not be available. I wish the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim well with his Bill. He knows the frailties of the private Member’s Bill process, and we do not know where the Bill will end up, but the issues raised and the principles engaged, and the imperative to keep working at this properly, to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland in our United Kingdom, will not be diminished today, and they will not go away.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I regard the hon. Lady as well, as she knows. She has made that point now on two occasions, and she is free to do so. I want to come back to the SPS point that has been raised on a number of occasions. Here I stand as a Unionist Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland, having engaged on these issues for the past eight years, as have my colleagues in this place, whether recently or over the same period of time—nobody sitting behind me has a shorter political career than I do; in fact, almost all have a much longer political career. We have engaged on these issues because we have been trying to find solutions that work for the people of Northern Ireland. Sometimes that causes discord among us. Sometimes the best tactical way of achieving that does not meet unanimity or agreement. I am sharing with Members present that when we make progress and make achievements, we want to see them implemented, and there is no trust or honour earned when those agreements are breached or not fulfilled. We are invited to wait for an SPS agreement. I just want to be very clear that in a debate such as today’s, on the Windsor framework and the EU withdrawal Bill that the hon. and learned Member has presented, the Paymaster General should be here. The Paymaster General, who has been charged by the Prime Minister to engage with the European Union and resolve these issues, should be in this Chamber. I greatly respect the Minister present, but some of the issues being raised are for the Paymaster General. It is he who intends to go and secure this SPS agreement. Let me say very clearly to Government Members who think that such an agreement is the answer to all of our problems: it is not. There is a world in which that process could provide solutions and get equilibrium across the United Kingdom on SPS issues alone. However, nobody has yet said that that will see the removal of the overarching framework that is causing the imposition; nobody has once suggested that once reached, all the legislative requirements and the constitutional and practical impositions would dissolve. Nobody has suggested that, and that is problematic. The fact that the agreement would be a single solution for SPS and would not touch on any of the other areas of law is problematic. However, what is most fundamental? The Paymaster General knows as well as I do that the European Union does not see this process concluding within the next two or three years. I do not think it is appropriate or acceptable for the people of Northern Ireland to wait so long. The Paymaster General has not indicated what the content of his agreement should look like, nor the content he would like to achieve. I understand that this week—only this week, some six months into government—he has written to the devolved Administrations asking for ideas as to what that process would look like; only this week, six months in, for a key plank of the Government’s approach to resetting their relationship with the EU. That is simply not acceptable.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way to me?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), because I am giving way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill does not take us back. If we are interested in building trust and resetting our relationship with the European Union, why is it not conceivable that we could get to a place where we respect one another, acknowledge one another’s purity of legal services and legal systems, and recognise the importance of the rule of law and the ability to mutually enforce standards with one another? Why is that so inconceivable? Why is it possible for the European Union to outline a system that allows goods to move from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland and into GB without any border checks, but not the other way around? Why? Will anyone stand back and ask themselves whether all of this, with the attendant hassle and constitutional impairment, is necessary or worth it? It cannot be sustained, neither practically nor pragmatically. The impositions are not required. We started this journey in a place of equilibrium on standards. When we left the European Union, our standards and theirs were exactly the same. Mutual enforcement was not mythical then, and it is not magical now. There is no reason why I cannot conceive a solution based on a reset of relations, if necessary, and a rebuilding of trust so that mutual enforcement is the better answer.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister, but could I just cautiously and gently urge her to draw back from the comments she has made about the movement and security around the border? One of the most incendiary things to occur during the discussions with the European Union and the British Government was Leo Varadkar showing a copy of The Irish Times that displayed a picture of a border post that was blown up by the IRA during the troubles, and suggesting that the trade arrangements could lead to the same thing. He was wrong then, and I think the Minister is in danger of stepping into that territory today.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Our judiciary are independent from the Government as well, as she knows. At first instance, in the High Court in Northern Ireland, citizens can draw upon legal jurisprudence within the European system without needing to go to the final arbitrary appeal of a third party. She knows that. The hon. Lady and I have parsed the course on many occasions. Despite all the suggestions made by Members, when challenged, that they are prepared to engage in the debate on this legislation or on the wider issues affecting Northern Ireland seriously, earnestly and with a willingness to resolve problems, there have been an awful lot of giggling Gerties and Cyril Sneers across the Chamber. There has been an awful lot of dismissal of concerns that have not been raised for the first time today—they have been raised on many, many occasions. It is not just immigration that has been encroached because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, but legacy, which was the basis on which the Secretary of State raised this issue on Wednesday night. The legacy of our troubled past is an important issue, and it has absolutely nothing to do with international trade or trade within our own country—yet here is a case predicated on article 2 of the Windsor framework, which is frustrating this Parliament’s ability to legislate on that issue. That cannot be right. [ Interruption. ] Is the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down seeking to intervene, or is she just waving supportively?

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. What have we achieved over the last five years? A game, and not a very enjoyable game, of whack-a-mole, for it is about as strategic as whack-a-mole. An issue comes up involving the VAT margin schemes for second-car salesmen; we find a solution. Then another issue pops up, and another, and another. Whack-a-mole! That is the best strategic approach that this Government, and the previous Government, have adopted to deal with issues that are affecting us because of the decision taken back in 2019. I remember the parliamentary discourse about the quest for agreement, but I know this. When the previous Prime Minister, Boris Johnson— [Interruption.] Just let me finish. No need for your wee quips. When Boris Johnson engaged with this issue, in respect of the protocol, he went to the Wirral for a walkabout in a wedding venue with Leo Varadkar, and became smitten with Leo. He ditched the democratic consent principles in section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. It was always part of the preceding arrangements that a consent vote in Northern Ireland would adhere to the consent principles in the Belfast agreement, and Boris Johnson ditched them. In “Safeguarding the Union”, there was a commitment to remove and repeal a legacy provision in section 10(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, on having due regard to an all-island economy—a commitment that Labour supported, but now repudiate because it is in “Safeguarding the Union”. Let me remind the House that it is only in “Safeguarding the Union” because it features in the Windsor framework. Much of the approach from the Government Benches seems to amount to “We cannot achieve anything with the European Union unless we demonstrate our trust and our integrity—or our servitude!—to the European Union.” Paragraph 53 of the Windsor framework indicates very clearly that there is no need to have a legal due regard to an all-island economy that does not exist. Anyone who stands up here today and talks about their full-throated support for the Windsor framework should read what paragraph 53 has to say about the all-island economy. It is a matter of fact that we do not have an all-island economy; we have strands within our economy that operate on a cross-border basis in the context of two legal jurisdictions, two tax jurisdictions, two currency jurisdictions, two VAT jurisdictions and two regulatory jurisdictions, unless covered under annex 2 of the protocol. We do not have an all-island economy. It is a superfluous piece of legislation that is drawn out of the joint report from 2017, and it should go. It should go because I say so; it should go because it was agreed under the Windsor framework, which is quickly forgotten and ignored. We have talked about article 2 in this debate. No one on this side of the Chamber is indicating that we should leave, through this argument, the European convention on human rights, nor that we should replace the Human Rights Act 1998, which embeds those commitments in our domestic legislation. The argument being raised on article 2 of the Windsor framework is that what has been presented as an international treaty, an agreement and a resolution on trade is impacting and frustrating the ability of this sovereign Parliament because of how the courts in Northern Ireland are interpreting the provisions on myriad areas outside trade. Immigration is a classic example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow was right that we worked on this and we talked about this, but let me be very clear: whenever I stood up in this Chamber on behalf of my colleagues as our spokesman on home affairs to say that I would not vote for the Illegal Migration Act 2023, it was not because I did not think there was an issue with immigration. I do. It was not because I was ill-prepared to support Government in their endeavours. I was prepared to do so. I said this in this Chamber and my colleagues supported me: it was because, though the Government said that the provisions would apply in Northern Ireland, we were indicating that they would not. The very same people who told me that the immigration legislation would apply in Northern Ireland launched a leadership campaign on the back of the arguments I was making afterward. We were right, but it is wrong that a trading agreement should have any impact whatever on the ability of this sovereign Parliament to set a uniform immigration policy across the whole United Kingdom. It was wrong then, and I am glad that the Secretary of State on Wednesday night indicated that that is a ground of appeal that the Government are bringing forward, because it is wrong.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will respond in, hopefully, the same tone and say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I suspect there is a big prize for him waiting in the Government Whips Office after this debate. He welcomed every intervention going. I do not besmirch his character at all, but since he suggested that there is interest in the concerns being raised by the Unionist community, I reflect that with almost two hours left of a five-hour debate, I am the third speaker. Scores of Members from Northern Ireland on both sides of the Chamber will probably not get the opportunity to make their point and represent their constituents, because of a quest to make sure that the Bill is talked out. I say, respectfully, that the hon. Member did exactly what he was asked to do, but when considering these issues, I am not sure just how constructive that will prove to be. The hon. Gentleman said in his remarks that we will be able to deal with issues as time goes by. I have watched “As Time Goes By” on repeat on UKTV Gold, and I have watched people in this Chamber say that we will deal with these issues “as time go by”. Here is an opportunity to engage in the concerns that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised, having received support from across the Unionist spectrum in Northern Ireland to raise them. Yet, as time goes by, though it is said that we shall not be dismissed or demeaned in the position that we are putting forward, that is exactly what is happening. I stand not only as leader of my party and my colleagues, but as a co-sponsor of the hon. Member’s Bill. I commend him on the position that he has outlined to the Chamber today and on his success in the private Member’s Bill ballot. He is not a gambler—anyone who listens to him will know that he will put forward his principled position without fear or favour—but he took a chance and he has this opportunity. I commend him on doing so in a collective and cohesive way that has allowed for greater co-operation not just from those in Northern Ireland, but from across the country. He should be commended for that. The hon. Member and I embarked on this journey in the same position as we approached the 2016 vote. Although over the intervening years there have been a few crossed paths, a few cross words and the odd crossed sword, I suspect that it is good, fitting and encouraging for people at home that today we are speaking with one voice about these issues. I say to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Bootle that one of the best ways to deal with the issues raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and me, and supported by colleagues in their own remarks, is to honour agreements that have been reached. When the hon. and learned Member said in his remarks that it seemed as if the people of Northern Ireland were being asked to “suck it up,” the Minister said from a sedentary position—I hope she will not fall out with me for sharing this—“No, we fight to maintain the Union.” [ Interruption. ] She is agreeing. However, whenever agreement was reached earlier this year, the “Safeguarding the Union” paper outlined a number of stepping stones to a better place. The Minister and her colleagues present voted in favour of that agreement. They recognised the recurring issues in Northern Ireland, and the harm that those issues were causing the people of Northern Ireland and consumers, no matter the constitutional outlook. If constitutional principles are not shared, it harms ordinary people in Northern Ireland. They voted for solutions on an interim basis—a stepping-stone approach—to move these issues forward. Where are we on that today? What is the Government’s position on eradicating routine checks within the UK’s internal market system? They voted for it in this House back in February, and they did so because they recognised the constitutional implications that checks were having and the practical frustrations they were causing consumers in Northern Ireland.

• 6 Dec 2024 · European Union (Withdrawal Arrangements) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for co-sponsoring the Bill and being present today. He is right: the people who say in this or other debates that we cannot change what is written in tablets of stone are of the very party that was, from 1998, part of securing the Good Friday agreement, which was worked on in a political way, with parties in Northern Ireland, including my own, and changed time and again through processes at Leeds castle, the St Andrews agreement and the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. The very arguments that they are deploying against change ignore the fact that they have a history of doing exactly the same thing—particularly on the Belfast agreement, which they often suggest is written in tablets of stone.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is engaging in this discussion, in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). We often hear that one of the safeguards associated with the Bill is that medical practitioners would be involved and that a diagnosis of a terminal illness, with six months or less to live, would be required. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that medicine is not an exact science? It is the science of uncertainty blended with the art of probability. There is no exactitude in this. No court will second-guess medical opinion; it will simply look at process.

• 27 Nov 2024 · City and Growth Deals · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the Minister of State’s remarks about Ken Reid. He was a colossus of Northern Ireland politics, and journalism more broadly across the country. I thank her for those comments. The Secretary of State will know that getting the city and growth deals back on track was good, following the disappointment of the pause that followed the incoming Government. He will also know that there was a commitment in the spring Budget to support a skills and education centre at the Crusaders football club, for £2.2 million. That remains paused. I think the Minister of State has taken an interest in that project, and I would be keen for the Secretary of State to confirm that he will raise it with the Deputy Prime Minister.

• 27 Nov 2024 · City and Growth Deals · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State knows that city and growth deals are about economic growth and ensuring prosperity within Northern Ireland. Is he aware of the concerns among businesses in England, Wales and Scotland, who are saying that, as a result of the general product safety standards emanating from the European Union, they cannot send their products to Northern Ireland? That is in stark contrast to the British Government’s position to maintain standards on CE markings with the European Union. What advice and support can he give those businesses in Northern Ireland who want to trade, and to consumers who want to buy, in their own country but are currently frustrated from doing so?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Windsor Framework · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for getting to the point where he talks about progress, but I remind him, as he will have heard this morning, that every Ulster MP in Westminster Hall today rails against the fundamental impediment to our constitutional position and the overarching framework that has been imposed upon us against our will. But we worked on solutions and reached arrangements and agreements with the Government in “Safeguarding the Union” about ensuring the movement of goods within our UK internal market, which he supported when he was in opposition, and those agreements need to be honoured. While deadlines have slipped, there is a huge imperative for him and his Government to respond appropriately and earnestly implement the very things that saw a return to devolution in Northern Ireland.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Lebanon is in crisis, and my constituent Catherine Flanagan is in despair. Her three-year-old son David Nahle has been out of her care for the past two years. The Belfast High Court has indicated that he should be returned to his mother and has issued a bench warrant for the arrest of his father. However, when my constituent fled domestic violence in Beirut, she got no help or assistance from the UK embassy, and when she has sought assistance from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to be reunited with her son—to see her son again, and for this British citizen to come back to the UK—she has not received the assistance that she, or I and our community, expect she should. Will the Prime Minister engage with this issue and, at the very least, ask the Foreign Secretary to assist my constituent in her earnest desire to see her three-year-old son again?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Police Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and on advancing his argument so expertly. When he acknowledges the projected pressures that police will face in the coming years, does he recognise that the Budget made no reference to the McCloud judgment, to the holiday pay issue, to legacy liability or to the recent PSNI data breach, which amounts to £750 million of unfunded pressures that will put even more difficulty on PSNI, the Ministry of Justice and the Northern Ireland Office?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Police Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Minister accept that that was in relation to the likely fine from the Information Commissioner’s Office? The fine was greatly reduced, but there is no cover or resource allocation for the level of compensation that will be due to the thousands of officers that were involved. That figure is at £240 million.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). In reflecting on the maiden speeches that we have heard this afternoon, I will just add a comment to what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said in his Titanic analogy. As the Member of Parliament for Belfast East, I always remind folks that Titanic was built by Ulstermen but navigated by Englishmen. I wish him well. I delayed my contribution to the debate until today in the hope that we might have reached the point where there would perhaps be less politics and a bit more accurate reflection on the challenges we face as a country and on how to proceed. I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here, because he is a man of substance and he understands the challenges that we all face. One of the most accurate descriptions of the Budget so far has been the “sugar rush”: something that will make us feel good immediately—an initial injection of cash into public services over the coming years—but which then peters out. The benefit of that sugar rush peters out, we hit a low and crave more in years 3 and 4, but, without sufficient growth, the means will not be there to pay for it. I say that not with any glee, but as a genuine challenge on how we invest in public services—rightly—in a way that will produce private growth, because it will be that private growth that allows investment in the years to come. From a Northern Ireland perspective, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know that there has been no resolution to get our finances on to a firm foundation. “Fixing the foundations” is what we hear from the Government. The negotiations that we had with the previous Government saw a considerable injection of cash. The debate today is about health. On pay parity, NHS workers in Northern Ireland—the nurses, doctors and auxiliary staff—and the carers outside in the social care settings, are not paid like for like compared with their colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales. We obtained money to achieve pay parity just one year ago, yet it is in danger of being broken. We secured money for Northern Ireland to achieve stability under the previous Government, but are told to use it for years 2 and 3 to maintain parity for such important workers. That does not work, and I had hoped for more from the Labour Government. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will continue to engage in those discussions. Some political decisions feel right when they are taken but will not be easily forgotten by a jaded electorate. The removal of the winter fuel payment is one of them; the decision on inheritance tax for family farms is another. Those decisions will rest long in the minds of constituents who placed their trust in the Government. Labour Members have joyfully repeated all their party’s enthusiastic lines, but those constituents will not forget the damage and the pain caused by the decisions associated with this Budget. Madam Deputy Speaker, I had hoped for more. I cannot be churlish and not recognise the investment in public finances that is in the Budget, but it is not going to encourage us along a positive path. There are challenges ahead, and politically and collectively—irrespective of our party outlook or differences—we are going to have to engage with those challenges more thoughtfully in the future.