Gavin Robinson
MP for Belfast East · Democratic Unionist Party · United Kingdom
“I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She mentions that the Government have a responsibility to ensure this legislation is lawful and workable, yet she is the Bill’s sponsor—that responsibility rests on her, too.”
“That is an answer to a question, but it is not really the answer to my question. I want to hear from our Secretary of State a full-throated recognition that there is a deficit, that Sir Declan needs access to the unredacted material, and that the Secretary of State will secure agreement from the Irish Government for such a change.”
“Is the Secretary of State further concerned that the chief operating officer of the Northern Ireland Office said that day that she would take that point back—to whom we do not know, because she is the chief operating officer—but today has written to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to confirm that nothing in the Secretary of State’s…”
“The Secretary of State will know that, given the legacy of our past, two Governments are involved. Was he concerned, as we were, that Sir Declan Morgan shared with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee two weeks ago his concern that he will not have access to unredacted intelligence material from the Irish Government?”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate. Does the Minister understand that when he speaks of co-operation between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, it rings hollow when immigration officials in Dublin airport indicate where the bus to Belfast is?”
“Does the Minister understand that any agreement around data sharing rings hollow when the Home Office will not tell us how many people enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland, how many apply in Drumkeen House in Belfast or how many are removed not just from Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole, and even more so when the H…”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Gavin Robinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 13.
“I reiterate that point; I am saying it very clearly now and I suspect that in a number of months’ time the point that is being ignored today will become quite acute in our political discourse.”
“I recognise the nature of Committee stage, but I make the point again to the shadow Minister that this is not about his valiant opposition in Committee or on Third Reading, or what passed on Second Reading; it is about the Labour party’s opposition on this Bill, which I have no doubt will fold in the other place. The political choice will be the Labour party’s to make; there is no second Session or additional Session of this Parliament. There will be no Parliament Act available to pass the Bill and it is going to be tortured in the other place. The Bill will be tortured in the other place and the only way it will emerge or emanate from this Parliament is if a political calculation is made by the Labour party that there is too much political cost in opposition to the Bill and they draw stumps and allow it to pass.”
“If the Minister is prepared to say that the only refugees who can come to the United Kingdom from Rwanda are those who have been produced as refugees from other countries, that is an absolutely fair point, but I do not think that is the point he is making. I am very happy to let him intervene again but I genuinely do not think that is the point he is making. The point I am making is that it is entirely inconsistent to say on the one hand that we will accept refugees from a country and on the other hand to deem that country as safe. I accept our right to do it, however, and I do not quibble with the Government’s aspiration that Rwanda is a safe country. I do not quibble with that; I just say that there is a complete juxtaposition between on the one hand saying it is safe and on the other accepting refugees from that very same country.”
“They have advanced that argument in court and have won. The argument that the Government are putting forward is predicated on article 2 of the withdrawal agreement—that there be “no diminution of rights” for the people of Northern Ireland whenever the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. As a consequence, and given that they say the rights chapter does not apply to immigration, they say there is no diminution of rights, so this situation is not captured by article 2. We engaged with the Government—”
“The worry is that the Government are blindly ignoring our concerns and allowing a situation to develop that will cause a fracture in the immigration policy, which until this point has applied equally across the United Kingdom. I have engaged with the Minister on this issue and I am grateful to him for both making the time available and the courtesy with which he always approaches these issues. Colleagues will recall that we raised this issue on Second Reading and the Minister gave a commitment, which fundamentally comes in two parts: that the Government have never accepted that the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement engages immigration policy, and furthermore that the Government have in the past robustly defended the position that the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement does not engage immigration policy and have won.”
“and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but that notwithstanding clause is there because we have concerns, in contradiction to the Government’s position, that the claims that have been made in this House and the position that the Government have deployed are not sustainable legally. Our amendment states: “The provisions of this Act shall have effect in Northern Ireland, notwithstanding Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”, amended in 2020. That is important from a principled perspective as a Unionist and from a practical perspective as a Member of this Parliament who believes that our immigration policy applies equally across the United Kingdom—it always has applied equally across the United Kingdom.”
“I am glad to accept that intervention, and the shadow Minister has made his point and I have made my point. I suspect we will find as much safety in the point that has just been made as in that of those who stand bullishly and say that this is the strongest, most robust piece of legislation ever, irrespective of whether it works. I just put that on the record. As Members will be aware from Second Reading, we have concerns about the operability of the Bill in the light of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the legislative framework that surrounds that relationship. That is why our new clause 3 is a notwithstanding clause. I know that we have had some humour around notwithstanding clauses from the hon.”
“I am not being alarmist about that and I will not over-egg it; I am just making the point that these are important issues, and the unity of our immigration system is important. The protection of our borders is an important issue in immigration terms. Heaven knows, we have had enough difficulty around the creation of a trade border in the Irish sea that we are having to deal with. We cannot casually, or mistakenly, or through misplaced hope, walk ourselves into the creation of an immigration sea border in the Irish sea because the Government fail to accept the strength of feeling on this issue, the cause for concern surrounding it and the legal and judicial opinion that has been given that leans into it. This is our opportunity to put it right, and we should take it. I am about to finish, but in fairness I did indicate to the hon.”
“I raise those issues on a number of levels: as a parliamentary spokesperson on home affairs and somebody who has engaged on immigration issues for a while, as someone who has voted against previous attempts because I do not believe they are the right approach, and as someone who voted against the Bill on Second Reading because I still do not believe it is the right approach. I also raise those things as a representative for Belfast. Believe it or not—I say this with no alarm and no theatrics but as a matter of record—House of Commons Library figures from September point out that, across the entire United Kingdom, Belfast has the second-highest number of asylum seekers, housed within our city. We have 78 asylum seekers for every 10,000 of the city’s population.”
“It has not engaged the consideration that was resolved and shared in paragraph 94 of that Belfast High Court judgment, which has a completely separate legal construction for the Government’s ambition for how this Rwanda Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. The Minister has said clearly on the Floor of the House that the Bill will apply in full in Northern Ireland in the same way as it does in the rest of the United Kingdom. New clause 3 is our attempt, first, to get the Government to rule out the concerns that have been raised by agreeing it. Then, if they should not do so, they should at least articulate their intention, their position, what they believe to be the case, why they believe that interpretation and why the judgment from Belfast is wrong.”
“Paragraph 94 of that judgment states clearly: “The combined effect of section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018…and Article 4 of the Protocol limits the effects of section 5(4) and (5) of the EUWA 2018 and Schedule 1, para 3 of the same Act which restrict the use to which the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU General Principles may be relied on after the UK’s exit. Thus, the Charter of Fundamental Rights remains enforceable in Northern Ireland and falls within the ambit of Article 2(1) of the Protocol.” Contained within the charter of fundamental rights is article 18, the right to asylum. Everything we have seen from the Government has engaged the discussion around the rights chapter of the Belfast agreement.”
“Eyes wide open, they could choose to ignore us at this point, to dismiss the concerns that have been raised and ultimately leave it to the courts to decide and the judiciary to determine whether there is cause for concern. Or they could take the simple step on immigration grounds alone to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is the choice. Yesterday I shared with the Minister—I share it with the Committee today—the details of a High Court case in Belfast. It was an application for judicial review by Aman Angesom, and it was interesting reading.”
“I will not take an intervention at this stage, because there are a few elements that I want to get out clearly and cleanly. I will then be happy to give way. The Minister put forward his point, and we exchanged positions on Second Reading about the potential of an updated legal note. I have to say in all candour that the Minister and the Government have been forthcoming in more formally addressing this point in terms of article 2 of the European Union withdrawal agreement alone, and not article 7. Let us be clear: we as a national Parliament are considering on a national basis our national immigration policy, and our amendment is intended to elicit a response from the Government.”
“This House has agreed that that is the basis upon which we should proceed. I have been in this place for almost nine years. There are many occasions when this House has agreed to proceed in the face of what I believe to be well-grounded, politically supported and principled decisions. It is not an amendment I take comfort from, but I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, given the day that this is and the potential for Third Reading this evening.”
“The hon. Lady is entirely right in the quote that she shares. It is fair to say that the Government won that case. We therefore did not see the Government—indeed, they did not have any rationale to do so—taking forward an appeal to defend some of the points that they may well have chosen to defend, but she highlights a frailty in the position, if the Home Office is not accepting a position that it has defended in other cases by saying that the rights chapter is not engaged. That is a frailty of the Government’s position, and that is why, in fairness, the hon. Lady has tabled her own amendment. It is not as fatal as our new clause 3, in terms of the notwithstanding provisions, but it is at least asking the Government not to proceed with the Bill until they are in the firm position to publish a position.”
“I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for his contribution. He would accept that the arguments around the particularities of Northern Ireland, should an application come from Northern Ireland, were not considered by the Supreme Court in detail. I am not saying that I am right, but for as long as we have an undetermined position of the Government on one hand juxtaposed with some advocates in Northern Ireland on the other, we need to get it settled. We need to be sure about the position. That is my point.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for addressing those points as clearly as he did. He will acknowledge that although he has addressed them in his closing remarks this evening, the Home Office published legal advice yesterday that did not touch on any of those points. May I ask him to take steps in the coming days to go further and update that legal advice in a way that encompasses the points he has just raised, in order to assuage the concerns of the House this evening?”
“There is a benefit to having these regular sessions, and there is of course the opportunity for more regular ministerial statements rather than just urgent questions; I encourage the Minister to think about that in the future. He will remember that on the last occasion I raised the issue of lethargy and concerns that events in the middle east could be a distraction from support for Ukraine, and I questioned some of the political dynamics evident in the US system. On this occasion I want to invert that question and ask if he has assessed the impact of the ongoing issues in the middle east and their consequences for countries such as Iran and their support for Russia, and whether that might present an opportunity for Ukraine.”
“He mentioned the ongoing review, but can he give us any assurance that there will be a level of stringent and independent oversight in the BBC and through its management structure, so that when such issues are raised, which touch on malpractice or questionable practice around the allocation of financing and the commissioning of resources, the public and we all know there is integrity in the process of investigating them?”
“I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance and for what he has just shared. A perception arising from some issues that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) raised is that some people in the BBC are too popular to be criticised, too successful to be touched, and too important in the ratings game to have issues raised about their conduct. Some of the points that my hon. Friend made touch on questionable, if not corruptible, practices around commissioning and around individuals and their behaviour. The Minister is right that Ofcom is there for when the BBC has completed its investigations, but Ofcom looks very particularly at regulatory matters.”
“I am not asking the Minister to solve that as a problem, but is he concerned by it and can he assure the House that, from the engagement he has had with his counterparts in the United States, in the Executive tier their resolve is undiminished and they will find the resource to continue their support for Ukraine?”
“The Minister will have heard concern raised in a number of places about the potential for a loss of focus or a lack of resolve, given the pivot of interest and attention to the middle east and the harrowing scenes over the last fortnight. He has robustly responded to those concerns. A second element of concern—he invoked the spectre of our main ally, the United States—is the political turmoil and turbulence that appears to be going on in the US Congress and the dissolution of the resolve that was rightly there for Ukraine in certain political circles.”
“The list of organisations has been given—it was given by a former Secretary of State, Lord Murphy, yesterday in the House of Lords and by the shadow Secretary of State here today—showing the lack of support for the legislation. We will go through the Lobby this afternoon to register yet again our disappointment at a failed opportunity by this Government, who are more focused on what they can get out of this Bill as they campaign for the forthcoming election than on solving the intractable issues that have plagued our society for so long.”
“343.] Those words were worth repeating this afternoon because Lord Eames is somebody who has led the Church of Ireland but is in this Parliament as a peacemaker, and who went through an ill-fated attempt to reconcile issues of legacy in the past, in a consultative report with Denis Bradley in 2009. Within this Parliament and within our society, he is somebody who probably buried more people in Northern Ireland during the troubles than anyone else. When he exhorts in such clear terms that there is an opportunity finally for the Government, at this last gasp, to show some recognition of the pain, trauma, harm and pursuit of justice that victims show, the fact that this Government would not accept it is a great shame.”
“He said: “Yes, there have been attempts to bring the concept of victimhood into the legislation that is proposed, and yes, the Government can claim that they have made efforts, but, in God’s name, I ask your Lordships to consider the overall impetus of what changes have been made to try to recognise the needs of victims and their families, and of those who, in years to come, when they read what has been said, attempted and failed to be produced, will find it incredulous to understand that the Mother of Parliaments has ignored their crying.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 September 2023; Vol. 832, c.”
“This is an opportunity for the Government to salvage at least some appropriate involvement for victims, whereby they can have their say and a sense of the outcome that they seek. A contribution was made yesterday by Lord Eames, and it is worth repeating.”
“With Lords Dodds principally among them, they have ensured that some of the commitments given have been honoured. However, that does not change the fact that this is a fundamental assault on justice, with the erosion of hope for victims and of the opportunity to get the answers they seek and the outcome they desire. Those things have been snuffed out by a Government who have entrenched themselves, and I greatly regret that. This afternoon we have an opportunity, with discrete and sensible amendments before us, as the shadow Secretary of State has said. They were tabled by the Labour party in the House of Lords, and were advocated and supported by Members across the other place yesterday afternoon.”
“I am grateful for the contributions made by Opposition Members thus far. A number of comments have been made this afternoon that relate more to Second Reading than to the stage we are at. It should come as no surprise to those in the Chamber to hear that to us this is an irredeemable piece of legislation. Even though we were highlighting in this Chamber on Second Reading and so on the areas where significant flaws were ultimately going to prove fatal to support for this Bill, the Government entrenched themselves. On a number of discrete issues, they committed in this democratically elected Chamber, where they ignored our requests, that they would proceed with such amendments in the Lords. I find that unsatisfactory, although I recognise that my colleagues in the Lords continue to push on those issues.”
“On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State to his place. I look forward to working with him. I also thank his predecessor for all his efforts to engage with us. It is important to correct a number of inaccuracies in the Secretary of State’s response. There was no hidden table but, as is common with Excel spreadsheets, there was more than one field. There was human error, but there were five levels of security to assess what was going out, all of which failed. That speaks to systemic failure within the PSNI. I welcome the resignation of the Chief Constable this afternoon and I think it is important that collectively—politically and in society—we all work together. I hope the Secretary of State will support us in this to instil confidence again in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”
“He has been on a journey and now recognises that when the Fiscal Council says what we need to deliver effective public services with £1.24, we are getting less than what we need. When that is done year on year, there is a compounding negative impact. It means that every year we are starting with less and that this budget simply has a recurring feature of making sure that public services in Northern Ireland are denied the money that they need to be operated effectively. I know that repetition is not sinful in this place, but it is worth reiterating time and again that, until the Government embrace this discussion meaningfully and properly, Northern Ireland public services will not be able to flourish. Drastic decisions that are being taken and have been taken will continue to be taken.”
“When there is a recognition in public discourse that this is a punishment budget before us this evening—this has been described as a punishment budget, which has been ignored by those in power—and no decision is taken to change it meaningfully or beneficially for the people of Northern Ireland, it will hurt us economically. We cannot systemically assess Northern Ireland public finances and know that what Northern Ireland gets is less than what it needs and not recognise that that has a material impact on the delivery of public services. Yet that is exactly what we are discussing this evening. The Fiscal Council has now published and what it says is recognised. I remember the back and forth with the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I was grateful that he took on my request to carry out an inquiry on this issue.”
“However, there was no sense that the position that we were outlining, identified by the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in September last year, was a position that recognised that while our Budget may grow by 3.6%, public spending in England was going to grow by 6%, or a recognition that by the end of this financial cycle households in Northern Ireland would each be £2,000 less well-off than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, and therefore there was a budgetary problem. It has taken from January of this year to now for that seed to start germinating.”
“We challenged the Government about their understanding of need, and we were patronised at that time. We were told, without any sense of irony, shame or knowledge of the facts, that in Northern Ireland we are over-funded and get £1.21 for every £1 that is spent in England. But still we tried to bring the conversation back to assessed need and the similar process that Wales had to go through over five years with the Holtham Commission.”
“It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna), my constituency neighbour, but the content of my speech will be slightly different from hers. I will not delve into the Committee stage, amendments that were tabled but not brought forward, or amendments that were needlessly provocative and stepped far away from the principles that the party that tabled them purport to stand for, but I want to talk about the Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill, which is the second such budget Bill that has been before this House this year. When we discussed the original Bill, it was just called the budget Bill, rather than No. 1 or No. 2. We were dealing with last year’s financial position and, at that stage, Members from my party introduced the discussion around need.”
“The punishment budget that has been outlined and is being advanced this evening will continue to cripple the effective delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. I have heard nothing from the Northern Ireland Office, or from anyone else around Government, to suggest that they are in the space of turning that around within this financial year. We are halfway through it. We want to see political progress, but the idea that we get political progress only for an incoming Executive to falter because they cannot deliver for the people would be the biggest crime of all.”
“Nobody can say what the choices shall be. I did not intend to speak for as long as I have, and I want to let other people contribute, but here we are again, with the second budget Bill of the year and the same challenges. It is progress at least that on 5 July the Deputy Prime Minister accepted for the first time, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), our party leader, that finances in Northern Ireland need to be predicated on need. That was the first time that we had heard that. Having been dismissed and ignored in January, we had acceptance of it in July. Yet the challenge is there for the rest of the financial year.”
“Member for North Dorset about the choices that an Executive will have. We cannot determine those, but in the past whenever people were saying that there should be an increase in tuition fees it was for a beneficial outcome. Increase tuition fees and we can get rid of the maximum student numbers cap. Increase tuition fees and we will be able to fund more places so that our best and brightest will no longer have to leave Northern Ireland to be educated in England, Scotland and Wales, or anywhere else in the world. Those were positive benefits from an increase in tuition fees, yet it was never politically acceptable. Now what is on offer is just raising the cost to stand still, or to provide public services when we know that what we get is not sufficient to match the need. Nobody is asking for a sticking plaster.”
“You have heard it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister mentioned it this evening: a £27 billion budget for the forthcoming year. Take household rates, the biggest household contribution to the public finances that individuals make outside of tax and national insurance, with £1.7 billion raised each year. Can we honestly imagine indicating in a cost of living crisis to our public, businesses and wider society that they should double their domestic and non-domestic contributions to household rates? Doubling them would allow us to get close to where we need to be. No problem. By 2025, we will have £2,000 less than every household in England, but add another £2,000 on, please, to stand still. Get real. Transformation? I have an idea: let us raise money by increasing tuition fees. That brings me back to when I replied to the hon.”
“I agree with the Secretary of State when he said—I am sure with much thought—that Northern Ireland does not need the sticking plaster of a one-off financial package. Let me be very clear that not one person from my party, or anyone sensible from Northern Ireland, has suggested that what we need is a one-off, one-year sticking plaster to fix a problem that is of this Government’s making. We are asking for a pragmatic and mature reflection on how much it costs to deliver Northern Ireland’s public services, and to get on with recalibrating the Barnett formula to ensure that we can do so. That is what we need. That is not yet what we have. The choices will be there for a new Executive. The second most drastic thing that I think the Government have introduced into the debate is the notional view that we just need to get on and raise revenue.”
“Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who is in his place, will remember the pay award parity issue that abounded whenever he was embarking on the New Decade, New Approach discussions in 2019, culminating in a deal in 2020. The first nursing strike ever in any part of the United Kingdom was based on that pay parity issue alone. And here we are, just three years later, and parity has broken again. Here we are from the last financial year and we recognise that there is not only a £500 million projected overspend this year, but a £575 million public pay pressure. When we add on the overspend from last year, which was £297 million but now seems to be £254 million, the figure, whatever it is, takes us close to a deficit of £1.3 billion.”
“The best that can be hoped for in this scenario is that a return to devolved Government means that locally elected representatives and Ministers in an Executive can make the choices based on the information put before them. The hon. Gentleman cannot—nor can I—dictate what those choices should be. The choices have been there for previous Executives, yet I may argue that the wrong decisions have been made. But what I am suggesting in the here and now is what we can control. Not only are we continuing to finance less than what we need, but we are continuing to break parity between the delivery of public services in Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales. The former Secretary of State, the right hon.”
“I think it is helpful to emphasise at this point that, although the Minister indicated that this budget is exactly what an Executive would have been allocated were they in place, last year it was £322 million less than what an Executive would have needed, this year it is £431 million less than what an Executive would have needed, and the projection for next year is £458 million less. So in saying what he said, has the Minister not confirmed the real problem at the heart of this?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He will recall the engagement that we had collectively, as Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland, with the Minister at the turn of the year. One point that we made to him was about the practical outworkings of a lack of enforcement against the legal requirement that tour operators and insurance companies would have for their visitors to comply with the law. We had a discussion about an exemption for such individuals, so that they could visit Northern Ireland and avail themselves of all of our beauty and our offering without this legal impediment, which would render them without insurance cover or put tour operators in an invidious position. Does he share my disappointment that we thought we had reached a positive conclusion with the Home Office, but that has not been borne out?”
“Gentleman’s four years well served, may I ask him whether he believes this document will not only give our armed forces the best chance to embrace the future but will ensure that his positive contribution leaves a lasting legacy?”
“As defence spokesperson and deputy leader of the DUP, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his honourable and gallant service to our armed forces. As the Member of Parliament for Belfast East, I thank him for reinvigorating shipbuilding in our country and for supporting Harland & Wolff. I thank him for his commitment to Thales and NLAW, and to the utility it has proven in Ukraine. As a member of the Defence Committee, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for using our Sub-Committee’s report on soft power and for the benefits I see in his statement on engaging defence attachés more thoroughly and appropriately with the intelligence network. We can see that the document before us builds on and augments the refresh. In recognising the right hon.”
“The Secretary of State has made an important point about the R v . Adams case and the disregarding of the Carltona principle by the Supreme Court in 2020, and he is right to affirm the Government’s view that the signing of warrants by a Minister of the Crown was always a lawful act, but why has this taken three years, and why did the amendments originate from the Back Benches rather than the Government? Is the Secretary of State right to describe them as Government amendments? For a great many people in Northern Ireland who thought that this was a welcome step during Bill’s passage, it came rather late.”
“We do not need a crystal ball to guess that people who are unencumbered by the justice system will have the freedom not only to share their experience, but to torment their victims and their victims’ loved ones further. That is the true reality of what will happen, because glorification of terrorism has not been satisfactorily addressed in the Government’s amendments.”
“I am sorry to say that, although they have taken steps to consider some of the aspects of investigations that touch on criminality, and have moved some way in their position in response to Lords amendment 20, for us they have not moved far enough. Whether the Bill and the Government’s actions are compatible with their obligations under the European convention on human rights will ultimately be a matter for the courts, but it does not pass our smell test for what we believe is righteous or just. That is why we will vote against the Government when it comes to Lords amendment 44. We will vote against the ability to offer immunity to terrorists and to ensure that they never face justice for their crimes, and subsequently to give them the ability to talk openly and freely about their exploits, as those who have already been convicted do.”
“Today, we say that the Bill is irredeemable not because we are populist on this issue, but because we are principled on it. The quest for justice, be it from last week, last year or 50 years ago, is as important for those affected by the vagaries of terrorism today as it was at the time of their loss. We do not believe that the Government have gone far enough on the provisions regarding the glorification of terrorism. The Bill is about bringing communities together and resolving the issues of the past, not absolving individuals of their crimes and ignoring the memory and hurt of victims. As I mentioned, I was pleased that the Government resolved the compensation issue related to the Adams case.”
“The Government also made a commitment on the amendment to clause 21(4) that we tabled in the Commons, and they delivered on it in the Lords. All those amendments are beneficial, but none of them removes the irredeemable quality of the Bill. I have heard people, particularly in the other place, describe our position as populist, and refer, as the Secretary of State did, to previous efforts. Let me be clear: colleagues who predate my time in this House—colleagues in my party and in other parties represented here—stood against on-the-runs legislation as something that was immoral under the Labour Government, and actively opposed the Conservative Government when it was shown that they had been providing letters of comfort to terrorists. We did so because the Government’s position was immoral.”