Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 10th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am repeating what I said because I am not sure that the Secretary of State was paying as much attention as he might have done at the time. I said:

“The longer the Executive are collapsed, the hollower the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement…will be. Power sharing is the essential and hard-won outcome of that agreement. It is incumbent on the UK Government and the European Union to engage with the concerns of the Unionist community that led to its withdrawal from the institutions. Equally, any solution that emerges must be acceptable to the nationalist community to allow power sharing to resume.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 827.]

I will happily repeat that again if the Secretary of State missed it this time.

However, something has gone wrong. On paper, we have an agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union that intends to restore power sharing, yet Stormont is still empty. The 25th anniversary was not hollow, but it is a missed opportunity that Stormont has not returned despite the Windsor framework and all the good will generated by the anniversary itself. Listening to Tony Blair at the Queen’s University conference, it was clear how persistence from a prime ministerial level was crucial to finding a solution in 1998. He described the

“seemingly endless days and nights”

of negotiation. It was a huge commitment for a new Prime Minister to make, and it was also a risk.

Tony Blair’s deep optimism about Northern Ireland’s future, then and today, shone through. He also paid tribute to the extraordinary leadership across Northern Ireland’s communities, saying that

“this agreement only happened because leaders were prepared to put their leadership in peril for the good of their people.”

The current Prime Minister needs to display a similar commitment and similar leadership—to stay the course and keep showing up, even when there are no prime ministerial visits. There is clearly a disconnect between what he believes the framework has achieved and what some members of the Unionist community say that it does. These challenges are not insurmountable, but progress can only be achieved if Westminster remains deeply committed and deeply engaged. We on the Labour Benches supported the framework in the national interest, so we would welcome an update to Parliament on its implementation and what is still needed from either side for its effects to be felt.

Ultimately, it might only be perseverance that builds back some of the trust in the UK Government that people in Northern Ireland have lost. More defined processes would be very helpful, so that we avoid a disconnect between what the Government are trying to achieve and what actually happens. In the Windsor framework, the Government committed to further legislation that would ease Unionist concerns about Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. In a recent session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State said that he was

“yet to be able to determine the exact items”

that would go into such legislation. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on when that mystery legislation will appear, and what the consultation process for it will be.

The Labour party will always take a constructive approach when it comes to Northern Ireland. There are clauses in the Bill that give the Secretary of State power to ask for advice on options for raising public revenue. Those have led to some very useful discussions on the fiscal framework in which the Executive operate. In particular, I praise the work of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, whose updated estimate of the relative need for public spending has grabbed the attention of all parties. The Secretary of State also said to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that

“there is the ability, will and understanding of the public finances necessary for us to come together with a plan for transformation.”

It does feel like movement is building to improve Northern Ireland’s financial stability. It would be good to hear what the next steps are for the Secretary of State once he receives the requested advice on policy options from civil servants.

The powers in the Bill last only as long as there is no Executive, so there will hopefully be a limited opportunity to use them. The decision-making powers we have given to civil servants will also now last until the Executive are formed, instead of there being a six-month deadline. I pay tribute—just as the Secretary of State and his Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), did—to all civil servants who are being asked to go far beyond what should be expected of them. The head of the civil service, Jayne Brady, gave evidence last week to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. She highlighted some of the challenges that the civil service is facing on how to make decisions within the budget that the Secretary of State now has to set out. In her words, even with the Bill,

“there will be decisions that we will not be able to make because they will not be aligned with the legal construct we are operating in.”

In summing up, the Minister should address that possible gap and what decisions might fall into it.

One of the themes from meetings that I recently had with Northern Ireland groups is that it is difficult to understand where responsibility ultimately lies. That really worries me—as a Parliament, it should worry all of us. The Secretary of State has been clear that we are not moving into direct rule; what we have instead is limited interventions from Westminster that keep public services functioning with limited scrutiny. The situation cannot continue forever. I hope that we can build on the momentum of the 25th anniversary and the recognition of how special the peace process was and continues to be, and I hope that we see power sharing restored soon.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady digs the most elegant of tiger traps, hoping I will jump into it, but I will swerve around it. She makes a point that most people in their heart of hearts would agree with, which is that if a greater bang for the public sector buck can be achieved, which then has a direct benefit for outcomes in health, economic development, education and so on, that should be explored. Part of the reason why so many people in this place were keen to ensure the openness of the border north-south was that huge exchange of people, trade and ideas that takes place on a daily basis. Purely in the need to try to drive as much efficiency for the taxpayer as possible, nothing should be ruled in or out. If, however, her intervention was an elegant way of inviting me to endorse the idea of joint authority, I am afraid I will have to disappoint her, because devolution is the only game in town as far as I am concerned, and the Minister articulated that, too.

I move to my final point, because I know that others wish to speak. Under new section 5A in the Bill, which concerns advice and information, any direction from the Secretary of State falls or lapses at the end of the current period in which there is no Executive. What that could effectively mean—perhaps the Bill is deliberately opaque on this—is that all the work, consultation, information, advice and so on is lost. Does it get passed to Ministers in Stormont as a piece of work that they may or may not wish to consider? We know that the Secretary of State perfectly properly—although that in itself is a debatable point—cannot take decisions based on the advice or consultation. However, if that good work, particularly that undertaken by civil servants—as always, they will be rising to the challenge of trying to deliver not just existing public services, but public service reform—is to be meaningful, I would hope that the advice and information tabled to the Secretary of State would be passported over to the relevant new Minister in the Executive.

It is clear, certainly in the evidence sessions that we have held, in meetings that the Committee has had and on visits to Northern Ireland, that the public are ahead of us on this. They know that there are problems with public service. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made the point to me some while ago that a resurrected Stormont could not solve all the problems, and he is right to make that point, but it can certainly play a part in trying to find solutions to very many of them. The public appetite for public service reform is acute, as people face the cost of living crisis post covid and the economy faces all the challenges as a result of Ukraine and the associated knock-on effects. I would like to hear from the Minister what will happen to that advice.

I join the Minister in praying, exalting, urging—whatever. The people of Northern Ireland deserve so much better than this. They do not deserve interim arrangements. They do not deserve or need temporary sticking plasters. They need fundamental, robust, energised and engaged public service. The appetite is there, and I believe that it is growing across the political parties in Northern Ireland. I hope that we can get Stormont back up and running because, as we all know, devolution really is the only show in town.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

In my opening remarks, can I first thank the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), for what I regard—this is probably the death knell for him in his position—as a very balanced presentation of the situation we face in Northern Ireland? He recognised, because of the experience he had over the period when we were remembering the signing of the Belfast agreement, the balance that is required there, and the fact that devolved Government in Northern Ireland cannot operate without the support and consent of both communities and their representatives in Northern Ireland.

That is something I think the Minister has still failed to recognise: he does not understand. It is quite clear from some of his remarks today that he does not understand the deep opposition to the current arrangements for governing Northern Ireland, and the difficulties that those arrangements cause for the Unionist population. Quite frankly, we still see the arrangements—whether the Northern Ireland protocol version or the Windsor framework version—as ones that damage our ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom to which we belong, and that will lead to divergence in the long run between Northern Ireland and the country to which we belong.

While the Minister may be prepared to accept the compromise, as he says, of some EU law applying to Northern Ireland as the means of having what he described as an “infrastructure-free border”, we do not see it as an infrastructure-free border. An infrastructure is being built in Northern Ireland, and further infrastructure will be built. Indeed, as I pointed out during Northern Ireland questions earlier today, it is not just in Northern Ireland that we are now going to have that infrastructure; we are going to have it in Cairnryan, Liverpool and Holyhead for goods moving from Northern Ireland into GB. I am afraid that is not what he or I campaigned for when we campaigned to leave the European Union. I do not think he should expect Unionists to compromise on being part of the country that many of them fought and died to remain in during a terrorist campaign of over 35 years in Northern Ireland.

The Minister’s second point was that, despite calls for the Assembly to get up and running, he is concerned—I will quote his words back to him—

“about the long-term sustainability of public finances in Northern Ireland”,

as well as that the pressures are “extremely challenging” and the Northern Ireland Executive have “difficult …decisions” to make. However, he knows that even if the Executive were up and running, and working splendidly, and everyone was co-operating and prepared to make the hard choices, there still would not be enough money in the pot.

The Minister knows—he actually referred to this—that the Fiscal Council has already made it clear that, in relation to the application of the Barnett formula, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that falls below the needs assessment on which public finance, spending in Northern Ireland and the block grant should be based. We are below it, and we are falling further below it. We are continuing to fall, and the gap is getting wider. When that happened and it was identified in Wales, there was immediate recognition of the problem. Wales had not actually fallen below the percentage, although it was moving towards it, and the Holtham commission made recommendations that ensured not only that a floor was set for moneys to be made available in Barnett consequentials for Wales, but that there were transitional arrangements.

I think this is important, because a lie is being spread around Northern Ireland. The Minister says he is not hectoring us today about getting us back into the Assembly, but I am afraid he does plenty of hectoring when he gets across the water, including putting on Facebook, or wherever, about chanting with groups to get back into Stormont, when he knows full well that getting back into Stormont is not going to grow the purse, change the financial situation or make it any easier. The extremely challenging difficulties for long-term sustainability will still be there, so let us not fool anybody.

I do accept that the Assembly had some responsibility for the situation we are in, but when I was Finance Minister in Northern Ireland we always balanced our budget. In fact, we were able to get three-year rolling budgets, so there was certainty for Departments, and we were able to make efficiency savings of 3% almost every year. However, some bad decisions have been made, and the fact that Sinn Féin could not get any of the parties to agree to the budget proposals brought forward when the Executive was functioning is an indication that there is such a role there. The Finance Minister was not capable of delivering a budget on which we could reach agreement, hence the overspend that has occurred. The impact of all that is that even if the Assembly were up and running, the detriment to public services in Northern Ireland would not disappear.

Let us look at some of the implications of the current budget and draw some comparisons. This year, Whitehall Departments will have an increase of 1.8% in resource spending. People argue that is not enough—it does not meet inflation, pay pressures and so on, and I accept that—but in Northern Ireland resource spending will fall by 0.9%.

For education, the budget in England will go up by 6.5% in the next year; in Northern Ireland it will fall by 2.7%, and £100 million of that fall is on special education. Almost every week we see people coming to our constituency offices who are desperate about their youngsters, who need support because they are autistic or have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or one of many other educational disadvantages, yet they cannot get assessed, let alone get support. Of course, the pressure on teachers’ pay will further add to school budgets.

In health, over the period to 2024-25 spending in England will go up by 32.9%. In Northern Ireland it will go up by 18.1%. So, again, we will fall further behind even though we have the difficulties and waiting lists that we currently face.

In policing, the Government have recently been boasting that they have reached their target of 20,000 extra police officers in England. In Northern Ireland, despite the promises made in New Decade, New Approach, as a result of the budgetary pressures we have a fall in police officers to well below what Patten recommended was needed to police Northern Ireland.

To add to that, although the Minister knows that Northern Ireland is not being fully funded—the Fiscal Council has told him that—that the Barnett squeeze is getting greater and that the gap will increase, we are being told that if there are any Barnett consequentials for Departments in Northern Ireland this year as a result of, for example, the Government nicely agreeing to pay increases, Northern Ireland will not get them, because they will be used to repay the overspend on what is already accepted to be an underfunded budget. It was last year, the year before and the year before that—in fact, I think it goes right back to 2017. That is what we are facing.

Just last week, I spoke to a school principal who said, “If there’s a pay increase for teachers, as the education budget has been cut by the degree that it has, I cannot afford to pay it unless I sack teachers.” It will be the same with nurses and right across the public service. Indeed, at a time when cuts are biting, the Department for Communities has said that it has got a £27 million deficit, so it does not have the money to recruit the extra staff it needs to process benefits, because of the increasing demand for them.

Those are all the consequences. So given the scale of the gap, let us not pretend that, somehow or other, if the Executive were up and running tomorrow, fairy dust would just fall on Northern Ireland and all of those fiscal problems would disappear—they would not. That is not a reason for not wanting devolved Government back, but it is an indication that we should not be selling the lie to people in Northern Ireland of, “Get back into government and suddenly all of the problems that you are facing—in health, education, communities, policing and everything else—will disappear.”

One of the reasons for amendment 5 is that the DUP recognises that, in order to look at the long-term sustainability of public services in Northern Ireland, we need to know what the Fiscal Council is saying and put in place an arrangement—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but Committee consideration will follow this stage, so I would be grateful if he confined his remarks to Second Reading.

[Sammy Wilson]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not going to go into the amendment in any detail—we can do that later—but I just wanted to refer to the fact that the Fiscal Council had made its comments.

When we look at the Bill, as has been described by a party leader in an earlier comment in Northern Ireland, we see that most of it is actually about ways of raising finance and advising how there should be consultation. Clause 2 talks about the consultation on different ways of raising finance as if that is how we will fill the gap. That takes money out of an economy that the Government have already damaged through the protocol, with the difficulties that has caused to Northern Ireland businesses and the costs that people there now face as a result of it being more difficult to get goods from the cheapest source—GB—with which they would normally have traded. Now they have to buy more expensive, and probably lower quality, goods from an EU supply chain. There are also the extra costs on businesses, and indeed the extra cost on the public purse, because £500 million now has to be devoted to the trader support service to help companies over the hurdles caused by the protocol.

Is the answer simply to raise more finance in Northern Ireland? I accept that people in Northern Ireland have things such as free prescriptions that, it could be argued, we could well look at. I remember a debate about free prescriptions. As Finance Minister, I was not keen on them, but I was told at that stage—it was true—that the cost to be spent on administering the distinction between people eligible for free prescriptions and those who were not would hardly compensate for the amount of extra money.

However, let us look at the extensive source of revenue that we do have in Northern Ireland: the rates. It has been estimated that even if we increased rates by 107%—if we more than doubled them—which would have a massive impact on households in Northern Ireland, we would raise only about 5% more revenue to the block grant that we have at present. The argument could be made if rates in Northern Ireland were much lower than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, but actually they are higher than those in Manchester, Sunderland, Liverpool and many other parts of England. So it is not as if we do not already tax people in Northern Ireland where we can to a level that is commensurate, we believe, with their ability to pay.

Clause 2 is included in the Bill to say, as has been widely spread around Northern Ireland, “If the Assembly is not up and running, it is more likely that other ways of raising revenue will be imposed on people in Northern Ireland, so get your politicians back, because otherwise you’ll be charged for things for which you weren’t in the past, or given extra charges on things you are being charged for at present.” I must say to the Minister that that kind of blackmail is not the way to restore the Assembly.

The Assembly will be restored when, first of all, the terms of the Belfast agreement are adhered to so that the views of Unionists, as well as nationalists, are respected, and Unionist Ministers are not required to sit in the Assembly and implement the very arrangements that we then come here and complain will destroy us as a part of the United Kingdom. I hope Members understand that. That is what is being asked of Unionists: to go into the Assembly under court direction and implement the Windsor framework, even though we know that in the long term it will be detrimental to the Union. We will talk about amendments later, but departmental officials will have to make some very controversial decisions. That will require some ministerial direction, hence why we believe there should be provision in the Bill for ministerial direction of civil servants, so that difficult decisions can be made and we can try to make some reforms.

I will make one last point, which relates to one made by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). Can we not look at ways to better use public money? I say that with some knowledge of the steps that Unionist Ministers have taken in the past in recognition of the fact that there are better ways. The Altnagelvin cancer unit, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), is a good example. It was indicated to us—I was Finance Minister at the time and the DUP held the health Ministry—that we could not afford a cancer unit in the north-west and the Irish Government could not afford a cancer unit of their own in the north-west, so we co-operated. They provided some of the capital and we provided some of the capital. They provided some of the running costs—they still do—and we provided some of the running costs. So this idea that Unionists are not willing to look at how we can make reforms, take decisions and make public finance more sustainable is just not on.

I look forward to the day when devolution is restored and we can work in a co-operative way, but it will not happen until there is respect for the Unionist view in Northern Ireland. And even when it does happen, it will not be effective if the resources are not there to enable us to make the kinds of changes that are required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you been notified of any change to the business, either today or tomorrow, in the light of the announcements in The Daily Telegraph—I believe a written ministerial statement has also been published—about the Government’s proposed fundamental changes to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? We have debated the Bill at great length in this place, and I understand from The Daily Telegraph that the Business Secretary is proposing changes to regulatory reform, in addition to deleting certain regulations, but that has not been notified to us.

I know you will be as concerned as I am about parliamentary scrutiny of any substantial changes, and I am sure the Business Secretary would not wish to evade that scrutiny in taking back control to this place so that we are able to understand what the Government intend. Have you been informed of whether we, as parliamentarians, might have an opportunity to scrutinise any of these proposals?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The straight answer is no. Mr Speaker has repeatedly made it plain that he expects information to be relayed to the House before it is announced to the media. However, from what the hon. Lady has said, it sounds as though a written ministerial statement has been made. There has been no indication to the Chair at this stage of any change to the business. That may, of course, change tomorrow.