UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: European Union

  • John Glen – 2023 Statement on Customs Fraud and the European Union

    John Glen – 2023 Statement on Customs Fraud and the European Union

    The statement made by John Glen, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    In March 2018, the European Commission took the first steps towards infracting the UK, alleging that between November 2011 and October 2017, the UK had failed to prevent undervaluation fraud involving importations of Chinese textiles and footwear. On 8 March 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) published its judgment, finding against the UK on most liability points.

    The UK has argued throughout the case that it took appropriate steps to counter the fraud in question. However, since these infringement proceedings were raised, the UK has taken proportionate and increased steps to combat this fraud without impacting legitimate trade, including by liquidating suspect traders through enforcement action. The UK takes a comprehensive and dynamic approach to tackling customs fraud risk and evolves its responses as any new potential threats emerge.

    Whilst the UK has now left the European Union and this is a legacy matter from before our departure, the Government are keen to resolve this long-running case once and for all and are committed to fulfilling their international obligations.

    Throughout this process, the Government have also been conscious of the risk of further protracted legal proceedings, which could open UK taxpayers to not only a larger principal bill, but also continued substantial interest accrual. Considering this, in June 2022 the UK took the proactive step of making a payment of €678,372,885.63, which the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in a statement to the House on 30 June (HCWS167). This represented the minimum, indisputable amount the UK considered due at that time in light of the CJEU judgment and, vitally, stopped interest accruing on this portion of the bill.

    Following further discussions with the European Commission, on 13 January 2023, the UK made a final principal payment to the EU of €700,351,738.31. This constitutes the entire remaining principal due and the figure paid reflects the 12.43% share back that the UK is entitled to from its time as a member state.

    On 6 February 2023, the UK made a final payment to the EU of €1,227,884,519.53, representing the interest due on the principal amounts paid. These are substantial sums but represent the final payments and draw a line under this long running case, with the UK fulfilling its international obligations.

    Now that the UK is no longer part of the EU customs union, we do not have to remit any duties to the European Union, a tax that in 2021-22 represented a £4.9 billion contribution to the Exchequer. Outside the EU, we can set our own law, including tax and trade policies, that work for the UK. Furthermore, taking into account the financial settlement with the EU, the Government have determined how an additional £14.6 billion of spending by 2024-25 can be allocated to its domestic priorities, rather than be sent in contributions to the EU. This additional spending was already included in the overall spending plans that the Government set out at previous spending reviews.

  • Wera Hobhouse – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Trade with European Countries

    Wera Hobhouse – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Trade with European Countries

    The parliamentary question asked by Wera Hobhouse, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    What steps she is taking to help increase trade with European countries.

    The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)

    Europe remains a vital destination for British businesses, with exports of over £386 billion in the year to September 2022. That is up almost 25%, in current prices, on the previous year. As we speak, the Secretary of State is in Rome to establish the UK-Italy export and investment promotion dialogue, which will help to strengthen practical co-operation on exports in high-performing sectors and promote inward investment. We are also working closely with EU member states to tackle priority barriers and unlock export opportunities for UK businesses.

    Wera Hobhouse

    More than half of firms surveyed by the British Chambers of Commerce are struggling with the new post-Brexit export system. The Office for National Statistics reports that Brexit costs the economy £1 million per hour, and the UK economy has not recovered as well as other countries post covid. What plans does the Minister have to reduce trade barriers and EU border bureaucracy, which have hugely increased since Brexit?

    Nigel Huddleston

    As I said earlier, I hope that we can look at the opportunities of leaving the EU as well as trying to fight past battles. There are a host of opportunities; for example, I do not think that the EU had a particularly proud record on services around the globe. We are opening up services for many companies, which under the EU we were to a very large degree constrained in doing. We have huge resources for supporting businesses. Trade with the EU has been growing considerably, and we will do everything we can to support further growth.

    Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

    These barriers have had a greater impact on EU trade than on the UK. When does the Minister anticipate the EU will wake up to what is in our mutual interest?

    Nigel Huddleston

    My right hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point. Our agreement with the EU is one of the most thorough and comprehensive trade agreements, but we need to work further. We are constantly looking at opportunities—country by country, industry subsector by subsector—to open up more trade by reducing the barriers. These are barriers that also existed when we were in the EU.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)

    Over the past three years, according to the latest German trade figures, exports to Germany are up by almost a third from the US, by almost a quarter from the rest of the EU and by more than 10% from China, yet exports from Britain to Germany are down. Everybody else’s exports are up; Britain’s are down. Is it a lack of support to our exporters to Germany, is it the poor deal that the Conservative party negotiated with the EU, or does the Minister blame British business for the situation, as one of last year’s Prime Ministers once did?

    Nigel Huddleston

    Again, all I have to say is that I have much greater confidence in British industries taking advantage of opportunities, not only in the EU but around the world. I wish others in this Chamber shared that optimism and confidence in British business.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Exports from Devolved Nations to the EU

    Gavin Newlands – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Exports from Devolved Nations to the EU

    The parliamentary question asked by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)

    What steps her Department is taking to help increase exports from the devolved nations to the EU.

    The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)

    We are supporting businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom through our export support service, including our innovative Export Academy, which helps build market export capability among small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK. We have also established trade and investment offices in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, increasing the visibility of the Department’s services in the nations, and channelling the benefits of our new export and investment strategies to the entire UK. I am sure the hon. Member is aware of those benefits in his own constituency, with businesses such as Lynkeos Technology winning a £100,000 contract last year in Germany with the assistance of the Department.

    Gavin Newlands

    I like the hon. Member, but that answer was nonsense, quite frankly. The Institute of Directors found in a recent survey that almost half—47%—of businesses are still finding trade after Brexit a challenge, with just a third envisaging any opportunities at all from Brexit. That report also found that 45% of SMEs are exporting less to the European Union post Brexit, with Scottish exports having already slumped by £2.2 billion because of Brexit. Does the Minister agree that Brexit is an act of state-sanctioned economic vandalism?

    Nigel Huddleston

    I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is saying this is nonsense. I am sure that those businesses in his constituency and across Scotland who get support from the Department do not share that attitude. As well as focusing on the EU, which is and will continue to be an important trading partner of the UK, we are looking to the entire world, hence focusing on so many other countries. I hope he will be a little more “glass half full” in the future.

    David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)

    Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Government are planning to bring forward draconian restrictions on the advertising of whisky and other drinks in Scotland? Not only will that cost jobs in Scotland but it will make it much more difficult for the industry to export to the EU and elsewhere.

    Nigel Huddleston

    My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Such measures could have a considerable negative impact on so many Scottish businesses. That is precisely why we are seeking opportunities to support them, for example with trade deals, and trying to ensure that we reduce tariffs and are able to export more overseas. While we are backing our businesses right across the UK, I hope that in future we can get support from the Opposition, who might at some point come and join us and support one of the trade deals we are negotiating.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the SNP spokesperson.

    Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)

    Unfortunately for the Minister, and unfortunately for Scotland, the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that between July and September last year, exports from Scotland to the European Union slumped by 5%. Will the Minister explain for an expectant nation exactly how that is in any way strengthening the case for the Union?

    Nigel Huddleston

    The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, as we recover from a global pandemic, certain sectors and certain industries are suffering more than others. That is precisely why we have an export strategy and why the Secretary of State has articulated a five-point strategy for growth. We will continue to work positively with all sectors to grow our export opportunities. UK exports to the EU for the 12-month period to September 2022 were up by 25% in current prices.

    Richard Thomson

    It is not just the SNP who are saying what a disaster Brexit has been. With the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying that Brexit is clearly an “economic own goal”, and even a former Brexit Secretary saying that there have been no economic benefits from Brexit, is it not surely time for voters in Scotland to be given the choice between continued British economic decline or a prosperous, independent European future?

    Nigel Huddleston

    I know the hon. Member and some people are tempted to continue to fight the battles of the past, but this Government will be laser-focused on the future and future opportunities. We have the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and so many other opportunities around the world, and I think it would be good for all of us in this place to talk the British economy up, rather than talk it down.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2023 Speech to the European Parliament

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2023 Speech to the European Parliament

    The speech made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, to the European Parliament on 9 February 2023.

    Dear Mrs. President, dear Roberta!

    I thank you for these powerful words and I thank you for your personal attention, an extremely important attention for Ukraine. I thank you for your integrity and energy, two qualities that we see invariably in the current struggle for Europe and whose combination is always a prerequisite for progress. Europe is fortunate that in this hall, in the largest parliament in Europe, the European Parliament, principled and energetic people are an absolute majority. I thank you.

    Dear representatives of Europe!

    Dear leaders of Europe!

    All of us, Europeans, each and every one of the hundreds of millions of people on our continent, combine these two statuses – representatives of Europe and leaders of Europe. This combination reflects what our Europe, a modern Europe, a peaceful Europe, gives to the world. European way of life. European path of life. European manner of life. European rules of life.

    When everyone matters. When the law rules.

    When states strive to be social and societies strive to be open. When diversity is a value and the values of the different are united by fair equality.

    When the borders are inviolable, but their crossing is not felt.

    When people believe in tomorrow and are willing to take to the streets to fight for their tomorrow. When there is only one single barrier between the president and the protesters, and that is fair elections.

    This is our Europe. These are our rules. This is our way of life.

    And for Ukraine, it’s a way home.

    Now I am here to protect the way home for our people. All Ukrainian men, all Ukrainian women. Of different ages and different political beliefs, different social status, different views on religion, with different personal stories, but common European history with all of you.

    There is an attempt to destroy the Ukrainian European way of life by all-out war. But what for?

    For the destruction of the European way of life as such after the Ukrainian European way of life is destroyed.

    For each of all twenty-seven elements of the European way of life. The twenty-seven countries of the European Union.

    We will not allow that.

    This total war that has been unleashed by Russia is not just about territory in one part of Europe or another.

    Its threat is not only in the fact that there is a dictator with huge stockpiles of Soviet weapons and weapons inflow from other dictatorships, in particular the Iranian regime.

    In order to be able to wage this war, the Kremlin has been consistently destroying, step by step, year after year, what we see as the basis of our Europe.

    The sacred value of human life has been completely destroyed in Russia as well. No one matters to the authorities there, except those inside the Kremlin walls, their relatives and their wallets. For them, for the Kremlin, all others, all one hundred and forty million citizens are just bodies capable of carrying weapons – carrying weapons to Ukraine, carrying weapons on the battlefield, keeping others in line or being in line themselves.

    The rule of violence and obedience are the rules there instead of law.

    The Russian regime not only hates everything, any sociality and any diversity, but also deliberately invests in xenophobia and tries to make all the inhuman things that happened in the 1930s and 1940s part of the norm on our continent.

    But will it last forever? This is a question for all of us. The answer is no! No!

    Europe! We are defending ourselves against the most anti-European force in the modern world. We are defending ourselves. We, Ukrainians, are on the battlefield with you.

    I thank you for the fact that we are defending ourselves together!

    And we must defend ourselves!

    And this is important not only for European countries. Not only for the communities of Europe.

    No matter who we are, we always fight against contempt. Wherever we live, we always rely on good faith. Whatever we dream of for our children, for our grandchildren, the unconditional background for these dreams is peace – peace and security.

    Will all of this be possible if we do not defeat the anti-European force that seeks to steal Europe from us, from all of us? No. It is only our victory that will guarantee all of this – each of our common European values. Our imperative victory!

    Dear representatives of Europe! Dear leaders of Europe! Dear ladies and gentlemen of the parliament!

    Dear employees of the European Parliament and other European institutions!

    Dear journalists! Dear security officials, military! Police officers, rescuers!

    Dear municipal employees! Diplomats! Teachers! Professors! Scientists! Dear doctors, drivers and port workers! Farmers!

    Dear industrialists and workers of industrial enterprises! Owners of small and large businesses, banks!

    Dear power engineers and railway workers!

    Dear students, pupils! Trade union activists, representatives of non-governmental organizations!

    Dear directors and artists! Lawyers, judges, environmentalists, human rights activists!

    The fate of Europe has never depended on politicians alone. There should be no such illusion now as well.

    Each and every one of you is important. Each and every one of you is strong. Each and every one of you can influence our common result. Our common victory.

    This applause is definitely not for me. This applause is for gratitude – I want to thank everyone in Europe, in hundreds of cities and towns, who supported Ukraine in this historic struggle. Thank you!

    I want to thank you – everyone who has helped our people, our ordinary people, our displaced persons. Those who called on their leaders to increase support for the protection of these ordinary people. Who took to the streets, who asked questions, who spread the truth about Russian aggression. Who refrained from the temptations of Russian disinformation and who stand with us in the fight for life. In the fight for Europe. I thank you!

    I thank everyone who is helping Ukraine with vital supplies. Weapons and ammunition. Energy equipment and fuel. Thousands of things that are essential to survive this all-out war.

    I thank you, dear ladies and gentlemen of the parliament, and you personally, Roberta, for consistently defending the European way of life with your decisions. For consistently defending the Ukrainian European way of life.

    You have made bold decisions and strengthened the European ambition to be the home of justice and freedom.

    I recall the first days of the full-scale invasion, when Russia’s ambition to break us and the whole of Europe was still audacious. When Russian aggression was just beginning to break its teeth on our defense.

    Already then, on March 1, on the sixth day of the full-scale war, the European Parliament adopted a resolution supporting not just our country, but the status of a candidate for accession to the European Union for our country.

    It was a vision that motivated us to be resilient and stay on our path. Thank you.

    Today, at a meeting of the European Council, I will have the opportunity to personally thank the heads of state and government of Europe, whose decisions over the past year have allowed our continent to do what the previous wave of leaders thought impossible.

    Europe is finally freeing itself from destructive dependence on Russian fossil fuels.

    Europe is cleaning itself of the corrupt influence of Russian oligarchic business.

    Europe is defending itself against the infiltration of agents of the Russian special services, who have even considered Europe as a place to hunt for opponents of the Russian dictatorship already.

    For the first time in its history, the European Union is providing military assistance of such magnitude. And for the first time in history, I believe, it is preparing a positive assessment of internal reforms in a European country that is defending itself in this all-out war and at the same time – while fighting – modernizing its institutions.

    We are getting closer to the European Union.

    Ukraine will be a member of the European Union!

    A victorious Ukraine! A member of the European Union – a victorious European Union!

    Dear friends!

    Perhaps some of you have not experienced the full power of the European way of life before. But now, together, Ukraine and the EU countries have made our power evident.

    Why is this possible? Because we combine integrity and energy. We are all equal in representing Europe, and we are diligent as each of us is a leader of Europe in our own particular life.

    We do not rely on words – we act. We do not cower before the enemy – we stand. We do not waste time – we change ourselves and we implement changes.

    Europe will always remain free. As long as we are together and as long as we care about our Europe!

    Care about the European way of life.

    I thank you all! I invite you all to Ukraine!

    Glory to all Ukrainian men and Ukrainian women who are in combat! 

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Dehenna Davison – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    Dehenna Davison – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    The speech made by Dehenna Davison, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing this important debate, and for the constructive way in which she has engaged with the Department and I on the UK shared prosperity fund. I know that she is and has long been a committed champion for the many voluntary groups, businesses and communities in her constituency that have previously benefited from, if not relied heavily on, EU funding. She has been a keen advocate to ensure that that support continues under the UK shared prosperity fund.

    The hon. Member mentioned the NOW Group, and I am pleased that she did. As she knows, the NOW Group has been in receipt of ESF funding, and has also recently accessed the community renewal fund as well. We have worked with Maeve Monaghan, the CEO of the NOW Group, to help to design the UK shared prosperity fund planning as part of that partnership group. Hopefully her feedback there has definitely been helpful, and she feels that it has been taken on board as we have designed the programme.

    In my response, I hope I will be able to provide some clarity on the next steps regarding the roll-out of the UKSPF in Northern Ireland; the steps we have taken so far to engage charities and community groups currently in receipt of Government support; and the progress we are making in our ambition to level up communities in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom. I will make reference to the levelling-up fund and address as many of the questions she raised as I can. I am not sure my hand was working fast enough to write them all down, but if I have missed any I will follow up in writing following the debate.

    As hon. Members will know, we published the prospectus for the UK shared prosperity fund back in April last year. It sets out how the fund and its £2.6 billion of funding will work on the ground. Effectively, it will replace the European regional development fund and the European social fund with a simpler, smoother and less bureaucratic approach to supporting communities right across the UK. We all know that bureaucracy is something that community groups have raised with us, so as a Government we have very much taken that on board.

    In that sense, it is fair to say that the UKSPF is a central pillar of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and our ambition to bring transformative investment to places that have gone overlooked by successive Administrations for too long. We want to use the funding to support people in skills, helping the unemployed move into high-skilled, high-wage jobs—I know that is something specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast South in her speech. We also want to use the funding to help the growth of local business and invest in communities and places to help to build pride in place. We know that having pride in the place that someone lives and has grown up in is a crucial part of the wider levelling-up agenda.

    For Northern Ireland, that means £126.8 million of new funding for local investment and local priorities up to March 2025. Crucially, that fulfils the promise we made that the UKSPF would match the funding allocated to Northern Ireland through EU structural funds.

    I know we have set out how the approach will work in some detail already, both in the prospectus and previous spending rounds, but I will quickly recap it for everyone here. The UK shared prosperity fund is set to ramp up over the coming years, so that total domestic UK-wide funding of the ERDF, ESF and UKSPF will at least match receipts from EU structural funds. It will reach £1.5 billion per year across the UK in 2024-25, when Northern Ireland will receive £74 million. It is important to note that before that date, when ERDF and ESF funding is still being delivered—albeit in smaller amounts—the UK shared prosperity fund tapers in for Northern Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales too.

    I need to put on the record that the Government fully recognise the need for the funding to be properly tailored to the projects and organisations that add real economic and social value in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South mentioned some of the projects in her own constituency, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about how one of those organisations, the NOW Group, has helped his own constituents. We all know that a good, local charitable organisation can do wonders for our communities, and that is specifically why we are so keen to support them through this funding.

    To ensure that we tailored the funding appropriately, we ran a comprehensive programme of workshops and engagement with Northern Ireland partners last year. That included businesses, voluntary and community groups and councils, so that we could collect the widest possible views on the priorities for the fund and how it could best work in concert with other opportunities in Northern Ireland. We also established a partnership group comprised of all the organisations I just mentioned, along with the higher education sector and the Northern Ireland Office, to advise us on how the fund could be best utilised. We have built further on that engagement since then.

    Throughout the process, we have offered the Northern Ireland Departments the opportunity to formally participate in shaping the fund, but, sadly, that has not proven possible.

    Claire Hanna

    Does the Minister know why that has not proven possible? It is because under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is essentially the constitution of Northern Ireland, the Department is not equality-screened—unlike the Northern Ireland Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is not able to legally operate and to run equality impact assessments, which are the law in Northern Ireland. That problem was telegraphed, but the Department has not taken adequate steps to address it. That is why those Departments have not been able to be involved.

    Dehenna Davison

    I will follow up in writing on that point. Having spoken to Sue Gray, one of our super officials, who has been outstanding in her engagement, I know how closely officials have been working with the Northern Ireland Finance, Economy and Communities Departments, maintaining regular contact as our plan has developed. That engagement continues.

    Where have we got to? Drawing on insights from the partnership group, and from wider engagement, we published an investment plan just before Christmas last year. That sets out how Northern Ireland’s allocation will be spent and the impact we expect it to have. It supports the leading needs and opportunities in Northern Ireland, addressing high levels of economic inactivity, promoting entrepreneurship and innovation and strengthening pride in place. I am pleased to say that the plan has been given the seal of approval by our partners on the ground and is now being implemented.

    Our first competition, for £42 million, which is roughly a third of the total UK SPF allocation, is focused on helping more economically inactive people into work. Many MPs, Assembly Members and other stakeholders have rightly made the case for prioritising this funding and the voluntary and community organisations that deliver it. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast South welcomes this provision and the benefits it will bring not just to the organisations that receive it and the individuals they will help, but to Northern Ireland’s wider economy.

    We are also working with councils in Northern Ireland to bring forward early communities and place projects, as well as a joined-up service for entrepreneurs seeking to start a business and create jobs. Pending further discussion with the Northern Ireland civil service, we may also commission Northern Ireland Executive Departments, or their arm’s length bodies, in the design and delivery of the fund. I am sure hon. Members will join me in encouraging their fullest involvement.

    Part of this work is about ensuring that we mitigate issues for organisations as the European programmes we have discussed draw to a close. That issue has been raised with me by organisations not just in Northern Ireland but all around the UK; it is something that our Department and Ministers in other Departments have been incredibly focused on. With that in mind, we have been able to reprofile the SPF by moving funding from 2022-23 to 2023-24, so that it betters reflects funding needs. I know that this is an issue that my predecessors were asked to consider by many partners in Northern Ireland, and I am pleased we have been able make real progress in this area. It demonstrates something crucial, which is that SPF is not a fixed fund; it can and should flex to meet the evolving needs of the people of Northern Ireland—and it has been designed to do so.

    It goes without saying that we will continue to engage with partners, including the Northern Ireland Departments and hon. Members on both sides of this House, on the design and operation of the fund, so that it delivers for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland and throughout the Union.

    If we take a step back from the UK SPF to talk about other funding, which the hon. Member for Belfast South did with regards to the levelling-up fund, Members will know that Northern Ireland Departments have always provided funding alongside the European regional development fund and the European social fund. While we recognise the challenging budget circumstances Northern Ireland faces, the funding provided by UK SPF is only ever part of the answer. It is right that the Northern Ireland Departments continue to invest in provision that they have previously supported; that is something I think all of us would encourage.

    The Government also want to play their part, making sure we are contributing towards building a brighter Northern Ireland. That is why, alongside the UK shared prosperity fund, we have used a wide range of other funds to spur growth, regeneration and investment. Those include: the community renewal fund, which backs 30 locally led, innovative projects to the value of £12 million, and the community ownership fund, which has so far supported six local communities in Northern Ireland to take ownership of assets at risk of loss, with a spend of £1.3 million. There are other important schemes and investments, such as £617 million for city and growth deals covering every part of Northern Ireland, and our new deal for Northern Ireland providing £400 million to help boost economic growth, invest in infrastructure and increase competitiveness. We are also investing £730 million into the Peace Plus programme, ensuring a total budget of almost £1 billion—the biggest peace programme to date. Through that package of investment, we will achieve significant, visible and tangible improvements to the places where people work and live.

    Jim Shannon

    The Minister mentioned £400 million. I do not expect an answer today—it might not be possible—but how much of the new deal money has been used or set aside?

    Dehenna Davison

    I do not have an answer to hand, but I will commit to follow that up and provide that information.

    I will touch on the levelling-up fund, because we do not have much time left. Questions were raised about the shortlist, rankings and considerations. Much of the information around the considerations has been set out in the technical note that has been published. That will provide some information, and I am happy to provide a link.

    The hon. Member for Belfast South asked about consistent application. Ministers were keen to ensure there was consistent application of the decision-making framework to ensure that they were not cherry-picking the winners. It was designed to reflect the scores and value of the projects that were selected. She also asked whether the decision was made by me alone, as a Minister. She knows that the fund is a joint fund across multiple Departments, ergo that was not the case. Various Departments are involved in the decision-making process.

    The hon. Lady asked about round 3 of the levelling-up fund. We have indeed committed to a round 3, but I am not yet able to provide more details about that fund, because the conversations are ongoing and decisions are yet to be made. However, as soon as we have made the decisions and announced how round 3 will work, I will share that information with her.

    I want to conclude by saying a huge thank you to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I hope this is the start of more constructive engagement between us as we both fight for what is best for the people of Northern Ireland.

    Claire Hanna

    I have been kept right on the Standing Orders, but I thought I would get back in. I appreciate the Minister’s approach and her enthusiasm. As I said, I do not doubt that the projects and other things that are being funded are laudable, but they are not additional to what we had. They are less than what we had, which was less again than what we needed. They are not equality-screened in Northern Ireland’s traditional way, so people do not have confidence in that regard. Ultimately, the fundamental question is: who decides, and on what basis? Frankly, I am none the wiser after this discussion, and that is what is concerning people.

    Even if the shortlisting is not published, we all know the 10 projects that got the results. However, there are concerns that the published criteria were not applied in a very direct way overall, as the Minister will be aware. I know these things are not always straightforward, but the metrics are clear—they are in the public domain. I am sure most Members have poked around in the Bloomberg data about different constituencies and how they are performing relative to 2019 and relative to one another, and that will show that, in most cases, Northern Ireland constituencies continue to fall behind, including those that did not receive any levelling-up funding, while constituencies that were ahead are staying ahead. I am none the wiser, and I hope we can have a follow-up meeting, but it is not just a case of me being satisfied about transparency; it is also about those who have applied and invested hours and thousands of pounds in producing good applications. We are no more confident that detached Ministers’ have not decided.

    Dehenna Davison

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I should have said that, as part of my package on the levelling-up fund, full written feedback will be provided to all applicants, which I hope will provide some guidance on where bids perhaps fell short. There is also the option of follow-up meetings with officials from my Department to go through that in more detail, which I hope will satisfy some of the concerns around the scoring.

    I will quickly wrap up now. Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her commitment to helping to improve the prosperity of not only her constituents but the whole of Northern Ireland. As the Minister for Levelling Up, I am committed to that. If all parts of the UK are not firing on all cylinders, the UK as a whole is suffering. Ultimately, we need to make sure that every region and every community is levelled up and can benefit from the maximum opportunities and value of that community for the sake of our entire nation.

  • Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    Claire Hanna – 2023 Speech on Replacement of Funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland

    The speech made by Claire Hanna, the SDLP MP for Belfast South, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered replacement of funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland.

    I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this issue and, I hope, get clarity for a number of third sector partners and other groups in Northern Ireland and, potentially, areas of opportunity for them. It feels like a very long time ago, but during the EU referendum campaign there were assurances that Northern Ireland would not lose out, doing well, as we did, out of the EU funds, which were based on need. We know that the phrase “take back control” resonated with many people, but it appears to mean taking back control from some of the funds that have traditionally underpinned progress in Northern Ireland and from local decision makers, and handing it directly to London, without any sense of a strategy that local groups can try to support.

    In March last year, in the early stages of the community renewal fund, I had a Westminster Hall debate, in which various eyebrow-raising allocations from that scheme were addressed. I am afraid that several of the reservations that people had about process, strategy, co-ordination and transparency have been borne out. It is worth saying that these concerns are not held just by groups that are applying for funding or by my party. The Northern Ireland Executive, as was, adopted the position that the best delivery mechanism for the shared prosperity fund would be via existing structures. Invest Northern Ireland, our economy arm, was very clear that it believed that the funding would be best delivered in conjunction with the programme for government. And the think-tank Pivotal and other respected commentators and business voices made the same point. People are up for change. They understand that it is a reality, and they roll with the punches. But it has to feel transparent, and there has to be a sense of fairness and coherence and that there is more to these allocations than just the whim of Ministers in London.

    As I said, Northern Ireland was a net beneficiary in the EU. That is not a secret and is not anything to be ashamed of. Those allocations were made on the basis of need and, in many cases, were a counterweight to the obvious challenges that Northern Ireland faced and to decades of capital underinvestment. That is not just a historical issue: in 2021, the average capital spend per head in Northern Ireland was £1,325, compared with a UK average of £1,407. Of course, all that has contributed to a failure to attract quality investment and foreign direct investment, and decent jobs. That is reflected in our rates of economically inactive people, which are substantially higher than those in other regions.

    The founder of our party, John Hume, said many times that the best peace process is a job: the best way to enable people to have hope in their futures and see beyond the things that have divided us in our region is to have meaningful employment—a reason to stay, to get up in the morning and to work together. Those were the opportunities that we saw in European participation, and that is why we continue to work so hard to protect our access to political and economic structures. Funds beyond the block grant, the EU funding as was and the promised successor funds, have been billed and are needed as additional, and they should be an opportunity to realise some of those ambitions, to remove barriers to employment and, in particular at the moment, to allow people to take advantage of the opportunities that the current very tight labour market offers. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting.

    Time is obviously short, so I want to focus on the loss of the European social fund and the European regional development fund and on the replacement, the SPF, and to touch on the levelling-up fund. It is worth clarifying that, as well as those assurances back in 2016, during the referendum campaign, the Conservative party manifesto in 2019 committed to replacing the ESF in its entirety. Northern Ireland got an average of £65 million a year from the ESF and ERDF in the period from 2014 to 2020, with Northern Ireland Departments having the power to manage that in line with UK strategy. That allowed them to align projects that they funded with regional and local strategies, ensuring complementarity and targeted outcomes.

    The scenario now is that the UK Government and Northern Ireland Departments are essentially two players on the same pitch, in the same space, delivering the same sorts of projects. That has a built-in inefficiency and means that the results are less than the sum of the parts. That overlapping inevitably applies to monitoring, too. How are we supposed to measure the impact of different interventions in areas like skills if the scheme is only one part of an equation in which all the other Departments are trying to do similar things? It seems that it will be impossible to disaggregate that. The governance is sub-par and the quantum is less, too.

    By comparison with the ESF and the ERDF averages, the allocation for the shared prosperity fund in Northern Ireland is £127 million over three years, so we are losing on average £23 million per year from that scheme. That has created this massive gap for funded groups, many of whom just cannot hold on. It is not like in the civil service; people have to be put on protected notice or face closure. Again, there is nothing co-ordinated about any of this. It is not even the survival of the fittest—that the strongest and best organisations will continue—because it is largely the luck of the draw on where organisations are in their funding cycle. Again, this is one more downside of the abandonment of devolution. Engaged and responsive local Ministers could monitor the situation and be flexible and creative with in-year allocation, match funding and bridge funding. They could, in short, protect us from the deficit created by Brexit and this devolution override.

    I want to touch on how all this affects specific groups. The NOW Group is a highly regarded project that works across Belfast and further afield, supporting people who are economically inactive because of a disability get into employment. It has 17 years of ESF funding and runs high-profile facilities. If anyone has been in the café in Belfast City Hall, they will have seen NOW Group workers. They help hundreds of people with disabilities into all sorts of sectors, including leading corporates and the knowledge sector. It is a safe bet that any credible funder will keep backing a project like this, but the assurances are just not there. Reserves cannot last forever and, of course, smaller organisations will not have such reserves. In that project, 52 people are at risk of being put on notice and another 800 people with disabilities will be left with no service.

    Mencap in south Belfast and far beyond has run ESF projects on social inclusion for decades and was well on track to exceed the target set by ESF of supporting 13,000 people by 2023. It is concerned by how limited the scope of SPF is compared to what they were able to do under ESF. The East Belfast Mission described well what is at stake:

    “Our programmes have a long track record of being more successful than government initiatives”.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I work with the East Belfast Mission regularly in my office, so I understand its work and its success rate from the people it helps in my constituency. The mission tells me, as I told the hon. Lady, that without this funding stream it will not be able to continue to have the success stories it has and that that will hurt individuals and families. Like the hon. Lady, I look to the Minister for some assurance that the funding it has received over the past few years can be continued. With that, we can help more of our people over the long term.

    Claire Hanna

    The mission itself captured that. It talks about its staff being based in local communities with lived experience that helps them understand the specific difficulties people face. It says:

    “Many of the people we work with have faced societal and generational barriers to employment, through illness, trauma or other issues. Our projects help break the cycle and raise up our host communities.”

    It says that if it loses the fund, it will not be able to provide certainty and will

    “lose irreplaceable experience which has been built up over decades.”

    This is not just a Belfast issue by any stretch of the imagination. Dozens of projects across Northern Ireland, particularly those supporting younger people, women and minorities, are at risk. First Steps Women’s Centre is a vital part of the community sector in Mid Ulster, working to integrate new and minority ethnic communities, providing crèche facilities to support women back into work and signposting people to other partners who can help them with the multitude of issues they may face.

    I want to specifically ask the Minister how the Department ensures that the projects it is funding are aligned with Northern Ireland’s democratically agreed priorities—agreed by the Executive with all five parties—absent a formal role for those Departments. How do the Government propose that groups, such as those I have described, that are facing this essentially bureaucratic gap are supposed to address it? If the gap is not going to be addressed, what are the people who use those services supposed to do instead?

    I want to address the widespread concerns about the levelling-up fund. It is a mighty slogan—who does not want to see things levelled up?—but unfortunately, like a lot of slogans of the last few years, it struggles a bit when it comes into contact with implementation. People perceive it as pitting communities against one another, with distant Ministers picking winners seemingly at random. Again, the initiative started badly for us. The initial allocations fell short of the promised 3% of the UK pot. That target was laid out in the strategy document, which seemed to acknowledge the traditional capital shortfall in Northern Ireland but has failed to address it. The fund was initially conceived as a scheme for England with a Barnett consequential, but it has evolved to be more centralised than was promised.

    The same paper highlighted the issues that there would be given the fact that local governance structures in Northern Ireland are different from those in Britain, but it has failed to develop a more collaborative approach to mitigate those issues. The same overlap and duplication issues with the SPF pertain here, despite requests from me and others to consider the north-south dimension and co-ordination on this issue. That misses real opportunity to maximise value by co-ordinating with the Irish Government, who have, for example, a £400 million capital fund in the Shared Island unit.

    Lessons from the first round of levelling up, which were very well telegraphed, do not appear to have been taken on board for round two. Although the projects that got the nod last week are no doubt good news for the relevant communities, nobody has any clue about what the winning ingredients in those bids were, or how others might have similar success in future applications. We are advised that the Northern Ireland bids were assessed against three of the four criteria set out in the prospectus, namely strategic fit to the economic case and deliverability.

    The winning bids are in the public domain, but the other applicants are not. In the interests of transparency, reassurance and learning for future schemes, will the Minister therefore share details of the original Northern Ireland shortlist of projects and their ranking, as presented after the assessors’ moderation meeting? Will she also advise what, if any, additional considerations informed the Minister’s decision? Can she clarify whether the funding decisions were taken by the Minister alone? It has been suggested by some applicants—I have struggled to confirm this—that the gateway pass mark that was used in England, Scotland and Wales was 75%, and that that was dropped, after applications were submitted, to 57%. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.

    Jim Shannon

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my constituency of Strangford, an application was put in for the Whitespots park, an environmental scheme at Conlig. It is shovel ready—the boys could start it tomorrow —but we have missed out on two occasions. She is expressing her concerns over what is happening in her constituency; I echo those and support her in what she says.

    Claire Hanna

    That again illustrates the confusion that people have about what was selected. Will the Minister confirm whether any criteria additional to those specified were applied? Were they applied consistently to all projects? Will the transparent list that she will publish include any changes in ranking that occurred as a result of new criteria?

    Again—for future learning—it was announced that there will be a round three of levelling-up funding. An enormous amount of work goes into the applications, including, as people will know, many thousands of pounds on proposals and engaging the strategy board. Will the Department therefore develop a reserve list from round two applications? That could prevent some groups from having to run up the same professional fees and pouring in the same time, particularly when they are being left in the dark about the criteria. Further, can the Minister clarify what consultation was held with the Northern Ireland Departments and other funding bodies to address the overlap in applications under levelling up and other schemes? Finally, does the Minister think that the spread of applications in Northern Ireland is appropriate?

    A lot of these issues are very technical, but they are vital to achieving the things that we all want to achieve for Northern Ireland and for progress. They are also vital to people having some faith in this progress—that they have not had their eye wiped, essentially, by funds being promised, removed and not adequately replaced. That is not the case at the moment. People see this as a net loss from what we enjoyed before Brexit, and that should concern the Department.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    The speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, at the Mansion House in London on 12 January 2023.

    I’d like to align myself with the Lord Mayor’s words on levelling-up… he is of course entirely correct – London both requires levelling-up and is required for levelling-up to be successful across the country.

    The Lord Mayor is already proving a tireless champion for the City of London – both here at home and across the world – and I’m looking forward to working more closely with him in future. As the Lord Mayor said, London’s diversity of thought, cultures and backgrounds has long given our city a competitive edge, as I can see looking around Mansion House this evening. As Mayor, I’m committed to harnessing the thinking and talent to deliver a better London, a city that is fairer, and more prosperous for everyone. Now we know, that neurodivergent Londoners have so much to offer our city, from innovative thinking to creative approaches. City Hall is proud to already be working closely with Neurodiversity in Business and tonight, I’m committed to making London the neurodiverse capital of the world.

    I’d also like to pay tribute to everyone from local government here with us.

    As someone who began my time in public life as a councillor, I can’t imagine a more difficult period to serve in local government.

    Terrible pressure on budgets.

    Covid.

    And now the worst cost-of-living crisis for a generation.

    You play a critical role supporting the welfare and wellbeing of our communities.

    And you don’t get anywhere near the recognition you deserve.

    So, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all the council leaders, councillors and officers here tonight from across the political spectrum – not only for continuing to deliver vital public services, but for standing up for Londoners in the most challenging of circumstances.

    My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to use this opportunity to speak mostly about a phenomenon that occupied our TV screens, newspapers and Twitter feeds for many years.

    But which seemingly has now vanished without trace from our national political discourse.

    No, not Boris Johnson…

    But Brexit.

    Given a sizeable number of politicians seem to have taken a vow of silence on its damaging impact, I’m conscious that breaking the Brexit omerta makes me somewhat of an outlier.

    I understand the genuine apprehension many share about this issue.

    No one wants to see a return to the division and deadlock that dominated our body politic for 5 long years.

    I certainly don’t want to re-open old wounds.

    However, the inescapable truth is that this unnecessarily extreme, hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on our capital and country – at a time when we can least afford it.

    We can’t – in all good conscience – pretend that it isn’t hurting our people and harming our businesses.

    As Mayor of this great city, choosing not to say anything would be a dereliction of duty.

    We’re gathered in one of the great financial districts in the world – supporting millions of jobs and generating billions in tax revenue – but the reality is that the City of London is being hit by a loss of trade and talent… because of Brexit.

    So, my message is this:

    Trying to will Brexit into a success, or simply ignoring its impact, is not a strategy that will deliver prosperity for London or a brighter future for Britain.

    If we’re not honest about this problem we cannot ever hope to fix it.

    Raising Brexit this evening is not about trying to make a partisan point.

    Or just a chance to moan about the past.

    What I’m interested in is the future – doing what we all know is right for London – and looking at how we can sensibly and maturely mitigate the damage that’s being inflicted.

    Let me share three short examples: First, our national economy.

    We’re facing an economic downturn.

    Yes, we’re not alone – the economies of the US, EU and China are all forecast to contract – but the UK is predicted to face the worst recession and weakest recovery in the G7.

    In fact, UK GDP is set to shrink by 1 per cent this year, compared to 0.1 per cent for the eurozone.

    What makes us exceptional?

    Well, Brexit has already reduced our GDP by 5.5 per cent…

    It’s reduced investment by 11 per cent…

    And reduced goods and services trade by 7 per cent.

    The hard mainstream? Brexit we have is a drag on growth, investment and trade.

    Fixing it would mean the recession would be less painful and less prolonged.

    This is what businesses are telling me across our city – and I have a responsibility as Mayor to speak up on their behalf.

    Second, the cost-of-living emergency…

    The London School of Economics found that Britons are paying an extra 6 billion pounds to eat because of Brexit.

    That’s 210 pounds added to the average household’s supermarket bill over a two-year period.

    Food inflation is now running at more than 13 per cent and its poorer families – who spend a higher proportion of their income on groceries – who are being hit the hardest.

    A Brexit tax on life’s essentials is the last thing they need right now.

    So, putting right the wrongs of Brexit would mean we can ease the pain on those less able to shoulder the burden.

    Third, our public services…

    Many are now in a desperate state, most acutely our NHS and I want to pay tribute to all of those who work in our national health service.

    The estimated cost to the Treasury in lost tax revenues due to Brexit is 40 billion pounds.

    With more than one million Londoners currently waiting for treatment…

    With nurses on strike for the first time in history… and doctors, paramedics, 999 call handlers, physiotherapists soon to join them..

    With patients needlessly dying because of unprecedented delays…

    We simply cannot forgo 40 billion pounds of potential investment in our health service.

    So, repairing our relationship with Europe would mean we can better support our NHS.

    After two years of denial and avoidance, we must now confront the hard truth:

    Brexit isn’t working.

    It’s weakened our economy…

    Fractured our Union…

    And diminished our reputation…

    But crucially… not beyond repair.

    A New Year brings new opportunities.

    And political leaders must now seize the opportunity, and with renewed purpose set out the need to reform our relationship with Europe.

    Not with a return to the interminable Brexit wars of the past.

    But with a sincere, considered, civil debate about Britain’s future that has at its core a clear-eyed view of the national interest.

    Let me be clear:

    We need greater alignment with our European neighbours – a shift from this extreme, hard Brexit we have now to a workable, softer version that serves our economy and people.

    That includes having a pragmatic debate about the benefits of re-joining the Customs Union and the Single Market.

    If the government wants to get the ball rolling on fixing Brexit, the perfect place to start in London would be addressing our labour and skills shortage.

    The number of businesses in our city experiencing at least one skills shortage has now risen to almost 7 in 10.

    Meanwhile, the number of jobs in our city held by EU-born workers has fallen by over 80,000 – putting huge strain on crucial sectors such as hospitality and construction.

    Devolving powers to London and allowing us to create a regional shortage occupation list would be one way to give businesses the ability to attract and retain talent in the areas they need it most.

    But another option would be a fundamental rethink of the existing Brexit deal.

    Securing a better Brexit would mean more trade, higher investment and stronger growth.

    It would mean a boost to both exports and living standards.

    It’s key to unlocking London’s full potential and, in turn, helping us to power the national recovery.

    More broadly, the government needs to entrust communities with the power to control their destiny.

    Devolution improves our economy and politics.

    Even in the face of huge challenges, we’ve shown what can be achieved from City Hall…

    We’re building more council homes than at any time since the 1970s.

    We’re taking huge strides to clean up London’s toxic air.

    We’re offering free skills training to anyone who’s unemployed or in low-paid work.

    We’ve delivered the Elizabeth Line and much, much more.

    But fixing Brexit will mean we can accelerate our efforts to build a better London for everyone – moving faster to achieve a city that is safer, fairer, greener and more prosperous for all.

    Let me just end by saying this:

    While it’s true that the twin nightmares of the pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continue to cause great harm, we cannot continue to hide under the covers from the damage being done by Brexit.

    We are no longer in 2016 or 2019.

    The landscape has shifted.

    More and more Londoners are worried about the impact of Brexit on our city.

    Our business community is increasingly speaking out and in growing numbers.

    It’s time the government caught up.

    Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems.

    Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history, or the consequences wished away.

    Europe was, is and will remain our most important relationship, but it’s in desperate and urgent need of repair.

    So, let 2023 be the year we summon up the political courage to rebuild those essential bridges and tear down those needless walls standing in the way of our businesses and our people.

    The future prosperity of our capital and country depends upon it.

    Thank you.

    Finally, can I ask everyone to join me in raising a glass… to the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 31 January 2023.

    Three years on from leaving the European Union, we must all now face the inescapable truth: that this unnecessarily hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on the London and UK economy – at a time when we can least afford it.

    While Whitehall has taken a vow of silence on the damage Brexit is causing, businesses across the country are drowning under the weight of increased bureaucracy, staffing shortages and supply chain challenges. London is being hit hard by the loss of trade and talent to our global competitors.

    It is time to abandon the hostile mentality of the referendum years and open a dialogue with our European neighbours about greater alignment.

  • Nusrat Ghani – 2023 Statement on EU Retained Law

    Nusrat Ghani – 2023 Statement on EU Retained Law

    The statement made by Nusrat Ghani, the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    It is a pleasure to be here, and I thank all Members who have tabled new amendments and new clauses and who will speak in the debate. I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work.

    I will address the Government new clauses and amendments first, but I will say more about them in my closing speech when other Members have had a chance to contribute. I will also address some of the concerns that have been raised, and some of the misinformation about the Bill.

    The Government new clauses and amendments are minor and technical. They cover four areas. The first is updating the definition of “assimilated law” and how it should be interpreted, and, in the case law provisions, ensuring that the High Court of Justiciary is covered in all instances. I thank the Scottish Government for their engagement: there has been engagement between our officials and those in the Scottish Government, and with the Advocate General. Our new clauses also clarify the fact that the use of extension power also applies to amendments to retained EU law made between the extension regulations and the sunset, and clarify the application of clause 14 to codification as well as restatement. These are technical drafting measures, and I ask the House to support them.

    Let me now explain why the Bill is crucial for the UK. My explanation will directly cover many of the new clauses and amendments. The Bill will end the special status of retained EU law on the UK statute book by the end of 2023. It constitutes a process. Considerable work has been done with officials across Whitehall and with the devolved authorities; that work has been proportionate, and has been taking place for over 18 months. I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the 2023 deadline. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely. It is constitutionally undesirable, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, currently remain subordinate to some retained EU law. The continued existence on our statute book of the principle of supremacy of EU law is just not right, as we are a sovereign nation with a sovereign Parliament.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    We all accept that the status of EU law must change and that it will have to be reassimilated into domestic law in due course. No one argues with that. Will the Minister not reflect that it is constitutionally unacceptable to create what the Law Society—which might know a little more about the law than politicians and civil servants—described as a “devastating impact” on legal certainty and business confidence? To do so by means of Henry VIII powers so wide that all scrutiny is, in effect, removed from this House is not taking backing control but doing the reverse of what the Government seek to do.

    Ms Ghani

    I always respect my hon. Friend’s opinion, but he is fundamentally mistaken. We have undertaken a considerable amount of consultation with our courts and have worked with them consistently. It is absolutely right that we deliver Brexit by ensuring that laws made here are sovereign over EU laws.

    Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is fundamentally wrong. The Bill is providing legal certainty. Rather than having a flow of EU law interpreted according to EU principle, from now on we will have a single set of laws within this country. That must be certainty rather than otherwise.

    Ms Ghani

    Having a single set of laws across the UK will provide far more certainty.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Ms Ghani

    Before I take any more interventions, I want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the Henry VIII powers. That is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Each Department will review and then amend, assimilate or revoke EU law. Each Department’s Secretary of State will be responsible for the decisions they take. All the laws are on the dashboard, which will be updated once again, and we will be codifying the retained EU law. In the absence of the application of supremacy, restating a rule in primary legislation could lead to the same policy effect as the rule itself currently has. The Bill just sets out a process to allow each Department to take a decision. Why would we not want to review the EU law that is out there and assess what needs to be assimilated? If we can amend and update it, why would we not do that?

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    Notwithstanding the charmingly innocent faith in lawyers of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the key thing about our decision to leave the European Union is that sovereignty lies in this place and with the people to whom we are accountable. The point about this measure is that it will allow exactly that sovereignty to be exacted in practice with regard to retained EU law.

    Ms Ghani

    Absolutely. When decisions are taken either to amend or to revoke, the usual channels will be followed in Parliament. Committees will be put in place and decisions will be reviewed the Leaders of both Houses. Decisions can be taken openly and transparently. We also have the dashboard, which will be updated and already has thousands of EU laws on it.

    Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)

    The Minister is right that the whole point of Brexit was to take control of our own laws. She is also right that there needs to be a single set of laws across the United Kingdom. But the Bill makes it clear that we will not have a single set of laws across the United Kingdom, because a wide range of laws in Northern Ireland are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Furthermore, in future when EU law changes and applies in Northern Ireland, the gap between the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will get ever wider. Does she accept that unless the protocol is dealt with, there is a real danger that Northern Ireland will be treated differently and be constitutionally separated from the United Kingdom?

    Ms Ghani

    My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. As it is sensitive, he must allow me a moment to ensure that my response is accurate. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The Bill will not alter the rights of EU nations that are protected, or eligible to be protected, by the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill contains provisions that, when exercised appropriately, will ensure the continued implementation of our international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol.

    It is our preference to resolve the Northern Ireland protocol issue through talks. The Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. I must put on record that officials have been working with officials in Northern Ireland for the last 18 months. We know how important and sensitive this issue is.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will just make a little progress before I take more interventions.

    I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the deadline. The retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute books indefinitely. On 31 January last year the Government announced plans to bring forward the Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle ourselves from decades of EU membership. It will permit the creation of a more agile, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, benefiting people and businesses across the UK.

    It is a priority of the Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business. The Bill contains powers that will allow us to make good on that promise. It will allow outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed or replaced more quickly and easily than before. It will remove burdens on business and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.

    Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)

    I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember being on the Back Benches and sitting in statutory instrument Committees in which we had no ability whatsoever to change the legislation going through, because it was driven by the European Union. This is about taking back control by giving democratic authority to this place. Furthermore, on things such as maternity leave, minimum wage, annual leave, product safety and international regulations we are already doing better than the EU minimum standards. This Government will promise to keep those standards and, in many cases, increase them.

    Ms Ghani

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?

    Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)

    The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)

    Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?

    Ms Ghani

    My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The question is, why would the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not take the power that the Scottish Government will be given through this Bill when it comes to devolved matters, to look at the EU laws and see whether they want to maintain them or enhance them for their own people? Why would they want to reject the power that they have been offered through this Bill? We remain fully committed to the Sewel convention. It is an essential element of the devolution settlement. The UK Government continue to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution. The right hon. Member’s argument does not make any sense. My worry is that Scottish Government do not want the powers because then they will have to exercise them. I know it is a little bit of work, but it is worth doing.

    This Bill provides the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy while maintaining high standards. It will ensure that the Government can more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law, so that the Government can create legislation that better suits the UK. This programme of reform must be done. The people of the UK did not vote for Brexit with the expectation that nearly a decade later, politicians in Westminster would continually rehash old and settled arguments, as those on the Opposition Benches so love to do. We must push on and seize the opportunities that Brexit provides. That will ensure that our economy is dynamic and agile and can support advances in technology and science.

    Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)

    On agility, the Minister will know that the majority of the thousands of rules that need to be changed are in the environmental area. Does she think it is a good idea that civil servants are completely distracted and focused on the changes to these rules when we have one in four people in food poverty, 63,000 people dying a year due to poor air quality, sewage pouring into our seas and crabs dying off the north-east coast? Would it not be better if the civil servants and the Government tackled those problems rather than going down a rabbit hole and inventing worse standards than the EU, such as trying to get to World Health Organisation air quality standards by 2040, which the EU is trying to get to by 2030?

    Ms Ghani

    I think many people coming into the debate today think that this is the start of something, but this process has been in place for more than 18 months, and DEFRA has committed to maintain or enhance standards. The constant misinformation given out over what is happening on the environment is simply incorrect. DEFRA has already taken decisive action to reform areas of retained EU law and it already has flagship legislation on our statute book, including the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020, all on powers that the SNP wants to give back to Brussels. The Environment Act strengthens our environmental protections while respecting our international obligations. It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Government will be weakening any of those protections. The Environment Act has set new legally binding targets, including to halt and reverse nature’s decline. Those targets, with oversight from the Office for Environmental Protection, will ensure that any reform to retained EU law delivers positive environmental outcomes. DEFRA will also conduct proportionate analysis of the expected impacts, so it is absolutely incorrect to misrepresent this Bill.

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

    The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) talked about statutory instrument Committees. I think all of us have sat on statutory instrument Committees, where we know that it is a question of like it or lump it when it comes to what is being proposed. Under this Bill, Ministers will have powers over key issues that our constituents care about. The Minister talks about the dashboard and admits that it still needs to be updated. As a matter of good democratic practice, will she give us, here and now, today, the exact number of laws covered by this Bill, so Members of this House can at least have some sense of the task that they are voting for? If she cannot tell us how many laws are covered, it is definitely not clear to us how any of us can influence them.

    Ms Ghani

    The hon. Member was very astute in Committee, and we spent many hours together discussing this. The dashboard is public. It has had more than 100,000 views to date. I was on it only last night. It has thousands of laws on it, and it will be updated again this month. There is a process within each Department, which is why a unit has been established to work with each Department across Whitehall. Every EU law that is identified will be put on the dashboard. So it is public, it is accessible, and all the information is out there.

    I must just respond to another point that the hon. Member raised, once again, about scrutiny in this place, because it is being misrepresented—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, it is. The Bill will follow the usual channels for when laws are being either amended or revoked. The Leaders of the two Houses will meet and the business managers will take a decision. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has already said that it is comfortable with the way the Bill will progress and the laws will be scrutinised, and the European Statutory Instruments Committee has said that it is comfortable with the way the laws will be scrutinised and assessed. So there is a process in place, as there was for a no-deal Brexit. The crunch is: if you do not like Brexit and if you did not like the way the Brexit vote that took place, you are not going to like any elements of this Bill.

    Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)

    Just before that intervention, the Minister was talking about the environment. Is it not the case that Members on this side of the House have delivered the Environment Act, that we are perfectly capable of making our own laws and delivering for the British people and that we do not need guidance from the European Union, unlike those on the Opposition Benches?

    Ms Ghani

    Absolutely. We on this side of the House have done a tremendous amount of work that did not require us to be directed by bureaucrats in Brussels. This gives me a great opportunity to point out all the fantastic work that we have achieved.

    First of all, I must just say again that we will be maintaining and enhancing environmental standards. I want to touch on a list of things that we have achieved, especially on animal welfare, which has been a huge priority for Government Members. We have had the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Since 2010, we have had new regulations on minimum standards for meat and chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, made microchipping mandatory for dogs in 2015, modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, protected service animals via Finn’s law, banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens via Lucy’s law, passed the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 and led work to implement humane trapping standards. Our Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will further the rights of animals outside the EU, including the banning of export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. It is remarkable how much we can achieve when we are left to our own devices.

    Caroline Lucas rose—

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will just make a little bit of progress.

    As I have said, the sunset clause is necessary and is the quickest and most effective way to pursue retained EU law reform. It is only right to set the sunset and the revocation of inherited EU laws as the default position. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that outdated and unneeded laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also give the Government a clear timeline in which to finish the most important tasks. Some retained EU laws are legally inoperable, and removing them from the statute book easily is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove retained EU law that is no longer necessary or operable, and can more easily be removed, is not good governance.

    Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)

    Surely parliamentary sovereignty is giving Members of Parliament control, not the Executive or bureaucrats in Whitehall.

    Ms Ghani

    The reality is that Ministers take decisions all the time, and there is a process in place where laws are amended or updated if there is a significant policy change. The same policy process will be in place. If the hon. Member is not comfortable with Conservative Ministers taking those decisions or with the SI process that is already in place, fundamentally he is just not comfortable with the decisions we are taking because we are taking these rules from Europe and placing them here on our UK statute book. That is a different argument altogether.

    Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)

    I want to react to what I think I heard the Minister saying when she suggested that those of us who did not support Brexit in the referendum would not support this Bill. That is not the case. As someone who did not vote for Brexit but who absolutely recognises that democratic choice and respects the referendum, I do support the premise of the Bill. We need to look at the EU law, although there are elements of the Bill we could improve on to give some certainty, and I hope that I will be called to speak later.

    Ms Ghani

    I would not want to misrepresent my right hon. Friend’s position. The point I was making was that Opposition Members who have complained about the Bill have a particular position that has been long held because of the outcome of the vote that took place.

    We believe it is right that the public should know how much legislation there is derived from the EU, and know about the progress the Government are making. For that reason, we have published a public dashboard—perhaps colleagues would like to go on to the site for a moment—containing a list of UK Government retained EU law. The site will also document the Government’s progress on reforming retained EU law and will be updated regularly to reflect plans and actions taken. It will be updated again this month. I was slightly inaccurate earlier: there have in fact been 148,727 visitors to that site. It is not as if people are in the dark. There are many opportunities to be aware of what we are doing.

    Caroline Lucas rose—

    Ms Ghani

    I will give way to the hon. Lady because she has been so patient.

    Caroline Lucas

    I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. She is suggesting that those of us who oppose the Bill are opposing it for some kind of ideological reason. I draw her attention to the words of the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, who herself said:

    “Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection”.

    Not only that, there is actually a requirement not to go on and make the legislation stronger. That is written into the Bill.

    On the issue of certainty, I do not know how the Minister can stand there and pretend that this is about certainty when businesses have no idea which laws will be in or out and when she does not know how many laws are on her dashboard.

    On democracy, when we were in the European Union we at least had Members of the European Parliament who had a say over these things. When the laws come back here, we have no say over them at all; it is all with Ministers. Is that what she means when she says this is supposed to be a good Bill that is full of opportunities from Brexit?

    Ms Ghani

    The hon. Lady has got the meme for her Facebook page. Unfortunately, she wholly misrepresents what the Bill is doing. Environmental standards will be maintained or enhanced. At the moment, the laws that come down from Brussels on the environment and land cover everything from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. This Bill is a great opportunity to maintain, to enhance and to review what more we can do to make things better for our environment across the UK. We already have flagship legislation in place: the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020. The Office for Environmental Protection has been fully established to enforce those elevated environmental rules and standards. The water framework directive covers our water. Instead of misrepresenting what the Bill does, why not take the opportunity to ensure that we enhance provision for what we are not maintaining?

    Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)

    Listening to the Opposition, we might think that the EU is the land of milk and honey when it comes to the environment. This is the same EU that put fossil fuels and gas in last year’s green taxonomy. Getting out of the EU allows us to have our own taxonomies and to make far greener efforts than naming gas as a green technology, which it is not.

    Ms Ghani

    We can make sure that we have a better focus on renewables, and we can take the decisions that work best for our communities. Fundamentally, we are maintaining and enhancing. We must not forget that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to introduce substantial law on water, animals and land. I have covered the dashboard, and I assume colleagues will now be pouncing on it.

    Departments have been actively working on their retained EU law reform plans for well over 18 months to ensure that appropriate action is taken before the sunset date. Additional work to lift obsolete laws will inevitably be slow, but that work will continue. We cannot allow the reform of retained EU law to remain merely a possibility. The sunset provision guarantees that retained EU law will not become an ageing relic dragging down the UK. It incentivises the genuine review and reform of retained EU law in a way that works best for the UK. What reforms are desirable will differ from policy area to policy area.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said on Second Reading, the environment is one of the Government’s top priorities. We will ensure that environmental law works for the UK and improves our environmental outcomes. As I said, we will be maintaining and enhancing. The Bill does not change the Environment Act, and we remain committed to delivering our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030.

    Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

    Many constituents have been in touch with me with their concerns about habitat protection, maternity leave protection and other issues. The National Archives says that 1,300 additional pieces of legislation are not necessarily in scope. Can the Minister give more clarity on how many pieces of legislation this Bill will cover?

    Ms Ghani

    We are working across Departments to cover laws that will either be assimilated, amended or revoked. We are finding that a number of those laws are obsolete, and the fact we are still identifying them is good. We are putting them on the dashboard as soon as we can, and we will update the dashboard again this month. It is right that we conduct this exercise to know where we are and to ensure that we refer to UK law where we assimilate, and that we amend it to improve the situation for our communities and businesses. If the laws are not operable in the UK, we can revoke them.

    The hon. Lady mentioned maternity rights, which is one of the unfortunate misinformation campaigns on this Bill. I struggle with the fact that colleagues are sharing misinformation, as people who may be vulnerable are made more vulnerable by such misinformation. The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU.

    Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks—we are doing better here. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to shared parental leave. The EU requirement for maternity leave is just 14 weeks—we are doing better here. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, whereas the EU agreed its rules only recently and offers the right only to parents and carers—we are doing better here. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave back in 2003. Who can remember then? The EU legislated for this only recently—once again, we are doing better here. I ask Members please not to hold up Brussels as a bastion of virtue, as that is most definitely not the case.

    Stella Creasy

    Will the Minister give way?

    Ms Ghani

    I will make a little progress.

    Significant reform will be needed in other areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. The people of the UK expect and deserve positive regulatory reform to boost the economy. Via this Bill, we will deliver reform across more than 300 policy areas. We cannot be beholden to a body of law that grows more obsolete by the day just because some in this House see the EU as the fount of all wisdom.

    Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is setting out a very powerful case. On the one hand, she is making the case that in Britain we have many laws that are superior and offer greater benefits and protections to residents, and on the other hand, she is making the self-evident point that we should unshackle ourselves from laws that will become increasingly historical, some of which were assimilated into British statute without scrutiny.

    Will the devolved Administrations be able to preserve retained EU law where it relates to devolved areas of competence?

    Ms Ghani

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the law is already devolved, the devolved Administrations have the ability to assimilate, amend or revoke, which is why some of the interventions from Opposition Members are slightly absurd. Why would they not want the opportunity to have a review? If the devolved Administrations want to assimilate the law, they can. If they want to amend it, they can. If they wish to revoke it, they have that choice. Why would the devolved Administrations not want to embrace the powers this Bill will give them?

    Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)

    The Minister talks about the devolved Administrations hanging on to their powers. Will she ensure that the dashboard on retained EU law is updated to identify which legislation is reserved and which is devolved, as well as how legislation in Wales might be affected?

    Ms Ghani

    Yes. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the earlier part of my speech. Government officials have been working with devolved Administration officials for more than 18 months, and that work will continue. When we discover an EU law, we put it on the dashboard. Of course, there are conversations with officials in the devolved authorities, and it is important that we continue to work closely with them.

    I was going to say more about the UK’s tremendous work on the environment, because I saw some dreadful, inappropriate coverage in the press, including nonsense about marine habitats. I have just had some information from DEFRA about its fantastic work in Montreal on marine. We have done more work on environmental standards and status outside the EU, including in protected areas such Dogger Bank, to enhance protection by 2030. We are also integrating our ocean and coastal mapping.

    Unfortunately, colleagues who are uncomfortable with the Bill have also peddled misinformation about our water bodies and water standards. There is an assumption that the target is being moved, which is absolutely incorrect. Targets are not being moved. It is incorrect to say that the target for the good state of England’s water bodies has been changed—it is still 2027, as outlined in the water framework directive. Hopefully that will cancel out any other misinformation on this stuff being shared on social media sites.

    Reform will be needed in other significant areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. It has been suggested that the Bill will somehow be a bonfire of workers’ rights. We are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards, and we have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. I have already spoken about maternity rights, but we can also look at maternity cover, holiday pay and other rights for employees.

  • Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech in Belfast on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Keir Starmer – 2023 Speech in Belfast on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The speech made by Sir Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, at Queen’s University Belfast on 13 January 2023.

    Thank you Ian for that introduction.

    It is always an honour to speak at Queen’s – so I’d like to thank the President and Vice-President for the invitation today.

    This is a special place. A first-class university for research, technology and innovation, business and health.

    An institution that has always been rooted in its communities here in Belfast and in Northern Ireland, but which also enjoys a huge global reach.

    A reach never more on display than in the appointment of your Chancellors and we can see them on the walls here today.

    After all, who better to carry the message of peace this city embodies around the world, than Hillary Clinton?

    I’ve been here to Queen’s many times. In fact, I remember the last time clearly because I was half way through my speech, the United Kingdom announced a vote on Article 50…

    What a relief that’s all behind us now.

    That day, I came here to reflect on the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland…

    And my role as the Human Rights Advisor to the Policing Board which oversees it.

    I’m immensely proud of the work of the board, of that whole period in my life.

    It’s given me a lasting love of Northern Ireland. Friendships that have endured, including people in this room here today, memories I’ll always cherish.

    And you know – after we were married, my wife and I took our first holiday here, because I wanted to show her Northern Ireland, the people and the communities that I’d met.

    I was in love with this island and that love has stayed with me.

    It’s also taught me so much about politics, about change, about the power of hope.

    And this year is a moment of reflection for Northern Ireland and, speaking for myself, standing here in 2023, It’s hard to describe just how different it feels to the Northern Ireland of 20 years ago, when I first came to take up my role here. How raw the emotions were back then, in a country still coming to terms with its hard-won but fragile peace.

    I wanted a chance to serve – because it felt like a huge moment.

    A chance to turn the page on decades, if not centuries, of pain, and I wanted to make a contribution. Help create a lasting institution.

    One that could reach out to all communities, hold the police to account, and in doing so help preserve that peace for future generations. I think we did that.

    Accountability, transparency, human rights, the framework we put in place was critical for both communities to have a degree of faith.

    That the Police Service of Northern Ireland was new, was different, was worth those risky first steps.

    We were tested of course – every day.

    As Tony Blair said at the time – every advance made in the name of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement has to be “ground out”.

    But over time, policing in Northern Ireland did change. The PSNI did become an institution which enjoys cross-community support, Catholics did sign-up to serve.

    Not enough – in Northern Ireland, you can always point to the work that still needs to be done, but, if you’d said to us then, in 2003, that in 20 years we’d have the PSNI we have today.

    That one day, a Sinn Féin leader would stand shoulder to shoulder with unionist leaders, in a campaign to help recruit new officers, yes – that would have felt like an achievement worth celebrating.

    And there are people here today who deserve huge credit for helping make that happen.

    This year, should be a year we celebrate achievements like that.

    All the achievements – big and small – of the Good Friday Agreement.

    25 years of relative peace, prosperity and a better Northern Ireland.

    It’s a proud moment for me, reflecting on the small role I played in that.

    And it’s obviously a huge moment for my party. The Good Friday Agreement is the greatest achievement of the Labour Party in my lifetime, without question.

    But of course, the real achievement – the real pride – belongs to the people and communities here in Northern Ireland.

    It’s your bravery, your determination, your courage, resilience and yes, your willingness to sacrifice, to compromise, to stand, despite everything, in the shoes of other communities.

    And above all – to keep doing so when there were bumps in the road, provocations, outbreaks of violence. That’s what won this peace.

    It’s why I fell in love with this place – I’d never seen anything like that spirit, that hope.

    I talk a lot about hope at the moment.

    About how hard it is for people to get through the challenges we face without the real possibility of something better.

    How, as we lurch from crisis to crisis, we’re losing our faith that the future will be better for our children.

    Some communities in the United Kingdom might once have taken that for granted – but not here.

    Because what I saw in Northern Ireland 20 years ago, were people and communities experiencing that hope for the first time.

    It’s what powered the Good Friday Agreement – drove the communities of this country on towards the history they made.

    And we’ve got to get it back.

    Because I get the sense – with the protocol, with the political situation at Stormont, not to mention the other problems we see here: the NHS, the cost-of-living, an economy on its knees.

    That the thought of April being a true celebration feels a little on ice.

    I understand that.

    Anniversaries are hard in Northern Ireland, looking back is hard.

    Even when we do so with pride, as we should in April – it’s tough.

    The past is a painful place for so many people, so many communities.

    People have suffered a lot. And with that comes a fear.

    Fear that if we stop trying to move forward – if things grind to a halt – then we could yet go backwards.

    It’s why, here more than anywhere, you always need that hope of a better future.

    That’s the spirit of 1998, that’s what the Good Friday agreement asked of people.

    It wasn’t to forgive, or forget – they were demands that could never be made.

    It was only to look forward. To commit to a journey. Walk, step by step. Each stride difficult, each stride precious, towards a better future, together.

    The anniversary this year should be a true celebration – people deserve that.

    History was made here, hard-won.

    But to respect that history, people also deserve action on the issues which currently hold Northern Ireland back. For politics to do its job and give people the chance to look forward with hope.

    There is a small window of opportunity before April – we’ve got to use the anniversary to fix minds.

    Get the country and its political process moving forward again.

    Deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

    I see two key priorities for this.

    They’re both urgent, both need to happen now, and so of course they rely on a change of direction from the Prime Minister.

    But in each priority, I also want to show the values I will bring to Northern Ireland, if I have the honour to serve as Prime Minister.

    First – the British Government must normalise and strengthen relationships with Dublin.

    The Taoiseach held out an olive branch in recent weeks – we must take it.

    But honestly, relations should never have been this strained.

    Brexit was a rupture in the UK’s diplomatic stance, a call to change, in every area of our society, which had to be recognised.

    I’ve been very clear about this – my Government will make it work, will take on the mantle of that vote, will turn its slogans into practical solutions.

    Yet throughout the last seven years, nothing has been more self-defeating than the determination of some Conservative ministers, to see our friends in Dublin as adversaries on Brexit.

    That has damaged the political process here in Northern Ireland – no question.

    And it’s certainly not the spirit of 1998.

    We should never lose sight of what binds us together on these islands – our shared commitment to peace here above all other considerations.

    So I encourage the Prime Minister, as the Taoiseach has said, to recognise past mistakes.

    It will help him with the second priority, the obvious one – the protocol.

    Look – there’s no point varnishing the truth, to get beyond the current stalemate we have to make the protocol work.

    Nobody wants to see unnecessary checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    We just need to find a solution.

    And I want to commend the recent agreement on trade data-sharing, commend the EU, commend the Government.

    If they are finally serious about a deal, there will be no sniping from us – I can promise you that.

    I go back to the Good Friday Agreement – the pride we feel in the Labour Party towards it, has no bounds.

    But we know the political effort didn’t come just from us, from Tony Blair and Mo Mowlam, it didn’t come just from Bertie Ahern and Mary McAleese, from the unwavering support of the US – of Bill Clinton and George Mitchell, or the tenacity and brilliance of John Hume and David Trimble.

    It was also built on the work of John Major and Albert Reynolds, and afterwards by Lord Patten – whose commission led to the PSNI and the Policing Board, in the first place.

    My point is this – the spirit of 1998, on both islands, is not one of tribal politics.

    This is the process which brought Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness together – and they made it work – there can be no clearer example than that.

    So I say to the Prime Minister, if there is a deal to do in coming weeks – do it.

    Whatever political cover you need, whatever mechanisms in Westminster you require, if it delivers for our national interest and the people of Northern Ireland – we will support you.

    The time for action on the protocol is now.

    The time to stand up to the ERG is now.

    The time to put Northern Ireland above a Brexit purity cult, which can never be satisfied – is now.

    We can find ways to remove the majority of checks – a bespoke SPS agreement, a monitoring system that eradicates checks on goods that will only ever be sold in Northern Ireland.

    The opportunity for these reforms is there – and they would deliver for communities and businesses across these islands.

    Northern Ireland can be prosperous under the protocol.

    But it requires leadership from you, Prime Minister.

    And look – I enjoyed my dialogue with the DUP and unionist parties yesterday, so I want to reach out on this, speak to all unionist communities.

    There are legitimate problems with the protocol and these must be recognised in any negotiations.

    And as for the process that got us here, to this point, I think your anger about that is more than justified.

    I said this yesterday, I will say it here and I want every community in Northern Ireland to hear it – the Labour Party will always be a good faith guarantor of the constitution and the principle of consent.

    That commitment is written in to the agreement we want to celebrate in April – it stands above politics, it should stand above Brexit negotiations as well.

    I think people know we would have done things differently, and that we will stand by those values when in Government.

    But I also say this – in the coming weeks, it’s possible there will be siren voices in Westminster that say again, there is another path, a path that doesn’t require compromise on the protocol.

    In fact, it’s possible those siren voices will include – may even be led by – the very people who created the protocol.

    That were cavalier with the constitutional settlement of this United Kingdom.

    That came to this island and acted – to be blunt – in bad faith.

    You can listen to those voices, of course, it’s not for me to determine the interests of any community here.

    But I would counsel that the example to follow is not theirs. But the spirit of negotiation, of conciliation, of courage, that, in the end, is always the force which moves Northern Ireland forward towards the future.

    That’s what I want to do in April – look forward.

    Northern Ireland is personal to me, the Good Friday Agreement is personal to me.

    The drift, the lack of momentum, the elevation of ideological politics above the constitutional settlement – that would never happen with my Labour Government. Wouldn’t happen with any Labour Government.

    It’s not how we approach politics on this island.

    It’s not how my predecessors helped broker peace.

    My ambition as Prime Minister would be to give the people of Northern Ireland the hope I saw here in 2003, the sort of hope you can build your future around, that aspirations are made of.

    And which can – as we’ve seen for 25 years – bring communities together.

    Ordinary hope and ordinary politics – that’s what the people of Northern Ireland deserve.

    And we will govern by their example.

    When things get tough, we will persevere.

    Embrace the spirit of 1998.

    Keep our eyes fixed firmly on the future.

    A future of peace and prosperity.

    Partnership between Britain and Ireland.

    And a politics which delivers for every community in Northern Ireland.

    Thank you.