Speeches by Robinson.

“The question was whether you agree or disagree with the point in Lord Murphy’s review about the ineffectiveness of the democratic scrutiny.”

“I didn’t disagree with that, but you were disagreeing with Lord Murphy’s review point. That was my question.”

“And I would argue that none of that would have happened had we not pulled the brake.”

“With respect, Secretary of State, it is not a matter entirely for them, because these democratic scrutiny structures were set up to engage that body politic, so that the democratically elected representatives of Northern Ireland have a role and a say in this. Your failure to engage with them is a separate one. Lord Mur…”

“The question is whether, once you have made that conclusion in your own mind, having consulted your own colleagues, you see fit that there should be a democratic role for the Northern Ireland Assembly and its democratically elected Members, all of whom are perfectly capable of understanding the sort of thought process …”

“The question is: of the five, three were not put through the Northern Ireland Assembly. No applicability motion was sought. Why?”

“One was on geographical indicators, one was on Ukraine-Moldova, and the other was, from memory—Fleur knows better than me—[Interruption.] Critical raw materials. I didn’t do too badly from the top of my head.”

“Three specifically were accepted and added to the Windsor framework by the UK Government through the Joint Committee without any recourse or a request for an applicability motion.”

“Thank you for that. In fairness, I asked the question because I think it illustrates that when we hear in the round that you are driven by trying to provide practical solutions to practical problems, those solutions can be intractable to find. At the very get-go, there is normally a rejection of the problem in the firs…”

“This is a real issue, which crystallises in two and a half months’ parliamentary time—three months’ real time—so I am asking: will the solution be in place to prevent market stagnation?”

“Secretary of State, that was not the question. I indicated that you have made that commitment. The question is, “When?” We know that this needs to be in place for 1 February, and we have two and a half months of parliamentary time available for that to take place. Will it happen before there is an example of market fai…”

“Thank you.”

“In fairness to you, Lord Murphy, you are right that the recommendation, in and of itself, does not have significance. The issue, however, does. It was before the Supreme Court last week. There is a contested argument now as to whether article 2, in its textual terms, is around “no diminution of rights” at the time the …”

“Do you agree with their suggestion that article 2 of the Windsor framework is often overlooked?”

“You have framed all this around recommendations that followed consensus among the parties. There is a recommendation in your report that I am not sure you will have heard much from us on that would have led to consensus. It was a recommendation that arose out of a view given by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commiss…”

“Were you disappointed that the First Minister for all did not engage with your process?”

“For the benefit of the text, he flapped his wings.”

“Thank you for your engagement during the process. I think it was cordial and thoughtful, and we appreciate your work, although not necessarily the outcome, but that is politics. Whenever we met—you were kind enough to meet this Committee at the very start of your review, and we had a discussion in one of the Committee …”

“Good morning, Lord Murphy.”

“You supported all that when we had an agreement two years ago, by the way, but that is good—you will get there someday.”