UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Northern Ireland

  • Chris Heaton-Harris – 2023 Statement on the Northern Ireland Executive Formation

    Chris Heaton-Harris – 2023 Statement on the Northern Ireland Executive Formation

    The statement made by Chris Heaton-Harris, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    Today, the Government is introducing the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill, to extend the period within which the Northern Ireland parties can form an Executive to 18 January 2024.

    Over a year has passed since the then First Minister of Northern Ireland resigned. Twelve months and one Assembly election later, it is disappointing that people in Northern Ireland still do not have the strong devolved institutions that they deserve.

    The restoration of the Executive, in line with the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement, remains my top priority. I will continue to do all I can to help the Northern Ireland parties work together to make that happen. It was on that basis that we legislated in the autumn to extend the Executive formation period through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022. Since that period ended on 20 January 2023, I have once again been under a statutory duty to hold an Assembly election within 12 weeks (that is on or before 13 April 2023).

    Having spoken to political representatives, businesses and communities in Northern Ireland, I have concluded that another election at this time is not the best course of action to facilitate the restoration of the Executive.

    On that basis, this Bill will provide for a single retrospective extension of the Executive formation period of one year from 19 January 2023. That would mean that, if the parties are unable to form an Executive before 19 January 2024, I would again fall under a duty to hold an Assembly election within 12 weeks. The legislation will also enable the Government to bring this new period to an early end and move to elections sooner, if necessary.

    Yesterday, in a meeting with vice-president of the European Commission Maroš Šefčovič in Brussels, I reiterated that the UK Government are working hard to resolve the problems caused by the Northern Ireland protocol, and the desire to see an agreed solution with the EU. I was clear that this extension does not influence protocol discussions.

    I remain focused on restoring devolved institutions as soon as possible and this Bill creates the best opportunity to do that. I will continue to do all I can to support the people of Northern Ireland in the meantime. I will also host Northern Ireland party leaders at a roundtable in Belfast today to urge them to restore the Executive as soon as possible.

    I very much hope that the parties will recognise the importance of getting back to work, so that a functioning Executive can take the actions needed, to address the challenges facing public services in Northern Ireland.

  • 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.

  • Mike Nesbitt – 2023 Comments on an Armed Police Service in Northern Ireland

    Mike Nesbitt – 2023 Comments on an Armed Police Service in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Mike Nesbitt, the Ulster Unionist spokesperson on the Policing Board, on 18 January 2023.

    The Ulster Unionist spokesperson on the Policing Board, Mike Nesbitt MLA, has backed the continued policy of arming every PSNI officer. The affirmation follows the publication of a Policing Board report which states the PSNI should consider the policy in its future planning.

    Mike Nesbitt said:

    “The Policing Board is not recommending that a single officer should be disarmed today, tomorrow, next week or next year. Rather, I see this as a challenge to all of us regarding the sort of society we want. Would I like one where it was not necessary for all police officers to regularly carry firearms? Of course! Are we there yet? Absolutely not!

    “I think it is healthy to remind ourselves why officers need to carry lethal weapons, to review how often those weapons are deployed and to aspire to better days ahead.

    “The fact remains that our police officers not only have to face armed and violent criminal gangs but also live under threat both on and off-duty, as was seen recently in the attacks in Strabane and Londonderry and the threats made in the New IRA statement issued to mark the New Year. Police officers have a right to defend themselves and they are entitled to have the means to do so.”

  • Doug Beattie – 2023 Comments on Northern Ireland’s Place with the United Kingdom’s Internal Market

    Doug Beattie – 2023 Comments on Northern Ireland’s Place with the United Kingdom’s Internal Market

    The comments made by Doug Beattie, the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, on 16 January 2023.

    This is a much more low-key statement from the UK and EU than the build up implied, which provides a lesson in raising expectations in such a delicate negotiation. I would implore both the UK Government and the European Union not to become tempted to agree a deal simply to conclude negotiations, and rather focus on taking time to find a deal that provides long lasting solutions to the range of problems caused by the Northern Ireland Protocol.

    Northern Ireland’s place with the United Kingdom’s Internal Market must be restored and protected. Sticking plaster solutions will not cut it. The long-term effect of the implementation of the Protocol in its current form will be the erosion of Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. We have warned of this since 2019 and will continue to oppose any deal which makes Northern Ireland a place apart from the rest of the UK.

    Nobody can be expected to agree a deal over which they have no input or control. London is adding to the democratic deficit, not solving it. We must have a say in our own future. There would never have been a Belfast Agreement if the Government had behaved like this. It’s intolerable.

  • Northern Ireland Executive Department – 2022 Comments on the Australia Trade Bill

    Northern Ireland Executive Department – 2022 Comments on the Australia Trade Bill

    The comments made by the Northern Ireland Executive Department on 14 January 2022.

    Submission from Department for the Economy.

    Northern Ireland Executive Department with responsibility for trade issues.

    Free Trade Agreement:

    1      The Department is supportive of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) being reached between the UK and Australia, providing opportunities for some companies in Northern Ireland. However, the extent to which NI importers / consumers will be able to access goods under the terms of the UK-Australia FTA is limited to the extent to which product standards and regulations are aligned with, and in scope of, the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol.

    2          We recognise and welcome potential opportunities created for the Northern Ireland financial and cyber security sectors through the mobility and professional services provisions of the FTA. Also, the removal of trade barriers to exports gives potential to Northern Ireland advanced manufacturing, machinery and transport sectors to grow. This is to be welcomed.

    3.     However, the FTA published on 16 December 2021 does not deliver on UK interests as sensitive agriculture sectors are not given sufficient protection from imports. Notwithstanding the broader point made at Paragraph 1 above, our biggest concerns arising from the FTA is the impact on the beef and sheep sectors.

    4.   The Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) established are well in excess of current import levels.  The final TRQs prior to the removal of all tariff protection of 170,000 tonnes for beef and 125,000 tonnes for sheep represent 16% and 49% of UK consumption respectively.  Clearly if Australian imports approach anything close to these levels, there will be a major impact on domestic producers.

    5.   The beef quota has been set at 35,000 tonnes from the first year, which is an almost tenfold increase on Australia’s current beef TRQ of 3,761 tonnes which carries an in-quota tariff of 20%. The sheep meat quota will double Australia’s access from the first year.

    6.   The safeguard mechanism in years 11 – 15 of the FTA, is applicable in year 11 if imports exceed 110,000 tonnes for beef (representing 10% of UK consumption) and 75,000 tonnes for sheep meat (representing 29% of UK consumption). This volume of imports from Australia would already present significant difficulties to domestic producers, therefore the safeguard mechanism is set at too high of a level to offer protection and after 15 years there will be no protection.

    7.   The UK Government has stated that Australia will not be exporting significant amounts of beef to the UK or that Australian imports will replace imports from other countries.  Whilst recognising the appeal of Asian markets to Australian exporters, it is likely that Australia’s insistence on achieving a rapid and very sizeable increase in market access signals an intention of making significant use of it.

    8.   It would be expected that Australia will seek to increase exports of both beef and sheep meat to the UK following the implementation of the FTA. Australia exported 1.03 million tonnes of beef in 2020 which was a decrease of 190,000 tonnes on 2019.  Therefore it is certainly conceivable that Australia could export at least a further 170,000 tonnes to the UK over a period of 15 years.  There is no guarantee that Australian exporters will focus only on the Asian market for future growth opportunities and neither is there any guarantee that Australia exports to the UK will only impact on other countries exports of beef to the UK.

    9.   It should be pointed out that should EU exports of beef to the UK fall, this will be most significant for the Republic of Ireland and a surplus of beef on the Irish market will have negative consequences for the market in Northern Ireland. Furthermore if Australian beef displaces imports from other countries to Great Britain, this gives rise to concerns that it will also displace sales of Northern Ireland beef in our largest market.

    10.   The level of market access given to Australian beef, sheep and dairy products is unprecedented in FTAs between a country with defensive agricultural interests in sensitive products and a large agricultural exporter of these products.  Normally such agreements are characterised by low volume TRQs and high out-of-quota tariffs.  For example the agreement between the EU and Mercosur (not yet implemented) saw a TRQ of 99,000 tonnes agreed for beef (with a 7.5% duty) which caused significant concern from the agricultural industry.  On a pro-rata basis, this would equate to a TRQ of around 10,000 tonnes for the UK which is in stark contrast to level of market access in the UK/Australia FTA.

    11.   The outcome on SPS standards appears to be satisfactory, however, concerns remain in relation to animal welfare and anti-microbial resistance (AMR) as Australia allows the use of growth hormones to increase the weight of cattle, electro-immobilisation and tail docking of cattle, and mulsing of sheep, none of which is permitted in the UK.  The retention of tariffs on imports of pig, poultry and egg products is welcomed.

    12.   The FTA includes articles on non-regression from current standards on animal welfare but the provisions are weak. Ongoing co-operation on animal welfare and AMR may be beneficial but there is no guarantee that this will result in the same level of standards in these areas in the future.  The UK should have taken the differing animal welfare standards and approach to AMR into account in the negotiations on market access for beef, sheep and dairy products.

    Economic Consequence of Free Trade Agreement

    13.   In terms of potential economic consequences of the deal for farmers, Australia has a number of distinct advantages over Northern Ireland, and the rest of the UK, in terms of the land available for farming, climate and lower standards that allows it’s farmers to be able produce at a considerably lower cost. Analysis by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) shows that under normal conditions, Australian sheep prices can be £1/kg lower than the GB price and for beef around £1.10/kg lower than the GB price. Consequently there is a lot of potential for Australian beef and sheep exports to the UK to expand substantially over time as tariffs are eliminated.

    14.   Australian beef and sheep products have the potential to undercut UK producers and to reduce Northern Ireland’s market share in GB for these products. GB is by far Northern Ireland’s most important market accounting for around 70% by value of beef and sheep meat processed in Northern Ireland. We expect that the FTA will have a negative impact on Northern Ireland farmers from loss of market share in GB arising from increased Australian exports of beef and sheep meat.

    15.   The FTA will reduce the competitiveness of Northern Ireland products on the GB market which as outlined above is by far the most import market for Northern Ireland agri-food products.  Greater divergence in tariff policy between GB and Northern Ireland will result in more trade friction between GB and Northern Ireland in order to prevent goods from accessing the EU market without paying the EU tariff.

    16.   The FTA also gives rise to concerns of the potential impact on the UK Internal Market as it will create a divergent tariff regime between GB and Northern Ireland. Australian imports could come into GB at zero tariff which would undermine the competitiveness of Northern Ireland agricultural products in the GB market but when these goods are moved to Northern Ireland, they would be subject to a tariff unless they meet the not at risk provision in the Protocol. That will complicate goods movements from GB to NI further and a divergent tariff regime within the UK does not protect the UK Internal Market but rather does the opposite. Therefore the UKG should carry out an assessment as to whether section 46 of the UK Internal Market Act is being complied with.

    Future Trade Deals

    17.   The UK is currently in the latter stages of negotiating a free trade agreement with New Zealand, has launched negotiations with India, is developing mandates for the review of the Canada and Mexico continuity trade agreements and has commenced accession negotiations to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).  We now expect that many countries negotiating FTAs with the UK or those seeking an FTA in the future, particularly New Zealand will push for a similar level of agricultural access to that given to Australia. Northern Ireland also has defensive concerns with New Zealand (dairy, beef and sheep).

    18.   There is concern at the level of market access already granted for sensitive agricultural products.  For example for lamb, 125,000 tonnes have been granted to Australia (prior to all tariff protection being removed) and New Zealand currently holds a TRQ via the WTO of 114,205 tonnes which when added together equates to 94% of UK consumption.

    19.   The cumulative impact of FTAs is likely to put further pressure on UK agriculture particularly if they are concluded on the same basis as the FTA with Australia.  Furthermore, without adequate safeguards, accession to CPTPP creates the possibility that agri-food products produced and processed anywhere within the block could be eligible for export to the UK without tariff.  There are opportunities in obtaining greater access to the Asian market.  However there must be realism about the economic potential for this to occur with lower cost producers and that most countries seek to prevent imports replacing domestic production to a significant extent.

    Impact Assessments

    20.   The Government’s revised impact assessment has moved away from using a regional apportionment approach in the main model to addressing potential differential regional impacts in the sensitivity analysis. The impact assessment highlights gains in services sectors and potential expansion in the manufacture of machinery across the UK. However, economic benefits of FTAs do not arise without reallocation of resources within the economy. While the impact assessment shows a small economic gain to the UK economy, there are significant reductions in output in agriculture, forestry, and fishing (around -£94 million) and semi-processed foods (-£225 million). When the sensitivity analysis is applied this results in a forecast reduction of 0.04%, or £16m, for the Northern Ireland economy. It also forecasts that in the same scenario Northern Ireland would be the only UK region to experience an overall decrease in economic output resulting from a specialisation in agriculture and semi-processed food, particularly beef and sheep.

    21.   The agriculture and food processing sectors in Northern Ireland are a significant element of our local economy, with around 78,000 employed in these sectors (based on 51,301 total farmers and workers and 24,945 food and drink processing full time and 2,034 employment agency workers), and around 4% of Northern Ireland’s Gross Value Added (GVA) equating to nearly £1.7bn at basic prices. The impact assessment is believed to accurately reflect the negative impact that will be felt in Northern Ireland from the FTA.  There are concerns that given the commitment by the UK Government that trade deals must work for all parts of the UK, it did not seek a different outcome on agriculture which would have avoided a negative impact on Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that the impact assessment was only shared the afternoon before publication, allowing no time to discuss the impacts on Northern Ireland.

    22.      Whilst an early analysis of the impacts of this deal for Northern Ireland would have been helpful there is now a need to go further. The UK is negotiating or seeking to negotiate individual trade agreements with various countries, however, the assessment of the impact of these agreements needs to be considered on a cumulative basis. An impact assessment of the combined impacts of the proposed Australia and New Zealand agreements needs to be prepared. This in turn should set the baseline for assessing impacts, to be expanded, as additional new or revised deals such as Canada, Mexico, India and accession to the CPTPP are negotiated.

    23.      Ultimately, the interaction between the provisions of UK Free Trade Agreements and Northern Ireland’s legal obligations under the Protocol are complex and create uncertainty in two key regards: firstly, the extent to which NI importers and consumers can access the full range of goods covered by the agreement, and; secondly, the effect on the competitiveness of NI suppliers within the UK. With limited success, officials continue to press their UK counterparts for greater clarity and assurances around the interaction of trade policy and the Protocol.

  • 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.

  • Gordon Brown – 2009 Joint Statement with Irish Taoiseach on Northern Ireland

    Gordon Brown – 2009 Joint Statement with Irish Taoiseach on Northern Ireland

    The statement made by Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, on 17 December 2009.

    While work remains to be done, we are both convinced that significant progress is being made on the remaining issues concerning devolution of policing and justice and other issues still outstanding from the St Andrews Agreement.

    It is clear that all the main Northern Ireland parties support the devolution of policing and justice and want to see this happen. The Governments believe that, while there remain issues to be resolved, the parties have made substantial progress over recent months towards the transfer of policing and justice powers.

    The First and deputy First Ministers set out in November last year the steps that they both agreed needed to be taken to finalise the process. Those steps are near to completion.

    The legislation to create the model for the new Justice Department was agreed at Westminster in March. The legislation to create the new Justice Department has completed its passage through the Assembly. The process to identify the Justice Minister is now underway.

    The Prime Minister agreed a generous financial settlement in September that will ensure that a devolved Justice Department will have the resources it needs to manage particular financial pressures around, for example, hearing loss claims without detriment to front line policing and justice services. The financial package will only be available if devolution is completed in the coming months.

    Maintaining this progress and the early completion of devolution are important to sustaining public confidence across the whole community and to further enhancing Northern Ireland’s international reputation.

    This is both realistic and achievable.

    The only steps that remain in the process agreed by the First and deputy First Ministers are for the Northern Ireland parties, once the outstanding issues are resolved, to complete the process of public consultation and an Assembly vote seeking the transfer of powers.

    Once final agreement is reached by the parties, approval by Westminster of the necessary transfer orders can be achieved within a matter of weeks following a request from the Assembly. The British Government stands ready to bring forward these orders in the New Year.

    We have discussed the limited number of outstanding issues with the parties. We believe that there are no differences incapable of resolution and are optimistic the parties can find early agreement.

    We will stay in close touch with the parties as they continue discussions over the coming days.

    We believe that early completion of devolution is important. We have, therefore, asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to meet at the beginning of January to review progress towards the necessary cross community vote in the Assembly.

    While these matters can best be resolved by the Parties themselves, we remain available to help as required.

  • Doug Beattie – 2022 New Year’s Message

    Doug Beattie – 2022 New Year’s Message

    The new year’s message made by Doug Beattie, the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, on 31 December 2022.

    As we come to the end of 2022 it would not be an understatement to call it an historic year. We celebrated the Platinum Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II, 70 years as our Monarch, an incredible achievement. Later we mourned her passing and then proclaimed a new Monarch, King Charles III. The Ulster Unionist Party also mourned the loss of our former leader, Lord Trimble, who did so much to bring peace to Northern Ireland alongside others, through the Belfast Agreement. Our thoughts are with his family and all those who lost loved ones.

    Politically things have been difficult for the United Kingdom in 2022 with the Westminster Government going through several Prime Ministerial changes and our own devolved Government at Stormont, collapsing once again. Underpinning all this we saw war returning to Europe with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and a cost-of-living crisis that has left many families struggling.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol has dominated political discourse throughout 2022. The Ulster Unionists’ position on the protocol has not changed since 2019. We made the argument then that the protocol would not work and we have been proven right in the same way we said BREXIT could destabilise the United Kingdom and again we were proven right.

    As the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party I have been clear that I am a whole United Kingdom unionist – that our actions as unionists in Northern Ireland must complement the Union of nations that make up the United Kingdom. This means taking our place within that Union, having our voice heard, putting country before party, people before self.

    Unionist cooperation goes far beyond just political parties here in Northern Ireland. Unionist cooperation means cooperating with unionists in England, Scotland and Wales ensuring our actions do nothing to undermine any part of the Union while at the same time ensuring we create a prosperous United Kingdom with democracy, fiscal responsibility, security, social justice, equality and opportunity for all our citizens at its heart.

    It is fair to say that throughout 2022 the ideals of the United Kingdom have been tested as never before as individual and party self-interests came to the fore. Unionism needs to be very careful that the protections for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom that the late David Trimble and his colleagues brought about through the Belfast Agreement, are not washed away without a strategic estimate even taking place.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol must be dealt with. It undermines the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and that in itself, goes against well-established norms for international treaties. Yet due to BREXIT we must do something to protect our farming industry and other industries and services that create a strong economy which in turn creates a strong Northern Ireland that will maintain our place in the United Kingdom.

    As a party we have put forward many solutions, some of which are now the main negotiating points between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

    The Northern Ireland Protocol is a problem which will be solved by negotiation or legislation. However, the cost-of-living crisis, the crisis in our National Health Service and within our service sectors will only be dealt with through a functioning devolved government.

    This will not be easy, but doing the right thing is seldom easy. As we enter 2023 we as Ulster Unionists have stark choices to make.

    We either work to solidify our place within the United Kingdom by reaching out to all corners of our society with understanding, respectful of difference; by being confident, optimistic and positive unionists looking to promote ourselves within the United Kingdom, Europe and further afield.

    Alternatively, we can withdraw from the government mechanisms of the United Kingdom, set ourselves alone and apart, and fail to have our voice heard or even acknowledged; promoting pessimistic, isolated unionism in Northern Ireland and watch it continue to flounder.

    I am dedicated to following the first path in order to reach out to those who view themselves as unionists, who have pro-union views, or those who will happily remain within a prosperous United Kingdom although they may have different cultural views or have different long-term aspirations.

    As I finish I would just ask you all to look beyond the slogans. View things strategically for 2023, see how by making this part of the United Kingdom prosper, by focusing on the economy, we secure Northern Ireland’s future.

    Happy New Year to you all.

  • Doug Beattie – 2022 Comments on Leo Varadkar and Political Relations with Unionists

    Doug Beattie – 2022 Comments on Leo Varadkar and Political Relations with Unionists

    The comments made by Doug Beattie, the Leader of the Ulster Unionists, on 16 December 2022.

    The change in Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland this weekend comes at a pivotal time in negotiations between the European Union and United Kingdom, and in Anglo-Irish relations.

    I wish Micheál Martin well as he steps down from the role. We have had a good and constructive relationship during his time in office. I believe he listened in good faith to what Unionism had to say and understood the importance of having a good working relationship with his country’s nearest neighbours.

    As Leo Varadkar takes up the office again there will undoubtedly be apprehension from Unionism. His contribution during his first term, particularly when it came to Brexit and the Protocol, was not positive and I hope to see early indication that he has learned and matured on these particular issues in the intervening years. He will have a lot of work to do in rebuilding relations with Unionism in Northern Ireland, there is simply no escaping that fact, but we will continue to reach out and engage in good faith.