Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend is right. The working relationship between the Garda and the PSNI is crucial to the combating of both terrorism and cross-border organised crime. As recently as May, the Garda made major arrests in relation to terrorism offences, and in a number of instances plots have been frustrated and arrests have been made as a result of a working relationship between the Garda and the PSNI that is better than it has ever been before.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Secretary of State reiterate her commendation of leaders of the north Belfast community, political leaders at all levels, and the Orange institution for having devoted many hours of work to ensuring that the twelfth of July passed peacefully, despite provocation and republican threats of violence? Will she now recognise that this issue is not going to go away, and that she and the Minister need to make every effort to ensure that a solution is found?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I repeat my commendation of the efforts that have been made. I know that those efforts were assiduous, and that they involved many conversations with people on the ground. I think that had it not been for the efforts made by the leaders of Unionist political parties, by Members of Parliament such as the right hon. Gentleman, and by the Orange Order itself, the situation on the twelfth of July would have been very different. The determinations of the Parades Commission must always be obeyed, and those who disagree with them must find a peaceful and lawful way in which to express their concern.

[Mr Dodds]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s undertaking to look carefully at the Unionist leaders’ proposal for a commission of inquiry, and to consider all practical options to resolve the situation in north Belfast. Does she accept that respect for, and tolerance of, both traditions is at the heart of that? If a shared future is to be meaningful in Northern Ireland, it must mean sharing space as well.

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree. I believe that what is happening in Northern Ireland illustrates that it is possible to enable loyal order parades to take place peacefully and without problems, often in areas with a predominantly nationalist population. There are many examples of that, but Derry/Londonderry is frequently cited. It is possible to enable people to express their culture in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, and I recognise that that is an important goal in north Belfast.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Apart from anything else, it is crucial to address those issues to embed political stability, because that is key in attracting inward investment and boosting Northern Ireland’s prosperity. The Government, including the Prime Minister, have pushed the Northern Ireland Executive on these matters and very much welcome the progress that is now being made.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

As we move into the parading season, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will comment on what she thinks the contribution of Sinn Fein is when it objects and protests, for instance, against a parade in Dungiven, where there are no flags, bands or anything of that sort that could cause offence to anyone, and against the sharing of a main arterial route in north Belfast? Where is the shared future in that?

[Mrs Villiers]

I believe that all parties who are involved in or affected by parading have a responsibility to engage constructively to find local solutions and build local relationships and trust, which are essential to a peaceful parading season. That goes for Sinn Fein, as it does for all other groupings that are involved in such matters.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the Secretary of State also comment on what contribution is made to a shared future by people who go out, as Sinn Fein has done, to glorify and revel in the murderous past of the IRA and to cause great offence to victims—for instance, by refusing to go to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee sitting on Monday and refusing to be open and transparent about the on-the-runs scheme? What sort of contribution is that to a shared future? Would the Secretary of State care to comment on that?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said many times, it is important for all political leaders in Northern Ireland to express themselves in temperate terms and to bear in mind the impact of their statements on members of the community who come from different traditions. The way forward for Northern Ireland is to build mutual respect, rather than to focus on division and disunity with inflammatory statements.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

This is an important milestone that we have reached: there are now 2 million more private sector jobs than when this Government came to office. That is 2 million reasons for sticking to the long-term economic plan we have set out. May I thank the hon. Gentleman particularly for the work he has done for his constituents in Weaver Vale, in running job club after job club, to help make sure the businesses that need more workers are put in touch with the people looking for a job? That is a vital service that Members of Parliament are delivering, and he is leading the way.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Given the revelation that the royal prerogative of mercy was granted in at least 16 cases relating to terrorism in the days and weeks immediately following the Belfast agreement, and, indeed, in cases stretching back to the 1980s, will the Prime Minister agree, in the interests of openness, transparency and, not least, justice for the victims in Northern Ireland—and here in Britain itself—that he should be intervening to make sure the names and circumstances in these exercises of the royal prerogative of mercy are revealed, as happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, so people know the facts of these cases?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look very carefully, as I always do, at what the right hon. Gentleman says about this, but what I would say is that the last Government had to make very difficult decisions to try to get the peace process started by John Major on track and working. I do not want to unpick all those difficult decisions or second-guess them, because, yes, we have frustrations and difficulties and many other issues that still need to be settled in Northern Ireland, but we have the basic architecture of devolution and parties working together across historical divides, and I do not want to put that at risk.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the background to and implications of the High Court judgment on John Downey.

Let me put on record our thanks and gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for tabling this important subject for debate in the House this afternoon. I also want to put on record the fact that the debate has been requested by all the parties from Northern Ireland represented in this House, including the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party, as well as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Representations were made to the Backbench Business Committee by those parties and the hon. Lady, and also by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, so the debate has cross-party support. Following the Attorney-General’s statement in this House on 26 February, it is important that we have this opportunity to debate at more length and in more detail the background to and implications of the High Court judgment in the John Downey case.

It would be right and proper for me to begin by putting right at the forefront of this debate the names of the four soldiers who died in the Hyde park bombing on 20 July 1982. I pay tribute to the memories of Lieutenant Anthony Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper, Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young and Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, who died in the horrific IRA bombing on that day. It was one of the most notorious incidents of the entire IRA campaign. It touched very, very many people and is to this day remembered by so many for the deaths of those soldiers, but also for the deaths of the horses that occurred, and the terrible images that were shown on our TV screens and in our newspapers.

We will obviously come on to debate in detail all the issues surrounding the administrative scheme for on-the-runs, the implications of the Downey judgment, the political fallout, and all that, but it is important to remember that at the heart of this case are families who have had visited upon them not only this terrible tragedy but the terrible iniquity of justice having been denied to them. That has been very eloquently, movingly and emotionally put by the families’ representatives. We all feel for those families today. Indeed, their hurt and anguish is also felt by very many other victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere across the United Kingdom. When they look at this judgment and see the revelations regarding the administrative scheme, the hurt they feel from the loss of their loved one is brought home to them all the more as they realise that there are not only people out there who negotiated what turned out to be a “get out of jail free” card scheme, but people in Government who were prepared to implement such a scheme behind the backs of the public and Parliament—a scheme that those victims knew nothing about.

The judgment in the John Downey case was revealed on 25 February. The court had actually ruled the previous Friday, but the judgment was not made public until, as I understand it, consideration had been given to a possibility of an appeal by the Attorney-General. He decided not to appeal the case, so it would be useful if the Secretary of State could give an indication, when she responds, of the reasons why no appeal was made against the judgment.

The news that Downey would not be prosecuted and that the prosecution would be stayed was bad enough in terms of the individual case, but what came as a real bombshell to the public and everybody concerned was the revelation of the administrative scheme for on-the-runs. As I have said, the fact of the matter is that the scheme was not the subject of any kind of parliamentary debate, discussion or scrutiny at any time over many years. It had no statutory or legal basis and there was no public awareness of it. I will come on in more detail to some of the allegations that have been flying about that people should have known about the scheme and that there was enough information in the public domain—as if it was good enough, in relation to a matter of such importance, to say that we should have all been able to put together the pieces of the jigsaw, instead of having a normal process, with a statement and a debate, through which we could properly consider all the matters.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for placing the people who are most important in this debate—the victims of this crime—at the centre of what he is saying. Specific allegations were made against the right hon. Gentleman and his current party leader in Jonathan Powell’s book, which claimed that they were fully aware of the OTR scheme and happy for it to go ahead, provided that the blame was laid at the door of David Trimble. Would the right hon. Gentleman like to comment on the record about that specific allegation, which has been repeated throughout?

[Mr Dodds]

I am very happy to take that on board and I will deal with it in detail when I come to that part of my speech. I have listened to a lot of the commentary and the only allegation out there about the Democratic Unionist party is one reference in one tiny section of one book. Interestingly enough, it was never mentioned in the memoirs of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). I will come on to it later, but what it refers to is not the on-the-runs administrative scheme, but the issue of whether the Government were going to introduce legislation. It came after the talks at Leeds castle. The Government intended to introduce legislation and we made it very clear that that was a matter for them, but that we would not sign up or subscribe to it and that we would oppose it in the House of Commons, as we did, and table amendments to it. It did not relate to the administrative on-the-runs scheme, which was done as a dirty deal behind the backs of everybody concerned. I will come on to the issue in more detail in due course.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking another intervention so quickly. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that the Downey judgment makes it perfectly clear that Mr Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, requested an invisible process to deal with on-the-runs, and that is precisely what he got—a deal in secret?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

I can confirm that. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that it is revealed in the court papers that Gerry Adams said that

“it would be better if there was an invisible process for dealing with OTRs”.

Indeed, the day after that revelation was made, Gerry Kelly, who became, as it turns out, the postman—

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

A man of letters!

[Mr Dodds]

He is described as many things in Northern Ireland—most famously, of course, as the Old Bailey bomber. This is the man who was given the letters by Government officials and others—we are yet to hear the precise details—and who then communicated their contents to the people concerned. The night after that was revealed, he said on “The Nolan Show” on television that Unionists were kept in the dark because if they had known there would have been a crisis, so Sinn Fein itself admits that Unionists were kept in the dark and that there was an invisible process. The attempts by some people to now say, “Well, everybody knew about it,” simply do not wash. Indeed, a colleague of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long)—he is her party leader—who just happens to be the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, with responsibility for the administration of justice and policing, has made it very clear that he knew nothing about it either. I will come on to that later. The claims that people knew about the scheme do not wash.

There was considerable shock at the revelations, at the fact that justice had been denied, at what people saw as the rule of law being undermined and at the behind-the-scenes nature of the scheme. There is still considerable anger in the Province about the way in which things have come out. Sinn Fein has alleged that it is some kind of synthetic anger, that this is an issue about which people should not be too concerned and that it is not really an issue at all because everybody knew about it. That simply does not wash either. The anger in the community—not just on the Unionist side, but across the board—is real and palpable. People feel that justice has been denied and that the scheme has been characterised by years of deceit and is, in effect, devoid of any kind of morality.

We have made it clear throughout that we opposed and continue to oppose any kind of amnesty. Indeed, I think there is consensus across the House that there should be no amnesty for past crimes and terrorism in Northern Ireland. When we raise the issue of amnesty, we do not do so in a narrow legal sense; we are clear that there should be a proper pursuit and interrogation of suspects, and questioning leading to prosecution where evidence is available. In other words, not only should there not be any kind of amnesty in law passed by this House; there should not be any kind of effective or de facto amnesty by the back door either. Although it is said that this is not an amnesty—I understand what has been said—the reality is that in the case of Downey, for him in his circumstances, it amounted to an amnesty. That is the reality.

We know from the police and others that some 228 people were considered under the scheme. When the Secretary of State speaks, I would be grateful if she could update the House on the precise number of people involved. Our understanding is that the scheme began in 2000-01 and that 174 letters had been issued by 2002. The scheme came to a stop for a while and a Bill to grant amnesty to OTRs was introduced in 2005, but ended up collapsing—it did not go anywhere because of strong opposition from so many people. Members of Sinn Fein were in favour of the Bill, but when they came under attack because it also applied to members of the security forces and others they decided that they wanted an approach based on an amnesty for terrorists and their people, but not for soldiers, police officers and others. It was a one-sided approach and on that basis the legislative approach collapsed.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm to the House exactly when the Bill was withdrawn—I believe it was in January 2006—and perhaps look at the sequence of events? Three days after his Christmas lunch, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wrote a confidential letter to the president of Sinn Fein to say that he would ensure that the administrative scheme was expedited so that any remaining OTR cases were dealt with before he left office—presumably, within six months.

[Mr Dodds]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, because I do not now need to go through the next part of my speech. She has outlined the sequence of events immediately after the legislation was withdrawn, and she is absolutely correct. The administrative scheme was ramped up, and the police set up a special unit to deal with it and look at all the cases. When the coalition Government came into office in 2010, the scheme was continued. As we now know, 38 cases have been considered in the period since 2010.

As I have said, there were 228 cases in total, and I understand that 192 letters were issued. There are other statistics for the numbers that were returned, for the people who were arrested and for the people who were investigated. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State updated us on the precise details.

[Naomi Long]

Was the right hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was to find out from the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement earlier this week that in order to know how many letters had been issued and cases processed, Sinn Fein’s own records are now one of the sources of information? The Government now have to consult Sinn Fein to find out how many letters were issued by Government.

[Mr Dodds]

I was interested to read that statement, but nothing surprises me any more about this scheme, quite frankly. One advantage of the current array of investigations and inquiries is that, between them all, we will get to the bottom of all the facts, uncover exactly what has gone on and, I hope, get to a better place as we move forward.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In practical terms, if someone on the run is given an amnesty, the police would presumably take their name and photograph off wanted lists. I am slightly surprised that people did not realise that amnesties had been granted for nearly 200 people, because their names and photographs had presumably been taken off wanted lists. Does he have a view on that?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of amnesty. As was borne out in the Downey judgment, in reality, someone in possession of a letter of comfort issued by whoever it was—again, the inquiries will no doubt probe who gave authority for or signed off the letters, as well as to whom they were transmitted, and so on and so forth—could use it in court as a shield against prosecution even if evidence existed, provided that the information that they were being pursued or that evidence existed had not been communicated to them. That is my understanding of the situation in relation to Downey. Effectively, because a mistake was made on the facts in the Downey case, he could use the letter as a shield against any further prosecution, and the prosecution was stayed. For him, it was an amnesty, and given the double jeopardy rule, he cannot now be prosecuted for the particular crimes relating to the Hyde park bombings. Of course, prosecution remains open for other crimes, and I hope that the prosecution authorities and the police are looking into that matter.



My party and others opposed any relief or amnesty, or any scheme that would allow on-the-runs to evade justice. That has been our consistent position for many years. We opposed the legislation when it came before this House in 2005. The recent suggestion by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin, that there should be an amnesty as part of the Haass process has been rejected by us and others. As a party, we opposed the provisions of the Belfast agreement in relation to the early release of prisoners, whereby people who had been convicted by due process—some of them, on both sides of the community, had been convicted of the most heinous and horrible crimes of terrorism—were allowed to walk free from prison if they had served more than two years. We opposed that part of the Belfast agreement, while other parties, which opposed this scheme, supported it.

The point has of course been made—it is a fair one—that at least the early release scheme was known about and was in the public domain. It has even been described as a terrible betrayal of victims by the right hon. Member for Neath, who has said that he understands the hurt that it caused. It was at least open and out there, and people knew about it when they voted in the referendum in 1998.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the galling thing about the Downey case is that had the scheme not come to light—he has outlined it, and our and many people’s rejection of it—it would still be continuing to this very day?

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is absolutely right that had it not been for the revelations in the Downey case, we would still be in the dark about all this. The two-year release scheme was obnoxious, and it remains obnoxious because anyone convicted of a terrorism-related crime that took place before 1998 can still avail themselves of its provisions. If someone is now found who has evidence against them of an offence that occurred before 1998 and was related to terrorism in Northern Ireland, they can go to prison for at most two years. That continues to cause great offence in Northern Ireland, but at least that scheme was out in the public domain. It was debated in this House and debated publicly, and decisions were taken as a result. However, there was never such transparency in this scheme. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, we would still be in the dark if we had not had the Downey case.

We need to find out how this all happened—who knew and when they knew—and to examine the scheme’s legality. We also need to ensure that another Downey case never happens, and that such letters have no effect when it comes to being able to stay prosecutions.

When the details emerged, the Attorney-General made a statement in this House on 26 February, but it appeared to many people that that would be it. There was no indication in any statements made at the time that there would be any further consideration of the matter. Indeed, Ministers were on the radio at lunch time that day saying that, as far as they were concerned, that was the end of the matter and nothing more could be done.

As the House knows, the First Minister of Northern Ireland—my party leader, Peter Robinson—made it very clear that had he known about or been made aware of the scheme when the restoration of devolution was negotiated, we would not have been able to proceed with devolution on that basis. He said that the matter was of considerable concern, given that policing and justice has become a devolved matter, that it is now the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, and that the Justice Minister is responsible for those matters. He said that given that the First Minister, the Justice Minister and the parties in Northern Ireland, apart from Sinn Fein, were not aware of the scheme, it needed to be addressed urgently. He made it very clear that there had to be a judge-led inquiry.

I welcome the fact that that inquiry was announced by the Prime Minister on 27 February. I welcome the fact that on that day, the Secretary of State also issued a statement, which said:

“We will take whatever steps are necessary to make clear…in a manner that will satisfy the courts…that any letters issued cannot be relied upon to avoid questioning or prosecution for offences where information or evidence becomes available now or later.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 39WS.]

I welcome the fact that Lady Justice Hallett has been appointed. Her terms of reference are in the public domain. The intention is that she should report by the end of May.

Some people in Northern Ireland were critical of the appointment of the judge-led inquiry. Some of those people had nothing to offer other than base political point scoring and have not contributed anything towards getting to the bottom of these matters. We were very keen that the inquiry should not be dragged out over a long period, as we have seen with so many inquiries that relate to Northern Ireland matters, and that it should not lead to a panoply of lawyers trooping in and out, extending the process so that we did not get an outcome for months, if not years. I therefore welcome the fact that it will be a short, sharp, judge-led inquiry that will be able to examine the papers and deal with many of the issues.

I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, has taken steps to set up an inquiry. The Justice Committee in Northern Ireland, under the chairmanship of my friend Paul Givan, the Assembly Member for Lagan Valley, has also initiated an inquiry. It had its first session on 25 March, at which the permanent secretary at the Department of Justice appeared. Interestingly, the permanent secretary, who is a former official in the Northern Ireland Office, admitted to having knowledge of the secret OTR scheme while in that role, but apparently he did not feel that it was necessary to inform the Justice Minister of it when he became permanent secretary at the Department. That raises questions as well, but it is for the Justice Committee in Northern Ireland to pursue them.

[Naomi Long]

As a former Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know that a civil servant is not at liberty to give information about the role that they played as a civil servant for one Minister to a new Government taking office. Although it may seem bizarre and frustrating that that knowledge was available in the Department of Justice, it would have been thoroughly inappropriate and, in fact, illegal under the civil service code for the permanent secretary to have shared it with anyone.

[Mr Dodds]

I understand that completely. We are all aware of the rules about disclosure in relation to previous Ministers and all the rest of it. That is one reason why the judge-led inquiry is so significant and important. The judge will be able to inquire into the papers and have before her the various documents, even if they relate to previous Administrations. That matter is also important for the other inquiries, because we must get to the bottom of all the facts and of who knew what and when.

[Mark Durkan]

The point made by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) reinforces the fact that this arrangement was, in effect, a secret. Civil servants are quite free to comment on issues that past Governments have dealt with and that they were engaged in when they are matters of public policy and when it is sensible for the understanding of the current Minister to have the benefit of that background information. The very fact that the civil servant felt so precious about this matter underscores the fact that it was a secret arrangement.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman has put it very well. Documentation and papers relating to the civil servant’s time in the Northern Ireland Office would not be made available to the current Minister of Justice, but it beggars belief that no reference to the scheme could be made anywhere at all by any official. As the hon. Gentleman put it so well, it was because there was a preciousness about ensuring that the secrecy of the deal was maintained.

I am glad that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is also reviewing the process that led to the issuing of the letters. A team of 16 detectives has been assigned to the review. It will investigate the circumstances of each of those who received a letter. It will also re-examine the original checks that were carried out by the specialist PSNI team to which I referred earlier, which led to the Public Prosecution Service being told that none of the individuals was wanted. The police have made it clear that investigations into killings and other incidents may be reopened if mistakes or new evidence are uncovered.

It is important to note that all the inquiries and investigations that are under way are complementary. They will work together. Some of them will concentrate on the more political aspects and ramifications of this dirty deal; some of them will consider the legal side of it and look at the documentation and papers; and some of them, no doubt including the Justice Committee, will want to probe what the status of the scheme was post-devolution, when policing and justice were devolved. The police will look at the matter in the terms that I have just indicated. All the inquiries and investigations are complementary, all of them are important and all of them must get to the truth. They must find a way forward that implements what the Secretary of State indicated in her statement in February after this was announced, which is that there can be no bar on the questioning, prosecution and investigation of cases, and that they must be brought to court.

I want to talk briefly about how this whole issue has been handled in respect of informing Members of Parliament and the public. I raised a point of order on 5 March, in which I said that

“examination of the parliamentary record going back over a number of years indicates that there were occasions on which the House may have been misled by ministerial statements, whether oral or written.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 905.]

I know that it is not the responsibility of current Ministers to speak for previous Ministers, but it is important that we hear in this House, on the record, from those previous Ministers whether they stand over the statements that they made in this House. When one reads those statements now, it is very clear that there was certainly an economy in the truthfulness of what was said.

I refer, for instance, to the question that was asked on 11 October 2006 by Peter Robinson to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Neath:

“Although we welcome the earlier answer from the Minister of State that no legislation is to be brought before the House, will the Secretary of State reassure the House…that no other procedure will be used to allow on-the-run terrorists to return?”

The then Secretary of State answered:

“There is no other procedure.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 290.]

The hon. Member for North Down subsequently asked, on 1 March 2007,

“what measures the Government are considering to deal with ‘on the runs’ other than further legislation or an amnesty.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1462W.]

The right hon. Member for Neath replied, “None.”

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on that point. He has quoted a reply that was given to me by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). It is important to note the date of that reply, which was at the beginning of March 2007. We know from the Downey judgment that the first meeting of Operation Rapid within the PSNI was chaired by Norman Baxter on 7 February 2007. It is of considerable regret that the right hon. Member for Neath is not here today. However, may I say in his defence that, quite properly, he attended the funeral of his colleague and dear friend Tony Benn, and that he has a family commitment today?

[Mr Dodds]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman resumes, may I gently point out to him that he has been speaking for 35 minutes and there are 14 Members who wish to speak in this debate? I do not think they would appreciate a time limit, which may be necessary if he goes on for much longer.

[Mr Dodds]

I shall be brief. Given the gravity of the situation and the need to ensure that these matters are properly aired, I do want to give time to other hon. Members to contribute.

The hon. Member for North Down has rightly pointed to the reasons for the absence of the right hon. Member for Neath. We understand also that the Minister of State has another commitment. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that he is now present, although he was not here for the start of the debate.

All sorts of allegations are floating about and it is said that everybody should have known about the scheme. We have dealt with the Sinn Fein comments. We know about their claims that there needed to be invisibility and that the scheme needed to be hidden in case there was a crisis. We have had references to the Eames-Bradley report, but examination of it does not bear out the allegation that the scheme was known. We have seen allegations about the Policing Board. When one examines the record—I will not go into the detail—again, that is disproven.

On the Powell book, I have dealt with that matter clearly. This was not about the administrative scheme. It was about the legislation that was being brought forward, and it is completely wrong to allege that the DUP was somehow part of any kind of information sharing in relation to the scheme. I make no allegation that other politicians in Northern Ireland knew about the scheme either.

[Naomi Long]

Would it be right to say that this scheme was already in train at the point when those allegations were made? The scheme was already operating behind everyone’s back, and that was almost being redressed by saying that people had knowledge that they did not have.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady is right. The consensus that exists in relation to the approach by all the parties in Northern Ireland generally and many other commentators bears out the fact that this matter was withheld not just from the public, but from the political classes in Northern Ireland and those who were dealing with negotiations at that time.

I close by saying that there are issues about the authority for the continuation of the scheme after 2010 when these matters were devolved, and that will have to be looked at by the judicial inquiry. There are also grave implications for the continuation of the Haass process, although I do not think it should be called the Haass process any more as Mr Haass has gone, not to return. On the talks about the past and about parades and flags, there is no doubt that talks and discussions were continuing, negotiations were taking place, and one party at the table was aware of the scheme that provided an effective amnesty for certain individuals. Not to have it revealed, for others not to know anything about it, was a grave betrayal of trust.

There are those who would say that the answer to all this is to throw everything up in the air at Stormont, get rid of devolution and get back to direct rule. Well, this scheme illustrates what happens when politicians in Northern Ireland do not have their hand on the tiller.

I speak to some of our Unionist friends back home, who urge people to tear down what has been built up, who say that as a result of this we should all get out of Stormont and bring the whole thing down. But when we look at the issue of the iniquitous, immoral and deceitful on-the-runs scheme, when we look at the issues of the Parades Commission and the flying of the Union flag, what do we find they all have in common? They are the product of direct rule. They are the product of a situation where Unionists—I say this as a party political point—did not have influence or power in relation to that decision making. It would be a travesty to suggest that the way to correct the ills of this scheme is to tear down devolution at Stormont.

It is important that the inquiries all take their course. We eagerly await their outcome. Let us put it on record that as far as this party is concerned, if these matters are not adequately and properly dealt with in the way the Secretary of State outlined in her statement on 27 February, we will have to return to the issue again. This is not going to go away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, indeed. I understand that Mr Bradley, who is the former vice-chairman of the Policing Board, said that the issue had been brought before the board. In fact, he had left the board at that stage.

Let me now turn to the question of intent, which is the very kernel of the issue. What was the intent of the administration that initiated the scheme, and what was the intent of the administration that continued it? What was the intent of those who were sending the letters, and what were the perception and understanding of the recipients? That is the key to the entire matter.

It is abundantly clear to everyone that the intent of the letters was to reassure people who might have believed—for a reason that we all understand—that there were circumstances in which, if they either came back to Northern Ireland or were approached by an officer of the law in another jurisdiction in which they happened to be, they could at some point in the future be made accountable for crimes in which they were suspected of having been involved. It is clear that they believed that the letters made them immune from that, and believed that they would be protected or sheltered in some way from the investigation of actions with which they had been associated in the past. For that very reason, Sinn Fein was quite happy to be the messenger of the tidings that would have been brought to the recipients of those letters.

It has been said—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who has had to leave the Chamber—that when news of the Downey case broke, disillusionment in some sections of the Unionist community became more apparent. I have a very different view. All that the Downey case did was crystallise some of the disillusionment that had been apparent for a number of years in sections of the Unionist community, and bring it into public focus. Unfortunately, we now have to try to repair the damage that the Downey judgment has done, along with a series of other issues.

The underlying principle is that those who supported terror in the past have used the potential of a return to violence as a bargaining chip, and not for the first time. Many of us believe that during the negotiations leading to and following the Belfast agreement, and, undoubtedly, during the negotiations relating to the administrative scheme, there was always the spectre—the prospect—that if this was not agreed to, violence could, unfortunately, return. Our view is very clear, and it is that we cannot be held to ransom by people who make threats or insinuations that bad times could return.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. May I reinforce it by asking whether he recalls, as I do, that at the time of the negotiations on the devolution of police and justice powers to Northern Ireland, when certain issues still needed to be cleared up and properly debated, some people—including Members of this House who, at that time, held ministerial office—told us that if we did not devolve those powers, there would be violence on the streets and the strength of the dissidents would increase? Even after the devolution of the powers, we have problems with dissident terrorists, so that is a bogus argument.

[Mr Campbell]

That is another instance of the use of a threat that will continue to be used. In fact, just this week we heard a prominent member of Sinn Fein say that there could be a crisis in the making. Well, we have had seven years of uninterrupted devolved government, and notwithstanding all the difficulties that have arisen during those seven years, there has not been a crisis. There may be a physical revolving door at the entrance to Stormont, but there has not been a revolving door in terms of devolution. We have survived many of these mini-crises and problems, some of them invented and some real.

Let us focus on what will happen in the near future. I have no difficulty whatsoever in saying that the current devolution process in Northern Ireland is sufficiently robust to withstand any prosecution of any member of Sinn Fein, however senior, if it can be demonstrated that that person has been guilty of involvement in terrorist acts in the past. I am currently trying to establish whether that is the case, as it may well be—and if it is the case, it would be an act of cowardice, of political expediency, if anyone were to say “We cannot proceed with that prosecution because doing so might jeopardise the political process in Northern Ireland.”

As I have said, we have had seven years of uninterrupted devolution, and hopefully it will continue. I have been part of the process for those seven years, and I believe that we must work to improve it, but we must not allow it to be held to ransom by those who want to make progress in terms of further concessions to the throwback period during which many of them were involved in violence. They want to expunge their previous involvement from the record, and that must not and cannot be allowed to happen.

Today, thankfully, we have had an opportunity that has been denied to us in the past. The light of truth is now being brought to bear on the administrative scheme, but it is unfortunate that it is being brought to bear so belatedly. Had it been brought to bear at the time of the scheme’s initiation, the reality and the outcome might have been very different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

In the two minutes I have, I shall sum up. I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly said, this issue affects not just people in Northern Ireland. It should affect Members from all parts of the United Kingdom. There are fundamental issues at stake.

[Mr Woodward]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Dodds]

Very briefly.

[Mr Woodward]

I am very grateful because the right hon. Gentleman gives me the chance to get on the record the fact that I deeply regret that the Secretary of State did not deal with the issue appropriately raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It is absolutely essential to continue the process in a bipartisan way. I think the right hon. Gentleman would also wish to raise this concern. We need to establish whether the letters are simply statements of fact, as I believe, or whether or not, as a consequence of the Downey judgment, they have taken on a different perspective. That is absolutely crucial. I deeply regret that the Secretary of State did not take my intervention and am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for doing so.

[Mr Dodds]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. No doubt aspects of the debate have raised more questions than answers. However, I do not accept the validation of the scheme given by the shadow Minister. The legal status will come out when the judge makes her report, but, given the implementation of this secret deal, the way it was done and the reason it was kept secret, for anyone to think it was simply about statements of fact stretches credulity. We will come back to those issues.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The themes we have touched on include putting victims at the heart of the matter—one theme was our concern for victims and justice. Another theme was the operation of the scheme and its effect. It is very clear in all quarters that there is no support whatever for any kind of amnesty. That is why there is anger about the way in which the scheme operated in effect in the Downey case.

We have explored the theme of what people knew and when. It is clear from contributions made by Members on both sides of the House that there is a consensus that politicians in Northern Ireland were kept in the dark, that Parliament was effectively kept in the dark, and that people knew about the scheme only if they were members of Sinn Fein. I acknowledge what the Secretary of State said about the fact that she kept the Northern Ireland Executive in the dark, even after the scheme was stopped. It would be useful to have an explanation of why that decision was taken.

Another theme is that the process was one-sided. The one-sidedness of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is currently a massive issue. This issue plays into that.

I welcome the inquiries. Lady Justice Hallett has said today that she will fully and rigorously examine the scheme from its inception to date.

I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record some truths about the issue, but there will be an opportunity to return to it, and I look forward to doing so. All hon. Members can be assured that, as far as the Democratic Unionist party is concerned, unless it is very clear that the full truth emerges, that Downey or a case like it can never happen again, that the on-the-run scheme is put to bed completely—the Secretary of State has said that it is over—that the legal status of the letters is made clear, and that they do not protect anyone from now on and are effectively rescinded, we will have to return to this issue and deal with it again.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the background to and implications of the High Court judgment on John Downey.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

My colleagues and I are comfortable with Lords amendments 1 to 3, which we think are sensible, so we will not oppose them. Any reduction in the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly should quite rightly be a decision for that Assembly. As an MP who no longer sits in the Assembly, like some of my Northern Ireland colleagues sitting behind me, I agree that any reduction in its size should be voted on by the Assembly, rather than imposed from here.

Although my party agrees that there is a case for reducing the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly at some stage, any discussion of that must take into account the sensitive local considerations. Such a move might be inadvisable at the current time. We firmly believe that any change to the Assembly’s composition must be guided by the principles that it should be representative, proportionate and reflective of both traditions in the wider community.

As Baroness O’Loan said in the other place, reducing the number of MLAs returned to each constituency could have serious consequences for representation in Northern Ireland. We must always be careful not to leave certain areas unbalanced or unrepresentative. We have a clear interest in retaining plurality of representation and must pay keen attention to factors that are specific to Northern Ireland when making these decisions.

We have also made it clear that we are concerned about the increasing concentration of power in the hands of two parties. We would be cautious about any measure that might exacerbate that situation. For that reason, we support the measure to ensure that the Secretary of State requires a cross-community vote in the Assembly before any legislation to reduce its size can be passed. That cross-community element is embedded in the Good Friday agreement of 1998 and the consequential Northern Ireland Act, which was passed in July that year. Embedded in that Act were the principles of proportionality, mutual respect and understanding. Given the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland, and given that we do not wish to exacerbate the situation, we feel it would be better if those principles were embedded in the size of the Assembly. I am therefore happy, on behalf of my colleagues, to support the amendment.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Our party strongly supports reducing the size of government generally in Northern Ireland—and across the United Kingdom for that matter—including the number of Government Departments in Northern Ireland. We are also on record as wanting to see a reduction in the number of Assembly Members. We believe that Northern Ireland can function more efficiently and in a leaner and better way with fewer politicians for the size of its population.

In May there will be elections to new councils in Northern Ireland, the number of which will have been dramatically reduced from the present number, and the number of councillors will also be reduced. We are in favour of the general thrust to reduce the size of government, and we have already put proposals to the Assembly’s Assembly and Executive Review Committee on that issue.

When the Minister responds to the debate, will he comment on the consultation that took place with the Assembly parties on the amendment? Although, under the amendment, the decision to reduce the number of MLAs can be taken by the Assembly, it can reduce the number by only one for each constituency—from six to five. I would certainly be very interested to know to what extent the Government consulted on that provision with the Assembly parties, because it has been generally understood that the measures that would come before the House would have the broad consensus of parties in Northern Ireland.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Perhaps when he responds the Minister will say not only whether consultation was held, but with whom it was held and what information was given by the individual parties. That would allow us to see whether the results of the consultation are in line with what he proposes today.

[Mr Dodds]

I am sure the Minister will have heard the point that my hon. Friend makes.

[Mr Robathan]

I will correct this if I am wrong—it was before my time—but my understanding is that as a result of the consultation with the parties in the Assembly, which I believe took some time, the intention was to reduce the size of the Assembly by one Member per constituency. The problem with the Bill as drafted, until amended, is that it would allow the parties in the Assembly, if they so wished, to reduce the number by as many as they wished—perhaps down to one—because there is no limit. That is their lordships’ point, which we took on board in saying that the number would be determined by that which had been consulted on.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the Minister for that clarification.

We certainly take on board the reasoning behind the amendment. What strikes me, though, is the Government’s concern about the Assembly passing legislation on a substantial reduction that could disproportionately affect the smaller parties. One of the things that was raised in the previous debate and is worth raising in this debate is that the Government did not express any corresponding concern when proposals were brought before this House on reducing the number of constituencies for the United Kingdom Parliament. We well remember the debates in this House, which ultimately came to nothing, about reducing the number of seats. Many of us from Northern Ireland constituencies pointed out that the net effect in Northern Ireland would be a reduction of two parliamentary seats. In fact, it would have provided for a rolling review whereby the number of seats in Northern Ireland—and indeed in other parts of the UK—could have been adjusted upwards and downwards virtually from election to election. That would have had not only a very destabilising effect on the political process generally, but a direct, knock-on, consequential effect on the number of Assembly constituencies and Members. The concerns expressed across the House—certainly by all the Northern Ireland parties—did not seem to have the same resonance with Government.

I accept the sincerity with which the Minister has brought this matter forward. We should bear it in mind, however, that the number of Assembly Members would have been directly affected as a result of the proposed changes that eventually came to nothing but were certainly intended by the Government. That would have had a major impact on the Assembly and its workings—on the stability and outworkings of the agreements, and so on. When we are discussing the size and powers of the Assembly, and all the rest of it, sometimes things are done that have, or could have, very direct impacts.

We have no particular number in mind for the size of the Assembly, but we do believe that it is time to get on with it. Now that we have this enabling power, assuming that the Bill is passed with the amendment in place, we hope that the parties that have been reluctant to reduce the size of government, and thereby the burden of government and the extent of the over-governance in Northern Ireland, will take seriously the views of the people out there. I hear that people on all sides believe there needs to be a reduction in the numbers in the Assembly and in Government Departments. There is an idea that interfering with or changing in any way anything to do with the institutions that were set up by the agreement would somehow undermine the process, but that is not sustainable or tenable. People are looking for more efficient government and for Government to save money in a time of austerity, and we should take their concerns on board. I hope that people will now take this enabling power and use it to reduce the size of the Assembly.

We once heard the then leader of the Social and Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), say that some of the ugly architecture of the agreement needed to be done away with. Some people still hold the view that nothing about the institutions can change at all. However, we are now in 2014, many years on from the Belfast agreement and a considerable way on from the St Andrews agreement, and it is time that politicians responded to people’s views and concerns and took a lead in reducing the burden of government on households and on taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I am very pleased to say how enamoured I am of the people of North Down. The people of Ards will lead the way in that relationship. We also share a football ground between us: Ards plays at Bangor—

[Mr Dodds]

You have not got a team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

An unusual feeling of amity is spreading its warm embrace over the House today, in many ways because we have discussed this matter in some detail. Certainly those who were in their lordships’ House to hear their discussions will have been impressed, as I was, by the speeches of the noble Lord McAvoy, who made his case very powerfully, and of the noble Lord Alderdice, who in a very detailed refutation of the amendment moved by the noble Lord Empey, made the case for preserving the present size—108 Members—of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is in some ways unfortunate that the Dublin statement made in August 2012 by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)—he called for a reduction in the size of the Assembly and of the Executive, and mentioned there being an Opposition—has slightly coloured today’s discussion. The then shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), said that that contribution was unhelpful, unwarranted and unnecessary.

One of the most important points made today was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). She referred to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is currently considering these very matters. It is appropriate for that process to continue, and we support the Lords amendments.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) asked whether, if there was agreement among the parties and even in that committee for a reduction to, say, four Members per constituency, anyone in this House would oppose it. I presume that Her Majesty’s faithful and loyal Opposition might go along with a widespread view expressed by Members of the Assembly and the parties.

[Stephen Pound]

The contribution made earlier by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was extraordinarily impressive in that it was the first time I have ever heard any politician on the Floor of the House seek a diminution of powers and a reduction in the number of elected Members. The leaner and, if not meaner, then certainly cleaner and greener Executive and Assembly, as was mentioned—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I withdraw the word “greener” in that context? That was entirely a slip of the tongue, and I will arrange for something better.

The point is that the Bill very carefully circumscribes the numbers—no fewer than five, not more than six—so the definition is fairly tight. Clearly, if something results from the AERC that it wishes to bring to the House, I am sure that the Secretary of State will look at it. Our opinion would be that it is a devolved or reserved matter that should be dealt with on that basis.

In relation to other discussions about the future formation of the Executive and the Assembly, I was interested to read on the official Conservative news website ConservativeHome, which I have to say I read out of a sense of duty, rather than delight—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I will respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been made.

First, I hope that it will reassure the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) to hear that I, too, have argued endlessly for a reduction in the number of Members in this House, just as a turkey might wish for Christmas. I have always said that there are too many Members of the House of Commons. Personally, I would reduce the number to 500, although that is not my party’s current policy.

I welcome the views of the right hon. Member for Belfast East on progress—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is also sitting in the Chamber and I can see one or two differences between the two of them. The right hon. Member for Belfast North spoke about the need for change in the political structure in Northern Ireland. All the parties in Northern Ireland realise that there needs to be change.

I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East about opposition. What is important is that the people of Northern Ireland want to see the Government in Northern Ireland held to account. We understand why the set-up came about in the Belfast agreement and we support that reason. However, I do not think that anyone believes that the current First Minister and Deputy First Minister structure will last for ever, because very few things do.

I was asked whether there was consultation with the Assembly parties. There was consultation with the parties before the Bill was amended. The clause was consulted on. The assumption in the consultation was that there would be a reduction of one Member in each constituency. That was inserted as a safeguard to ensure that a greater reduction was not steamrollered through. The smaller parties felt, rightly or wrongly, that they might be disadvantaged if there were a reduction of two Members per constituency. I think that this is a matter for the Assembly. However, the consultation was about a reduction of one Member per constituency and that was agreed to. That is why we brought forward Lords amendment 2.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North mentioned the reduction in the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom for the Westminster Parliament. I have put my cards on the table and said where I stand. I have been roundly pilloried for that from time to time by my constituents. However, because a different electoral system is employed for the Northern Ireland Assembly, such a reduction would not have the impact that he suggests. If there were a reduction in the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland, there would still be the same number of Assembly Members per constituency. There would be an overall reduction, but the same number of Members per constituency. The smaller parties would be protected because they would have the same number proportionally per constituency.

[Mr Dodds]

I am interested to hear what the Minister says. I am at a loss to understand how he can make that assertion, because he does not know, and nobody knows, what the Boundary Commission would come up with. We do not know where the two seats would be lost or what the configuration of the new 16-seat arrangement in Northern Ireland would be. Depending on where those seats were lost and where the boundaries were drawn, there could be a disproportionate effect on my party or on smaller parties, or there could be an impact on the nationalist-Unionist balance. He cannot assert what he has just said with any confidence because he does not know, and none of us knows, what the Boundary Commission recommendations would be in such a circumstance.

[Mr Robathan]

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that applies to any boundary of any constituency. My point is that the proportional representation system would allow smaller parties to have their say. Of course, there might be some unhappy situations. If I were able to stray beyond the remit of this debate, I would point out that there is a disproportionate number of Labour seats in the House of Commons, given the number of votes. However, I would not dream of mentioning that at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

Given that the functions and proceedings of the civil service commissioners are already devolved, what reason does the Minister have for making the civil service commissioners themselves subject to the extra procedure?

[Mr Robathan]

The issue is whether to devolve the civil service commissioners to Northern Ireland. The civil service itself is already the responsibility of Northern Ireland, whereas the commissioners are currently under the control of the UK Government.

[Mr Dodds]

I am talking about the proceedings and functions of the civil service commissioners—not the civil service—which are already devolved. I am asking why there is an extra procedure in terms of the civil service commissioners, their appointment and so on.

[Mr Robathan]

Currently, I understand, the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland answer to the UK Government, but by devolving this issue, they will answer to the Northern Ireland Executive. I believe that to be the case, but just in case I am wrong—[Interruption.] Yes, the proceedings and functions are currently reserved, whereas the appointment is excepted. We intend to change that, so that appointment will also be reserved. I think that is a sensible way forward, and I thought it was supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

The point about the Lords amendments is that there will be no change to the current status of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We initially intended it to be devolved to the Assembly and the Executive, but any change will take place after further consultation. I am afraid the answer to the hon. Lady’s question will come during further consultation rather than now.

Devolution of the responsibilities of civil service commissioners and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will, of course, be subject to consultation, and the Lords amendments intend to ensure that devolution is approached with proper consideration and scrutiny. I hope that the House will agree that that is the right approach.

Lords amendments 7 and 8 are technical amendments concerning the commencement of clause 24. Members will be aware that clause 24 amends an order-making power already passed in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to allow us to take forward, by order, the changes to the new biometric framework in the reserved and excepted fields. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice could not legislate for that because the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 received Royal Assent too late, on 25 April 2013. The amendments will allow us to bring the position of Northern Ireland regarding the retention, use and destruction of biometric data in the interests of national security, or for the purposes of terrorist investigation, into line with that of Great Britain.

As the Bill is currently drafted, clause 24 would come into force on the day the legislation is passed. However, the order-making power in paragraph 8 of schedule 1 to the Protection of Freedoms Act is not yet in force. The amendment to commencement is intended to avoid a situation where the amendment to the order-making power in clause 24 comes into force before the power itself. That would have no practical effect and is technically undesirable. The change is entirely technical and has not been prompted by any debate or concerns in the other place. I hope that the House will agree to it.

[Mr Dodds]

Again, I would be interested to know the extent and outcome of consultation with the Executive parties about the issues covered by the amendments, other than the technical points relating to clause 24, which are of no particular concern and accepted by virtually everyone. Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6 deal with civil service commissioners and human rights commissioners. These are enabling powers that would transfer civil service commissioners to the reserved category. As the Minister said, the functions and proceedings of civil service commissioners are currently reserved.

The issue of reporting to Parliament was debated in the other place. I have no difficulty with as much parliamentary debate, scrutiny and accountability as there can be on these matters, or with bringing forward a report, as proposed by the amendments. I have no concerns about that and would certainly not oppose it. However, the purpose of the report to Parliament is, first, about the effect that the transfer would have on the independence of the commissioners, secondly about the principle that appointments should be based on merit after fair and open competition, and finally about the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service. One concern was that as things stood, without the Lords amendments, if Parliament wanted to pass responsibility for that matter to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would do so by Order in Council, since such matters are reserved. That would not allow for amendments, and would be simply accepted or rejected in its entirety.

It would, of course, allow for any concerns about the independence of commissioners, appointments on merit, or issues of impartiality to be debated, but if there were concerns about those matters then no doubt Members of this House and of the other place would vote accordingly. If there are concerns about any of those things, I presume that the Government would not have an Order in Council. One wonders what the purpose of the measure really is.

There will be a debate and a report. Presumably everyone will say, “Well, we’re all content and happy,” and we will proceed to the Order in Council. However, if people say that they are not happy, or if the report states that things are not good, the Order in Council will not be introduced. To me, the whole thing seems effectively like window dressing, and I wonder about its purpose, other than to allow an extra debate, which I am perfectly content to have.

[Mr Robathan]

The amendment—[Interruption.] I think the Cheltenham festival is on, which is of great interest to the Irish—and to me, as it happens.

The amendment takes account of the concerns that were expressed in the other House. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the clause rather than the amendment. The amendment is designed to provide further time before anything is devolved.

[Mr Dodds]

With respect, I am addressing the amendment, which seeks to introduce a new requirement. It means that, at least three months prior to seeking parliamentary approval for an order, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament on the three issues I have described. The simple point I am making is this: if there is any concern or debate, or the slightest suggestion that there would be a detrimental effect on the independence of the commissioners, or on the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service, or that appointments would not be made on merit, the Government would not bring forward an Order in Council. A response would be given to a request from the Northern Ireland Assembly saying, “I am sorry, but this is the reason.”

I am not opposing the measure, but asking about its real effect. Presumably, the report will not be subject to any vote, because the only legislative instrument is the Order in Council. The measure does not seem to have much effect in reality other than to provide for another debate, which I am not opposed to. I am very happy to give the issues the greatest possible scrutiny and debate.

[Lady Hermon]

I agree wholeheartedly with the valid points the right hon. Gentleman makes. Even if we do not press the amendment to a Division, I urge him to include me—he is well capable of doing this on behalf of Democratic Unionist party Members—as someone who also seeks a clarification on this from the Minister. If the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service is called into question, the Secretary of State should not proceed with any such report.

[Mr Dodds]

I join the hon. Lady in that, and the Minister has heard it. It is entirely sensible. None of us in the House or, I dare say, in the Assembly would want to undermine in any way the independence of the civil service commissioners or allow anything to interfere with the principle of appointments based on merit after fair and open competition. We would not want anything to disadvantage the Northern Ireland civil service by casting a taint on its impartiality. My experience in government—I have been in the Northern Ireland Executive—has left me with the highest regard for the Northern Ireland civil service, which has done an immensely good job by and large, in many difficult situations in the governance of the Province.

I raise those points not to oppose the provisions, but to query them. Sometimes, we ask why legislation is necessary. The provision strikes me as being somewhat superfluous in terms of parliamentary process. We are legislating to say, “Let’s have a debate at some point in future.” I do not see why we need to do so, unless somebody does not trust someone who might be in power in future—they might believe that that someone might not act in the best interests of the civil service of Northern Ireland.

The same comments apply to Lords amendments 6 and 7, which propose making a prior report in respect of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, like the one that is produced on the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland. I will not rehearse the separate arguments in that regard.

[Lady Hermon]

Amendment 6 obliges the Secretary of State to look at

“the application of internationally accepted principles relating to national human rights institutions”

as they may apply to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I draw the House’s attention to the word “national”. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a regional human rights institution, not a national one. How can the Secretary of State comply with that statutory obligation?

[Mr Dodds]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but she makes a good point. I look forward to the Minister responding to it. As she says, the amendment mentions “internationally accepted principles” and their application vis-à-vis national human rights bodies. Her point is valid. The amendment says that not only the independence of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is a matter for the report, but the relationship between the commission and the Assembly.

Given that the clause is a small provision—it simply provides an enabling power, which the Order in Council will implement—on what basis will the report be compiled? Will there be an investigation? Will there be an Assembly inquiry, with evidence being taken on how the measures operate? If it were devolved, it would be a matter for the Assembly, so what would be the purpose of reassuring ourselves in this House and in the other place about all these matters three months prior to a debate?

[Ms Ritchie]

I support the amendments and I understand the points that have been raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on their reasoning and the rationale behind them. In relation to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the civil service commissioners, the amendments are sensible. It is right that before any discussion of the future devolution of these elements, proper consideration is given to the impact on the impartiality of the civil service.

I well recall the considerable discussions in 1988 and 1989 in this House and the other place on the advances to be made on ensuring there is respect for people in workplaces and on fair employment. References were made then to the need to respect the merit principle in private sector organisations above a certain level of employee. Comments were also made about the Northern Ireland civil service and the need for impartiality, fairness and due participation across the community if we were to build a society that was reflective of and proportionate to the wider Northern Ireland. I see the amendments in that context.

It is important that any report on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission pays regard to the importance of its independence in conforming to internationally recognised standards and maintaining a balanced relationship with the Assembly. In that respect, I regret that the Government have not seen fit to introduce a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. There has been considerable discussion and indeed, some months ago, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) sponsored the visit of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium to discuss the need for such a Bill—and the impetus within the wider community for it—that would enshrine the rights of all in legislation. Such a Bill is still urgently needed. It cannot be covered by a UK Bill of Rights. There are rights that are peculiar to Northern Ireland, which has a particular political situation that needs to be recognised. I regret the fact that the Government did not see fit to introduce a Bill of Rights that could have run concurrently with the Bill through both Houses. I ask the Minister to reflect on that issue when he sums up, to talk to his colleagues in government, and to ensure that such legislation is introduced.

I know what the Minister’s response will be. He will say that such a Bill would need the support of all parties in Northern Ireland, but I can tell him that the idea has received considerable support among the wider community in Northern Ireland, with considerable impetus behind a Good Friday agreement based on the principle of consensus and agreement. I think he would also find such support here. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the need for a Bill of Rights.

This is our last opportunity to discuss a Bill which, although short, is important to Northern Ireland. I have only one regret. During the Bill’s earlier stages, we were concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the issue of an increase in the Assembly’s mandate from four to five years. On Second Reading I described the issue as a mystery, because it was never resolved. I would not like to think that that was part of a secret deal between two principal parties in the Northern Ireland Executive and the British Government. Yet again, I ask the Minister to clarify that issue.

Other issues relating to Haass have been raised during the Bill’s passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised the issue of the Historical Enquiries Team, and asked how there could be more coherence in inquiries so that patterns and trends that emerged could be dealt with. In that connection, a book called “Lethal Allies”, about the Glenanne gang, was published recently. A pattern emerged in the type of activity involved in murders of that kind. We felt that those issues could have been reflected in the Bill.

All of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and take our seats here want a just and lasting settlement for everyone which is based on our moving on. It is interesting to note that Richard Haass, who spent six months in Northern Ireland drawing up proposals on reconciliation, on the past, and on flags and emblems, said today in a United States congressional committee that he wanted Northern Ireland to move on. He has expressed his fear that it could slip back into the violence of its troubled past if we, as politicians, do not grasp the opportunity to deal with divisive issues. I believe that that opportunity exists now, and that we should move forward.

I believe that there should be no more secret deals, no more on-the-run letters, and no more get-out-of jail passes, as I think they were termed by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). We must move forward on the basis of transparency, openness, fairness, equality and proportionality for all. The amendments will take us a step further towards fair representation, and a consensual approach to politics and to dealing with issues that still need to be addressed in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I assure the hon. Lady that the reason for the amendment is to allow further consultation so that the report can be issued. If she wishes to be a consultee, I am sure that that would be fine. We have not laid down every step and turn that will be taken, but we are trying to proceed with the support of the parties. We have had the support of all parties for the amendments, so I am not entirely clear what the concerns are. Transparency and trust have been discussed, but that is what we are trying to allow—transparency, so that everyone trusts the process.

[Mr Dodds]

The Minister seems to be getting a little tetchy, if I may say so. Members of the House are carrying out their parliamentary duty to scrutinise the Bill. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, amendments were introduced on Third Reading in the other place, not on Report, so this is the first chance we have had to debate them. It is perfectly proper to examine the amendments, even though we will not divide the House on them. This is the first opportunity we have had to debate these matters.

May I pick the Minister up on his reference to Members in the other place raising the issues, to ensure that there will be a debate? Is the Minister saying that there will also be a debate in this House on the report?

[Mr Robathan]

The report will certainly come before the House. If there is a need for a debate, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that there is one, as I understand it—

[Mr Dodds]

It is not for me—

[Mr Robathan]

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to call for a debate, we will have one. This is a matter for consultation—

[Mr Dodds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Hold on. The reason the amendments were introduced on Third Reading is the perceived unhappiness in the other place about the existing clause. The amendment allows for further consultation, and the amendments have been welcomed. They are not designed to harm the parliamentary process in any way; quite the opposite, they are designed to allow further consultation.

[Mr Dodds]

rose—

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Mr Robathan]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful for the fact that the Minister has now placed on me the responsibility and burden for initiating debates, Government business and so on. I hope that he will involve me more often. I am surprised, but I welcome it and will follow him up on it—I am happy to discuss it with him in more detail. He is simply saying that we may have a debate and all the rest of it, but what is the purpose of a report being drawn up, and it being of such importance, if it is not to be debated? Why will the Minister not give a firm commitment that we will have a debate on the report?

[Mr Robathan]

I will respond after the second intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government recognise fully the importance of ensuring that prosecution decisions are made independently of the Executive.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Clearly, the failure to operate the National Crime Agency as a result of republican blocking of that is a disgrace and it is undermining policing and justice. But equally, the Downey decision has undermined confidence in policing and justice. Will the Secretary of State now publish the numbers of letters that have been sent to these people—the names, the contents of these letters; and would she now rescind this disgraceful and shameful back-door scheme?

[Mrs Villiers]

I fully understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and it was clearly a very difficult day for the families yesterday. As I published in my written ministerial statement, we believe that around 200 cases were processed through this scheme. The individuals were sent factual letters indicating whether or not they were wanted for terrorism offences. It was not an amnesty and it was never intended to be such. There was always the recognition that if further evidence of further offences was produced, a prosecution was then a possibility. The reason for the outcome of the Downey case was that unfortunately a grave mistake was made, when Mr Downey was sent a letter saying he was not wanted for offences when in fact he was.

[Mr Dodds]

The grief, the words of devastation from the families of the soldiers concerned in the Hyde park bombing are an indictment of what is going on. There is outrage, not just in Northern Ireland but right across the country, about this—how an official’s letter can trump due process of law in this country. Will the Secretary of State realise how serious this is, not just for the process of law and order, but for the very stability and continued existence of devolution in Northern Ireland, where the Assembly has full responsibility for policing and justice, but these facts were withheld from the Justice Minister and the First Minister? This has very, very serious implications for devolution.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am very much aware of the very serious implications this case has, and they have also been conveyed to me by the First Minister, whom I look forward to meeting this evening to discuss this matter with.

As I announced yesterday, the Northern Ireland Office, along with the PSNI, is undertaking an urgent check of all letters that were issued under the scheme to establish whether any further mistakes were made that could lead to the same outcome that was witnessed in relation to the Downey case. It is also vital that we get to the bottom of why such a very serious mistake was made within the PSNI and why the PSNI did not draw it to the attention of the Northern Ireland Office, and of course I will be discussing this matter with David Ford and the First Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. As he knows, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 protects most workers from being unfairly dismissed by their employer when they have reported a matter of concern—when they have blown the whistle. We strengthened those protections in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. We will always back whistleblowers when they challenge poor standards, particularly in large organisations. I am happy to ensure that he discusses with the relevant Minister—probably the Minister for Government Policy—any further steps that we need to take in that direction.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Does the Prime Minister get the depth of the hurt among victims’ families, and the deep sense of public outrage right across the country as a result of the outcome of the Downey case? He needs to understand that for a letter signed by an official to trump due process and the courts of this land without any parliamentary, legislative or statutory underpinning, is deeply offensive to the public in this country. Will he now scrap these get-out-of-jail-free letters immediately, and will he do everything in his power to reverse the despicable decision in the Downey case, so that justice can be done for the families of the bereaved?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I completely understand the depth of anger and concern that people will feel right across the country about the appalling events that happened in 1982, and the fact that the person responsible is now not going to be appropriately tried. Of course that is absolutely shocking, and our first thought should be with those 11 soldiers and their families and friends. It may have happened 32 years ago, but anyone who has lost someone in a situation like that will mourn them today as if it happened yesterday. We should be absolutely clear: Downey should never have received the letter that he received. It was a dreadful mistake, and we now need to have a rapid factual review to make sure that this cannot happen again. Whatever happens, we have to stick to the principle that we are a country and a Government under the rule of law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

It is just not true that it has been halved. The Government take very seriously their security responsibilities in Northern Ireland, which is why we have provided additional funds for the PSNI to deal with the deteriorating security situation we inherited from the previous Government. We will continue to be vigilant. In particular, we will continue to work closely with Irish counterparts on deepening and strengthening the cross-border co-operation that is crucial to keeping Northern Ireland safe and secure.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

On policing and security and in the context of the recent Haass talks on the past, especially past terrorist crimes, will the Secretary of State take it from me that Martin McGuinness’s comments last night about extremism are seen by many on both sides of the community as not only untrue but a transparent attempt to distract from Sinn Fein’s abject lack of leadership in addressing its continued glorification of past terrorist crimes, as witnessed in Castlederg this summer, which is causing huge damage to community relations? Will she urge Sinn Fein to stop wallowing in the filth of murder?

[Mrs Villiers]

I encourage all party leaders to continue working on the Haass issues. Perhaps the more important thing to draw from last night’s meeting of party leaders was the welcome news that they would reassemble next week and that these discussions would continue. There is an important opportunity here still to be seized by the political parties to make real progress on these divisive issues by resolving their differences and reaching agreement.

[Mr Dodds]

I, too, want to see those talks take place, and we hope that all parties, including Sinn Fein, will come to the table and negotiate in good faith, but will the Secretary of State recognise that severe damage has been done to policing, and to the capacity of the policing and justice system to tackle the security situation, by decisions such as the one recently to issue one of those most involved in glorifying past terrorist crimes—Gerry Kelly—with an informed warning, rather than to prosecute him, even though the threshold for prosecution was reached, for obstructing the police during a very tense parades situation? Does she not see the damage that this sort of situation is creating?

[Mrs Villiers]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I would urge all elected representatives to do all they can to support police officers in the execution of their duties which, in Northern Ireland, can sometimes be extremely difficult and highly sensitive.

Haass Talks

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

In my conversations with Dr Haass I certainly floated the idea that he might come back in January, but that looks unlikely. He has professional commitments that would make it very difficult for him to re-engage in the same way, but I am sure he will continue to take a close interest in matters as they go forward. It is now important for the First and Deputy First Ministers to get the parties together around the table. They got very close to getting over the line in the run-up to the final discussions. Even the leader of the Ulster Unionist party was saying that perhaps 80% of what was on the table might be acceptable. Clearly, that party has serious concerns about the proposals, but it is indicating that it will continue to take part. Continuing this dialogue is the way forward.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The breadth and depth of the outpourings of grief and tributes to Paul Goggins are a testament to the integrity and standing of the gentleman. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches will want to add their own personal tributes.



I join the Secretary of State in thanking Dr Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan. I also thank our own talks team, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), Jonathan Bell—a junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—and Rev. Mervyn Gibson, who put in many hours over the holiday period, along with others in other parties, to try to make progress.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said in her statement. She will know that, under the terms of reference, it was for the parties themselves to come to an agreement on a set of recommendations. At the final plenary, four of the five parties could not support the final draft from Dr Haass in full, but it remains a necessity to try to make progress and for agreement to be reached among the parties in Northern Ireland. In our view, substantial progress has been made, although we are not there yet and there remain significant problems in certain areas. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) said, these issues have been around for many decades, if not centuries.

I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about the need to continue the process through talks between the parties. Will she do everything possible to ensure that those parties that have indicated an unwillingness to continue to talk to try to resolve these problems come back to the table and join the rest of us in trying to move Northern Ireland forward?

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is welcome that the Democratic Unionist party has signalled very strongly that although it has reservations about aspects of the Haass proposals, there is much that it can support and that it wants the process to continue. Of course, as the largest party in the Executive, it will be crucial in taking these matters forward.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I want to thank not only Dr Haass and Professor O’Sullivan, but all the participants in the working group. At one stage, Dr Haass told me rather wearily that he had not appreciated that politicians in Northern Ireland were quite so nocturnal. There were certainly many all-night sittings, so the stamina of all those taking part is much appreciated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s condemnation of these brutal attacks. We have seen a number of horrific attacks along these lines: the murder of Kevin Kearney, the attack on Jemma McGrath and, distressingly, an attack on a 15-year-old boy in recent weeks. These vigilante attacks are cowardly, ruthless and callous, and they are utterly unacceptable. I know that the PSNI is doing all it can to bring those responsible to justice.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the despicable terrorist attack on Belfast city centre at the weekend and other recent attacks represent a grave escalation in dissident terrorist activity, in an attempt to undermine investment, jobs and tourists coming to Northern Ireland? Can she give an assurance that she will stand with the people of Northern Ireland and the Executive in their determination to move ahead and not let these people drag us backwards?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Northern Ireland’s political leadership and the whole community in condemning these attacks and in supporting the determination to continue to make progress in Northern Ireland. These attacks are disgraceful; they could have put many lives at risk, and they are deliberately aimed at disrupting the economy in Northern Ireland and sowing the seeds of community division. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will not let the dissidents succeed in their objective of dividing our community.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the Secretary of State for that assurance. Will she go further and say that she will commit herself to working closely with the Executive, the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland to look at what extra measures can be put in place to increase the operational capacity of the police, and to examine legislative changes that will enhance intelligence gathering for the security forces?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on both those points. We always look at ways in which the effectiveness of the police can be enhanced. Of course, there is a debate to be had on the Executive’s resourcing of the police in the next spending review. We are working with the police on that, and it is very important.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I believe that it is entirely compatible with the Haass process. I have no wish to pre-empt—and I would not ask the House to vote to pre-empt—what may or may not come of the Haass process. However, the House has responsibility in relation to the past, as it was the main chamber of accountability for many years in relation to Northern Ireland’s troubled past. It is not enough for us to say that we do not want to address the past as we consider the Bill because the Haass process will do that. It is right and proper for parties in Westminster and the Chamber to reflect on some aspects of the past.

The new clause tries to say, first, that it is not the case that nothing has been done in relation to the past. However, it is clear that not enough has been done, and that not enough has been done with some of the good work that has already been done on the past, not least some of the good work by the HET. Although I accept many of the criticisms of the HET, I cannot ignore the fact that I have heard directly from families who have been helped by what the HET has been able to do in their case. I believe, however, that the wider process and the wider community could be helped if we drew together some of the lessons and compelling findings that the HET has been able to share with families. Not all of those findings have been shared with the wider public, and not all of them have been shared equally.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Before the hon. Gentleman responded to the intervention from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), he was speaking about the need for a complete record that involved a spotlight not just on one set of paramilitaries but on all of them. How will his proposal ensure that an analysis or narrative drawing on the various reports that have been cited gives a complete picture of the many hundreds of deaths in which the Provisional IRA and other paramilitary groups were involved? How will we get the right proportion in the overall picture, and a proper investigation or analysis of the role, for instance, of Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein’s current leaders in the disappearance of Jean McConville and others? How is all that included on the basis of the list of reports that he cited?

[Mark Durkan]

First, the new clause does not seek to introduce an omnibus report in relation to all the events of Northern Ireland’s burdened past. It is not one received version that looks at all the tragedies and atrocities in Northern Ireland’s troubled history. The new clause would create the ability or capacity for the Secretary of State to commission reports on different classes, groups or possible groups of crimes. Just as many people have found the book, “Lethal Allies”, a compelling drawing together of a number of different reports, plus other evidence relating to the work of a network of loyalist activity over a period of six years, so there could well be room to say that we need a report that draws together HET and any other findings on the work of the IRA in a given area or over a given period, or of the Irish National Liberation Army, or of loyalist paramilitaries in other areas, so that people who were victims know that their experiences were not isolated cases in which they were victimised and bereaved but were part of a network or pattern at a particular time. That narrative should be brought out and should be available to people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I absolutely believe that, in so far as anybody can tell us, we should know that. If there is ever an HET report that could tell us that, we should be told, rather than someone saying, “Oh no, it’s an HET report, so it’s the private property of the family.” The onus should not be entirely upon the family to make good that report.

The HET produced a very significant report on the Kingsmill massacre, but I do not believe that it received as much attention as it deserved. Its import was not fully registered in this House, or indeed in other places, and I believe that it should have been. Of course, the Kingsmill massacre is not the only evidence that discounts the cosy claim that has been made in the past for the IRA, and is still made to date, even on behalf of Sinn Fein, that there was nothing sectarian about the IRA campaign and that only loyalist paramilitaries carried out campaigns with an eye to a sectarian agenda. That is quite clear from a number of events, and not only those carried out by the IRA, but arguably those carried out by other republican paramilitaries at the time, when it was or was not the IRA, or when another flag of convenience was being flown, for example in the Darkley massacre.

I do not believe that it is only in relation to the murders of the Glenanne gang that we could benefit from a clear account based on sound findings from other inquiries. Remember that the power that new clause 1 would give the Secretary of State is to commission a report that draws on the findings of other bodies, not to set up a new investigative mechanism or some new roving or roaming inquiry into everything and anything. It would take the value and significance of what has already been found by other competent inquiries and investigations, so it would take what is already there in reports and marshal it together to draw value, and not just for the victims, but for wider society. I hope that idea will commend itself to the parties as they consider these and other issues in the Haass talks.

[Mr Dodds]

Apart from the reports of the HET, which we have spent a lot of time on, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned reports from other bodies, such as the police ombudsman and public inquiries. Subsection (3)(f) of new clause 1 refers to “other review mechanisms.” Will he explain what that phrase means?

[Mark Durkan]

That is to do with the fact that we cannot pre-empt what other review mechanisms might come out of the Haass talks. Other review mechanisms could cover a variant of something like the de Silva report, in which people basically examine what is on the record in various archives. Of course, those archives need not be just in the UK, because, as we heard earlier in relation to the southern Irish dimension, there could be significant records in the south. There are also different forms and models of inquiries available in the south. Some of those inquiries that have looked at some of these issues might have relevant findings that could be drawn into a wider report that the Secretary of State might commission others to do.

We have left it very open as to who might be commissioned to do those reports. The Secretary of State will not necessarily appoint civil servants. The Secretary of State might appoint other competent and credible people, be they academics or those from other groups, or indeed groups who have worked with victims and would be very trusted to draw together the narrative from certain reports in ways that would be seen to bring out the salient truth, and not only for the victims, but for the wider community and future generations.

New clause 3 provides for the idea that in future the Secretary of State could present an annual report to Parliament that summarises all the ongoing work by various bodies in relation to the complaints about the past during that year, whether those bodies are the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the HET, if we still have it, or the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims Remains. It also relates to whether, as I believe, there should be a new article 2-compliant mechanism to investigate the past. Other bodies may undertake work that touches on facts of the past. Of course, those bodies could be outside the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I have no problem acknowledging where there has been very good and sound co-operation with the HET and with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. However, both have put it on record that they have not universally found such co-operation on the part of every single person they have sought to interview.

I further note that the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers Association recently issued its own qualifications in relation to its future co-operation with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, regarding the latter’s report on a murder that happened in my constituency in the late 1980s. I question the terms in which the retired police officers have voiced their position. Indeed, the statement the association has issued adds to the questions about that event and the background to that murder. Two innocent civilians were allowed to die when, after 10 o’clock mass, they went to inquire after a neighbour they had not seen for some time, so there were questions about whether he was at his flat. When they did so, purely out of their good nature, they became the victims of a booby-trap bomb that was in the block of flats, having been planted by the IRA, who are absolutely the culprits in this—let nobody else say anything different. It is clear from the police ombudsman’s report that the police—the security forces—were aware that the bomb was there. They made sure they did not go near it, but it was left and civilians died. I regret that the retired police officers have chosen this particular report on which to voice a strangely couched position in relation to the police ombudsman.

[Mr Dodds]

Here and now is not the place or the time to open a debate on the particular event that the hon. Gentleman refers to, although he has gone into a bit of detail on it. I merely point out that the retired police officers would say that one side of the story is told but theirs is not always told in the same depth or to the same extent in the circumstances of the time. Does he agree that retired police officers who served in the RUC are in a uniquely invidious position, because unlike others they do not have all the legal back-up and wherewithal to support them, and many of them are getting on in age, yet an onerous task has been put on them with all these inquiries and so on? These issues need to be recognised.

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that gives rise to questions about what other support should be available as a way of assuring people when they are co-operating with inquiries. Perhaps that would also encourage more people to co-operate in future, given that we have experience of times past when some did not, and we now have a signal that fewer would in future.

New clause 3 provides for whatever work goes on in the future in relation to the past; it is not prescribing what work should go on. It states that, whatever different channels are used to review and report on the past, it would be right and proper for this House, year on year, to receive an annual report that reflects the work that has gone on and for that report to be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State that refers to whether there is independent legal advice to show that all that work is compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights and addresses other salient matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

No. The new clause is aimed precisely at preventing that. In the absence of anything wider, people are getting away with their own gable wall histories. They are getting away with their own pretences about the nefarious character of violence during the troubles being attached to one side and not the other. Equally, we still sometimes get the nonsense from some spokes- persons within sections of Unionism that the loyalist campaign existed only as a response to republican violence, and that it needs to be understood in that context. As far as I am concerned, all the violence was wrong. None of it could be justified, and none of it could be justified by the violence or excesses of anybody else. What the IRA did, did not justify what the loyalists did. What the loyalists or security forces did, did not justify what the IRA did either.

It is important that we are able to bring those sorts of narratives out. If reports are available from the various mechanisms to deal with the past, they should be sourced and reported on in the way I talked about—on a class basis, which can straddle a number of years and localities, as under new clause 1—or through future annual reports to this House. Such reports would provide an assurance that the past is being dealt with by due standards and is receiving a due response from those in Government and in other public bodies who should be responding to it. I make no pretence to claim that either of the new clauses would directly burden paramilitary organisations with compliance with giving evidence or the truth. However, the new clauses would be a lot better at addressing the truth and being open to all dimensions of Northern Ireland’s difficult past than some other partial proposals.

I remind hon. Members that back in 2005, this House saw what was probably the worst piece of proposed legislation: the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. It attempted to set up an entirely secret tribunal whereby people could go in, unbeknownst to the relevant victims, and claim complete indemnity and immunity from anything in the past. Not only would the issuing of certificates have been secret; the then Government proposed a clause through which an added seal of secrecy could have been imposed by the Secretary of State. The only person who could have gone to prison in connection with any crime committed in the past would have been a relative or a reporter who reported or alleged that somebody had benefited from a certificate relating to their particular victimisation. Potentially, only the victims, or people who were reporting in sympathy with the victims, could have ended up in jail—not anybody else.

I do not pretend that the two new clauses are perfect, and nor are they complete. I do not want to pre-empt what might come out of the Haass process, but they are offered as honest contributions, recognising that more could be done with what is already being done in relation to the past. Whatever happens with Haass, this House has a continuing responsibility to address the past and to acknowledge its responsibilities during that past.

[Mr Dodds]

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). New clause 1 is new in the sense that it is a proposal that has come before us at relatively late notice. I am not being unkind to the hon. Gentleman—he tabled the new clauses properly in the context of the Bill—but this proposal has not received much consultation or discussion, or indeed any elucidation heretofore in any forum of which I am aware. It is certainly worthy of consideration and debate, but I am not sure whether we want to take it on board and include it in the Bill today.

[Mark Durkan]

I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that in Committee I proposed a shorter version of new clause 1 that focused entirely on the HET. By sheer coincidence, it rhymed with a significant article in the Belfast Telegraph that week, which pointed out that nothing joins up the work of the HET in individual cases and that something needed to do so.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining that, and I understand that. It is indicative that this came to him only relatively recently and prompted him to table the new clause. There are a lot of ideas out there, many conflicting, in relation to the past. There are many good ideas coming from many different sources, which is one reason the Haass process is important—he will be taking all of them on board. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will put forward this idea as part of that process. It would be somewhat at odds with the Haass process if we were to pass new clause 1 and new clause 3, because it would seem that the House was legislating in advance of any agreement or full-scale negotiations. It is another contribution and the proper way forward might be to feed it into the Haass process and to seek other people’s views on it. I am not sure whether it is right to push it in the House today.

[Naomi Long]

I see this as a constructive proposal, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is the potential for it to become another partial solution that addresses part of the past, and is therefore not the comprehensive solution we seek?

[Mr Dodds]

I will deal with the point about partiality and a holistic approach in a moment, but I want to make some points about new clause 1, having had a reasonably cursory look at the details and having listened to the hon. Member for Foyle.

On the proposal for the Secretary of State to

“appoint a person or persons to prepare an analysis of findings, issues, patterns or lessons”,

it seems to me that one man’s analysis is another man’s prejudiced point of view that comes with political baggage. I can see all sorts of difficulties in finding someone or some people who would be acceptable right across the board, whom everybody would say was fair, and whom people would trust enough to permit them to do the analysis and be broadly content with whatever they came up with. I think that is a recipe for further contention and arguments about the past. Even very detailed judicial and other investigations over many years, costing lots of money, have not drawn a line under anything for the relatives, and certainly have not done so for the public. One wonders how far the proposal would take us and what its purpose is, because it might provoke more hurt on behalf of others, or more contention, strife and difficulties.

My other point, which has just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), is about the problem of partiality. I asked the hon. Member for Foyle about the list of reports from which an analysis or a narrative might be drawn, and he kindly said that the “other new mechanisms” under subsection (3)(f) of new clause 1 might include what comes out of Haass, a de Silva-type review of archives or investigations in other jurisdictions. However, if those are added to reports from the other bodies mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e), we would have a list of official investigations that will inevitably and invariably result—this is one problem of current investigations into the past—in a preponderance of evidence coming out, issues arising or events being investigated that involve members of the security forces. That is because members of the security forces and the authorities keep records, which are the means through which such matters can be investigated.

In that list of reports, I fail to see any real analysis or narrative that would include any great in-depth investigation of any paramilitary murders, whether loyalist or republican. That is just the reality of all reports that we have seen up to now. It is one reason we hear reasonable people on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland say time and again, and I have a lot of sympathy with the view: “All this concentration on the past is one-sided and is designed to rewrite history, because all we see is a massive concentration on the 10% of deaths”—every death is regrettable, so I make no issue about the sorrow of the relatives of those killed—“in which members of the security forces were involved.”

That fact has to be remembered. I want to put on the record the fact that 3,530 deaths are attributable to the troubles, euphemistically called, that Northern Ireland went through. Even to state that figure brings home to us the terrible tragedy and devastation inflicted on Northern Ireland over the years: more than 3,500 deaths, with many hundreds of deaths in some years. Some 297 of those deaths involved the Army and low hundreds involved members of the police, but more than 1,700 were the responsibility of the Provisional IRA. We do not, however, see a proportional concentration by the press and the media or by investigations and anything else into that category of deaths. There were also 500, 600 or 700 deaths at the hands of loyalist paramilitaries, which is equally abhorrent and wrong. The vast majority of deaths in Northern Ireland were the responsibility of illegal paramilitary organisations. Where is the balance in the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, and where will the concentration be that can lead to closure for people who have suffered from the deaths that occurred at the hands of the Provisional IRA and others?

[Jim Shannon]

There are many such examples in Northern Ireland, but a prime one would be in Castlederg. For the people of Castlederg, a good example is that 28 out of the 29 murders are unsolved murders by the Provisional IRA.

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Castlederg was very much in the news this summer. We all need to be very sensitive in dealing with the past, but a party whose Members do not take their seats in this House, Sinn Fein, organised a celebratory parade through Castlederg, at which the speaker was Gerry Kelly, a leading Sinn Fein Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was seen as deeply hurtful by relatives who lost loved ones in Castlederg.

Yet we are lectured about the need to move forward. We do need to move forward in Northern Ireland, but everybody needs to move forward. Republicans and Sinn Fein—and, indeed, loyalists—cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that they are willing to move forward, but then eulogise the terrorist activities in which they engaged in the past. They cannot make a false distinction between the sordid activities of so-called dissidents today, which they say are intolerable and unacceptable, and exactly the same behaviour 30, 20 or 10 years ago, which they say was perfectly acceptable because it was by the Provisional IRA. It was all unacceptable and totally needless: it was all about inflicting pain and suffering on innocent people.

I understand what the hon. Member for Foyle is seeking to do through new clause 3, but I have concerns about the overall impression left by laying reports before Parliament. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (4) mention

“apologies that have been given by any Government or public body”.

The only reference to apologies is therefore in relation to Governments or public bodies. I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but that points up the difficulty here, because the clear impression that would go out is that nobody is laying reports of apologies for the 1,700 deaths by the Provisional IRA and the hundreds by loyalist paramilitaries. They would not get the same kind of attention or concentration. That issue is very live and raw in Northern Ireland today, and it needs to be addressed.

The proposals therefore have some merits in some respects, but they are flawed for the reasons that I have set out. They should be fed into the Haass process, but the House should not take them forward tonight.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I rise to make a short contribution in support of the new clauses tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell).

We want to bring some clarity to the issue of victims and the past. There are various issues that relate to the troubles, as they are euphemistically called, which took place over 30-odd years in Northern Ireland and during which many people right across the community lost their lives. The SDLP wants to underscore the fact that murder was wrong and that those who perpetrated it were wrong to do so and were culpable in doing so. There are issues with the past that relate to victims, flags and emblems. All those matters are rightly being addressed by Richard Haass in the current talks process, which is due to be completed by the end of December. We look forward to those findings.

It is opportune that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle has tabled the new clauses and particularly new clause 1, which relates to patterns and lessons from reports on aspects of the past. One of the critical cases happened in my constituency. I do not highlight it because six men were murdered by loyalists, but simply to illustrate a point. A police inquiry was carried out by the RUC in which the families were not really involved. They were never really asked for their opinions or asked about what happened on that night. They were always searching for the truth. There was a police ombudsman’s report into the police investigation. Both were found wanting. The police ombudsman’s report was contested because it suggested that what happened was tantamount to collusion, but it did not say that.

That report required there to be a further police investigation, which is still ongoing. The police are fact checking what they have put in their voluminous report. The senior police officers who have undertaken the investigation have told me that forensics show that some of the weapons that were used on the night of 18 June 1994 were used in other incidents in which people were killed at around the same time, which was a couple of months before both ceasefires were announced. They cannot provide their comprehensive report into Loughinisland because it relates directly to other deaths, murders, bombings and incidents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The new clause and amendments are intended to return the position to what was intended in the Good Friday, or Belfast, agreement of 1998. New clause 2 seeks to reflect properly what was in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the strand 1 paper, which provide for a petition of concern in respect of a measure or a proposal in the Assembly. Those paragraphs make it clear that the petition of concern was not meant to be used as an open veto to be played like a joker at any time.

The position relating to the petition is qualified in the agreement, but unfortunately that was not reflected in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In the initial Bill, there was no reflection whatsoever of the true provisions of paragraphs 11 to 13. When some of us pointed that out, the Northern Ireland Office “scrambled in” a measure stating that the Assembly’s Standing Orders should make provision for the procedures outlined in those paragraphs, but unfortunately the Standing Orders never did make that provision. They ended up providing for a petition of concern which could be signed by 30 Members, and that automatically became a dead-end veto: end of story.

This new clause seeks to remind people that the Good Friday agreement said that those issuing a petition of concern would have the opportunity to prove they had a legitimate concern on grounds either of equality or human rights and that those grounds would be tested by a special committee that would be established in the Assembly to report on the matter. We worked that out very painstakingly during the negotiations because people were concerned that a petition of concern might simply become a drive-by veto, as it were, on any issue going forward or even being tabled, which could lead to gridlock with tit-for-tat vetoes and petitions of concern. The then leader of the Alliance party, now Lord Alderdice, spoke very strongly in the negotiations about his concern that we should not have just an open-ended free-for-all system of vetoes.

The notion of having petitions of concern is rightly in the agreement, not least because having protections around decision-making mechanisms was a key part of the rules in the negotiations that led to the agreement, and, therefore, if it was essential in the rules that led to the agreement, it would be essential in the agreement itself. The particular model of protections had to be carefully balanced and calibrated, however.

The balance we came up with was that there could be a petition of concern, but it would not of itself be a veto. Unfortunately, the system as it is now practised does turn the petition of concern into a veto. That has meant that many matters in Northern Ireland end up not progressing, and some are not even tabled at the Executive or in the Assembly because the veto is now also used as a predictive veto, to prevent issues from being tabled and to hold things up in discussion within the bowels of government somewhere.

[Mr Dodds]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and his interpretation of the Belfast agreement, and if I have the opportunity to speak I will deal with that in more detail, but it is an interpretation. As we had the agreement of his party, which was the main nationalist party at the time, and the agreement of the Ulster Unionist party, which was the main Unionist party at that time, and the wholehearted agreement of the then Government led by Tony Blair and the wholehearted support of the then Opposition in this House, how did this major issue that the hon. Gentleman is so exercised about not get translated into legislation? How did that happen?

[Mark Durkan]

It happened precisely for the reasons I have suggested. First, the NIO draftspeople who drafted the Bill neglected to deal with that part of the agreement, and there were a few other provisions like that as well, which just goes to prove that, contrary to what we read in a lot of memoirs, the agreement was not drafted by the British Government, the Irish Government or the American Government; instead, it was broadly drafted by the Northern Ireland politicians.

[Mr Dodds]

It is not good enough to blame the draftsmen and say, “Oh, the draftsmen left it out.” Surely in all the hours of consideration in this House and in Committee and the massive debates that took place at home, here and everywhere else on the legislation that became the Northern Ireland Act 1998, someone—not least the hon. Gentleman himself—could have prompted a Member of the House to say, “An amendment might be in order. This is such a glaring gap that it needs to be filled”? Why was that not done?

[Mark Durkan]

I actually think an amendment may well have been tabled because, although I was not a Member of this House, I remember drafting an amendment —but I am not sure whether it was subsequently tabled.

I should stress that when we pointed out that this was not provided for in the agreement, the NIO response was to provide for it by way of a stipulation that the Assembly Standing Orders would provide for that procedure. That turned out not to be robust enough. The right hon. Gentleman might say, “Well, did we not address that in Assembly Standing Orders?” He will find that the record of the Assembly shows, in the very first Standing Orders report, that I did address the fact that it was not there. The then Presiding Officer, Lord Alderdice, acknowledged my attention to detail, in so far as he could without being drawn into the debate; that obviously went very much back to his own participation in the negotiations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

That is why the amendment seeks to translate into Northern Ireland legislation something that the House legislated on for Great Britain in the Equality Act 2010, by specifying the relationship between good relations and equality based on objective need. We cannot use the question of good relations to justify a decision that fails to exercise an equality duty based on objective need.

When we discussed this matter upstairs in the Bill Committee, I pointed out that my proposal would not have the converse effect that a public body could not introduce a measure with an eye to good relations unless it also met the requirement of equality based on objective need. The new clause would not, for example, prevent the sort of thing that happened in my constituency in relation to the Fountain estate. There was widespread support for creating a new school there, even though it would not have fulfilled any of the criteria on the Department of Education’s lists relating to qualifying for capital spending on a new school. Similar issues arose there over school transport. Because of the particular circumstances of the estate and the community, however, and because of the ambition to uphold the ethos of a shared city, it was agreed that it should happen for reasons of good relations and community support, even though the proposals did not fulfil any of the Department’s investment criteria relating to need.

The new clause would not prevent such a project from going ahead in the future. It would, however, prevent someone from using concerns about good relations or agitating to advertise tensions in relations as a way of preventing a measure from going forward on the basis of equality based on objective need, whether in relation to language or to any other public programme or investment, such as in social housing.

I am simply trying to correct the confusion that is now building up, and to remove the undue tension that is being created by the two important aspects represented in section 75 and that relate to the commitments in the Good Friday agreement. On that basis, I commend new clause 2 and amendment 4 to the House.

[Mr Dodds]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this short debate on new clause 2, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should also like to speak to amendment 3, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

In new clause 2, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is proposing to introduce new provisions relating to petitions of concern. I understand that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is dealing with this matter, among others, and I believe that that is the right and proper place for the issue to be decided on. It is for the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly to agree or disagree to such matters relating to petitions of concern. I understand that 40% of the petitions of concern tabled in the Northern Ireland Assembly have been tabled by the nationalist parties, so this is not a question of one party tabling petitions in a way that abuses the process. This has happened right across the board.

New clause 2 could create the potential for gridlock in the Assembly. Let us remember that a petition of concern is lodged after a matter has been debated in the Assembly and is about to be voted on. Let us imagine how it would play out in this Chamber if such a process had to be undergone after a debate and before a vote could be taken. Under the new clause, a committee would have to be set up. As soon as we hear the word “committee”, we know that we are not going to be in for a quick decision-making process—certainly not in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The new clause goes on to propose that a committee appointed for this purpose

“shall have the powers to call people and papers to assist in its consideration”.

Not only that, but it “shall take evidence”—that would not be discretionary— from

“the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.”

This would no doubt have to happen when diaries had been sorted out and all the necessary people had been brought in to be cross-examined and to give their evidence. Then, after the committee had listened to all the evidence, sifted it and debated it, voted on it and produced a report—in addition to all the other committee and legislative work that those Assembly Members do—the Assembly would have to

“consider the report of any committee appointed under this section and determine the matter in accordance with the requirements for cross-community support.”

Only then could the Assembly have its vote.

I respectfully suggest that that is not a recipe for quick governance or quick decision making. The Northern Ireland Assembly is already criticised in relation to processing matters quickly and efficiently, and I submit that the new clause would add greatly to the problems.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Mr Dodds]

I give way to a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly who knows only too well the problems that arise there.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a petition of concern is likely to have been issued because there is concern and a lack of cross-community support, the requirement in subsection (6) could never be met? If the reason for lodging the petition of concern in the first place was a lack of cross-community support, how could a report from a committee ever get through the Assembly to allow a vote to take place?

[Mr Dodds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those of us who have served in the Northern Ireland Assembly know that that is exactly what would happen. The new clause is misconceived. It would simply bung up the works of the Assembly and make no advances in getting things done.

In an intervention, I asked the hon. Member for Foyle why the provisions in his new clause had not been in the original Northern Ireland Act. First, he blamed the draftsmen. I then asked whether no one in the then Government or Opposition or in any of the Northern Ireland parties was in any way culpable for not having spotted this massive gap in the legislation. I asked whether an amendment had been tabled to rectify the omission. I have no doubt that, if it had been part of the Belfast agreement, the then Government would happily have acceded to the change.

The only opposition that was coming in from any quarter came from those of us in the DUP and allied Unionists who pointed out that we could not found an agreement without support for the police, the courts and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. I am glad that we finally managed to achieve that objective at the St Andrew’s agreement and elsewhere. That is why we now have stable devolution. I do not want to go into that debate now, however. The point is that the hon. Gentleman said that he thought he might have drafted an amendment, but he did not know whether it had even been tabled.

I want to try to explain why this matter might have been left out of the original legislation. I have looked at paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Belfast agreement, and I submit that the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of them is open to question. The provisions relating to petitions of concern were set out in paragraph 5(d) of strand 1 of the agreement. That agreement was drafted by his party as well as the other parties that agreed with its terms. That provision contains no qualifications whatever: there is no reference to equality or to the circumstances in which petitions of concern may be lodged.

The section of the agreement that deals with “Operation of the Assembly” covers Chairs and Deputy Chairs of the Assembly, and the role of the Committees and Standing Committees. Then we get to paragraph 11, which states:

“The Assembly may appoint a special Committee to examine and report on whether a measure or proposal for legislation is in conformity with equality requirements, including the ECHR/Bill of Rights. The Committee shall have the power to call people and papers to assist in its consideration of the matter.”

Paragraph 12 states:

“The above special procedure shall be followed when requested by the Executive Committee, or by the relevant Departmental Committee, voting on a cross-community basis.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I was there negotiating the agreement and I know what was understood and agreed. Clearly, those paragraphs provide for a committee to be appointed not only in response to a petition of concern, but at the request of the Executive or departmental Committee, because we were saying that a petition of concern should not be the only way of triggering the establishment of a special committee. That was to reflect the fact that there may be concerns about human rights and about equality.

[Mr Dodds]

But the agreement certainly does not talk about setting up the procedure that the hon. Gentleman has alluded to today relating to petitions of concern. Saying, “I was there, so I know what it was about” is not going to wash. We have to deal with the written text—what is there. Saying, “I was there and I know what it meant, and we should legislate on that basis” is not a good way forward.

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks failed to address the fact that I had made it clear that whenever the omission in the earlier Bill was pointed out, Northern Ireland Office Ministers moved to deal with that omission by putting a provision in the Bill. The provision relies on Standing Orders, but it actually says that the Assembly’s Standing Orders shall provide for the procedure provided for in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Dodds]

I have absolutely no difficulty with the Assembly’s Standing Orders providing for that, because I have already referred to my interpretation of what those paragraphs relate to. All I am saying is that the massively cumbersome, clumsy, convoluted, time-consuming, time-wasting process set out in new clause 2 on petitions of concern will be a disaster for the Northern Ireland Assembly if this House is ever so unwise as to pass it.

[Lady Hermon]

May I take the liberty of trying to summarise what the right hon. Gentleman has said? I understand that he and his colleagues disagree vehemently with the content and detail of new clause 2, but am I right in understanding that they support the Assembly parties looking at the excessive use of petitions of concern? Does he accept that they are used excessively in the Assembly, that we have stalemate on too many occasions and that it is simply left for the Assembly to deal with this issue?

[Mr Dodds]

I do not accept that. I do not accept that we have an excessive use of petitions of concern. I would need to look at all the evidence and, as I have said, 40% of the petitions are put down by nationalists. I do not subscribe to any gridlock being entirely down to these petitions, but the new clause would add to the problems if it were passed. Let us consider the example of welfare reform, which is currently held up in the Assembly. The Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has now moved on, was in Northern Ireland the other day warning about the consequences of welfare reform delays for the block grant. That has nothing to do with petitions of concern; that is a political hold-up because Sinn Fein will not grasp and deal with the issue, and it is going to cost the entire Northern Ireland electorate, ratepayers and taxpayers a lot of money if it does not. So I do not think that petitions of concern are primarily the issue here.

What seems to be at the root of the proposal by the hon. Member for Foyle is that some kind of abuse is happening. He spoke about when petitions of concern should be used and so on, although that is not qualified in the Belfast agreement. What happens when we consider other elements, such as cross-community voting? He has not in any way sought to amend that—indeed, no party has. If proposals were to be made about that, they should be discussed within the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and the parties in Northern Ireland should come up with their own suggestions, solutions and proposals.

I recall a famous day when I was in the Assembly and those processes of cross-community voting were abused—a horse and carriage was driven through the powers of designation. The Alliance party previously had been designated as “other”—neither Unionist nor nationalist—and has remained “other” for every other vote and occasion since. However, on this occasion it was persuaded to become, in the words of its now leader,

“the back end of a pantomime horse”—

that is how he described it—by designating the party as “Unionist”. Why was that done? It was done to ensure that then deputy leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Gentleman’s party, could remain as Deputy First Minister when he had actually resigned. The proposal was introduced whereby the Assembly had to accept the resignation for it to become valid. There was a total abuse of the rules and of the purposes for which they were introduced. This has never been done since because people were appalled by it, yet reference is never made to it.

[Dr McCrea]

Is it not strange that, yet again, we are hearing from the revisionists? Whenever 40% is republican, we are told, “No, there is no abuse of petitions of concern.” But, then, when the Unionists use 60%, we are told, “Yes, that is abuse.” So, once again, we have, “Unionists at fault. Nationalists and republicans not at all.” My right hon. Friend mentioned that Seamus Mallon resigned and then did not resign. Well, Bobby Ewing came out of the shower and he was dead—and then he was not dead, after all.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks.

In conclusion, new clause 2 is a misconceived proposal, but I commend amendment 3. It is a technical amendment saying that if we are giving the power to the Northern Ireland Assembly to reduce the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly—as we are proposing to do in this Bill, because that is right and proper, and that should be a matter for the Assembly—the Assembly should also have the power to consider the number of people required for a petition of concern to be valid. For it to remain at 30 would be completely wrong, as that number was regarded as proportionate for 108 MLAs. If the Assembly were reduced to 90 MLAs or fewer, as would be my preference, it would clearly be right, proper and sensible to reduce the number required to sign a petition of concern. Amendment 3 is a technical and sensible amendment, and I hope the Government will take it on board.

[Mr Robathan]

We are considering two issues of vital importance to the political settlement in Northern Ireland that are embodied in the Belfast agreement of 1998, a copy of which we have seen on the other side of the Chamber. Petitions of concern are intended to ensure that on sensitive issues, the views of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland must be taken into account. That is fundamental to the power-sharing arrangements that now exist in Stormont. The requirement that 30 MLAs sign a petition was part of the Belfast agreement and it has not been amended since that time. I believe that petitions of concern have been used 61 times since 1998, but there have been many more cases when the possibility of such a petition being used has led to policies being rejected or amended before reaching that stage.

At times, that has resulted in deadlock and important decisions being delayed. A failure to take into account the views of both communities would be far more damaging and could affect the stability of the settlement as a whole. As has been made clear, not all parties are content with how petitions are used at present, and I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

Given the concern in Northern Ireland about the way in which the petitions are used, greater scrutiny of the impact of such decisions would seem appropriate, but there is already provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for scrutiny of the kind the hon. Member for Foyle has proposed. The question is whether it would be appropriate for the UK Government to dictate to the Northern Ireland Assembly that such scrutiny must take place. I do not believe it appropriate for us so to do.

Turning to the amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman, it is a valid question whether the number of Members needed to trigger a petition of concern should remain the same if the Assembly is reduced substantially in size. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) made clear in Committee, amending the threshold of support required for a petition of concern would require cross-community support before the Government could back it. Cross-community support is particularly important for this measure, which is a fundamental building block of the 1998 agreement and is specifically intended to protect minority interests. We have heard today of the different views that exist on the use of petitions of concern, and let me be clear to the House that no consensus currently exists on the matter. If such consensus emerged—for example, from the review process under way in the Northern Ireland Assembly—the Government would certainly be ready to consider giving effect to the conclusions when a legislative vehicle was assembled. However, I fear we are not yet at that point.

Turning to the amendment to clause 22, proposed by the hon. Member for Foyle, I know that the debate about objective need and equality is a live one in Northern Ireland and is a subject a new Minister should engage with delicately. I appreciate the force of and feeling behind what the hon. Gentleman said, and his comments will of course be noted in Northern Ireland. There are many who argue that the interpretation of “good relations” is the appropriate reading of section 75 as it stands. In its guidance for public authorities on promoting good relations, the Equality Commission Northern Ireland states:

“Equality of opportunity and good relations are inextricably linked and interdependent, and both must be addressed by designated public authorities. A failure to achieve one impacts on the ability to achieve the other.”

It adds:

“Promoting equality of opportunity sometimes requires the use of positive action measures in order to address existing inequalities with a view to achieving a level playing field for all. In such circumstances, public authorities must have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations both within and between communities, on the grounds of race, religious belief and political opinion, and consider what steps need to be taken to gain the confidence, trust and acceptance of all parts of the community. Communication of the reasons for the positive action is essential in this situation.”

Even if the clarification in the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Foyle is necessary, it is difficult territory for Parliament to enter into without prior consultation with the Assembly and the Executive in Northern Ireland, which would try to find the broadest possible measure of agreement.

Much of equality law is devolved, and it would be wrong for us to legislate unilaterally here. The Executive have announced their strategy document on a shared future, entitled “Together: Building a United Community”, which proposes changes in the law, including the establishment of an equality and good relations commission. It seems that that is the context in which such steps should be considered. We would prefer, therefore, that the amendment be not pressed in the House, but I am sure the debate will go on and on. For the moment, I ask the hon. Member for Foyle and the right hon. Member for Belfast North to withdraw the new clause and the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) claimed that the procedures proposed would lead to indefinite delay. They would not, because any Committee would be subject to a time scale; Standing Order 35 of the Assembly partially provides for that, albeit, again, not correctly. This is about properly joining up provisions to form the agreement. We have real delay and ongoing gridlock in Northern Ireland when a petition of concern is exercised as an open-ended veto—it ends matters so that nothing goes forward. The new clause would create a procedure whereby people had to put up or shut up on an equality or human rights issue, otherwise the measure concerned would proceed. To that extent, it would be an aid to better governance and a more responsible use of petitions of concern as well.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking for his other crimes and misdemeanours to be taken into account, which were actually worse than I remembered—they were to get him elected.

[Mark Durkan]

I had no part in that.

[Mr Dodds]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes his own defence. He says that it was not him and that he had argued for an election. Nevertheless, he benefited. I am grateful to him for that clarification, although it does not aid his cause.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the role of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, of which we are apprised. If the threshold for petitions of concern is not addressed, it is bound to have an effect on the thinking of parties and their desire to implement change with regard to the numbers in the Assembly. The matter has to be addressed at some point, but given what the Minister has said, and in deference to other business, I will not press our amendment to a vote tonight.

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Donations

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

These are relatively minor changes, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will be able to support them. There has been support on both sides of the House for the provisions in clause 1, which will protect permanently the identities of those who have made donations to Northern Ireland political parties in the past.

In the past, donors gave money in the understanding that their identities would not be revealed, and it would be unfair to change that position without their consent retrospectively. However, there has been some debate about the date on which the guarantee of anonymity should end. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is in her place, proposed amendments that would reduce the length of time for which donors would continue to benefit from these provisions. It is important that all donors are fully aware that the rules have changed at the point at which they make a donation.

The Bill as drafted refers to 1 October next year because the Government believed that that would ensure the clearest framework for political parties. It is a date that is already familiar to parties and their financial supporters as the date on which the prescribed period will end if the Bill does not come into force. All donors are already on notice that permanent anonymity will come to an end at that point. However, it has never been the Government’s policy to stand in the way of changes that might help to increase transparency, provided that the change to an earlier date can be implemented.

In view of the support for the change from all Northern Ireland parties represented in the House, whose donors are those affected, and from the Electoral Commission, which regulates party finance, the Government are willing to support a change to an earlier date.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the Minister confirm that if the amendment is passed tonight and the Bill receives Royal Assent all donations up to 1 January will be permanently excluded from being revealed? Is that the Government’s understanding of the position?

[Mr Robathan]

That was my understanding. I have just taken advice from those in the Box and they agree, so I think we are pretty sure that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, clause 1 allows the Secretary of State the discretion to make the decision. The Select Committee suggested that there be a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate security authorities with regard to taking that decision, but overwhelmingly, we felt that we should move towards greater transparency regarding donations in Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Member for Belfast East, I am grateful to the Government for listening to the points that the Select Committee made on not only this issue, but others.

[Mr Dodds]

When the matter was debated and voted on in the Committee of the whole House, we voted for the proposal. The Government have had consultations, and the measure has been brought forward because it has widespread support in Northern Ireland, and so fulfils one of the criteria for changes to which the Minister has alluded previously. It is because there is cross-party consensus that the amendment has been put forward, and we welcome that move. We have absolutely no difficulty with moving towards greater transparency from 1 January —mindful, of course, that as the Minister says, there is no change to the fundamental point that the decision will be made only when the security situation allows. If it is made, however, it can be retrospective and apply back to 1 January.

We remain concerned that the amendment, and the Bill, will not close the massive loophole that allows parties from outside the United Kingdom to be bankrolled to a fairly considerable degree by donations made outside—indeed, very far from—the jurisdiction. In that context, I refer to a report of 11 November in the Belfast Telegraph that revealed that Sinn Fein was being bankrolled by donations from American companies

“that have been embroiled in racism”,

discrimination and

“embezzlement…scandals.”

Sinn Fein took in £245,000 in the period up to May this year, and almost £31,000 of that

“was used to pay printing expenses in Northern Ireland and to purchase a vehicle.”

A political party that operates and seeks votes in part of the United Kingdom, and is elected to this House and to the Assembly, is allowed, through the special provisions of electoral donation law, to raise such funds and channel them to Northern Ireland, and basically to skew the electoral process through massive donations from abroad.

Unfortunately, the Government have not, so far, seen fit to close that loophole, which should not be available to any party. When the decision was made to bring in regulations and legislation on the funding of, and donations and loans to, political parties, it was rightly decided that, in principle and fact, parties should be able to receive donations only from registered electors in the United Kingdom. That is a solid, sound principle, but an exception has been made in relation to Northern Ireland. Nationalist parties—primarily Sinn Fein—can raise all this money outside the jurisdiction. That money is used to influence the political and electoral process. It is a scandal, and it is wrong, morally, politically and constitutionally. Something needs to be done about it; a party has openly admitted, through records filed in the United States, that it is using foreign money. One can imagine the howls of outrage that there would be from other parties if a Unionist party, or the Conservative, Labour or Social Democratic and Labour parties, used foreign money that had been donated secretly to fund their electoral campaigns, with no accountability.

[Sammy Wilson]

Sleazy money.

[Mr Dodds]

Sleazy money. One can imagine the howls of outrage that there would be from sanctimonious people in Sinn Fein about that, yet we are talking about a party that is receiving individual sums of up to $20,000. Documents filed with the US Department of Justice indicate that a New York-based company called MarJam Supply Company contributed $5,000. A Government employment equality agency in the United States found that staff at that company were subjected to racial abuse. Another company that gives money to Sinn Fein hit the headlines after its former boss was sentenced to three years in jail for embezzling pension money. The former chairman of another company that donated $1,000 to Sinn Fein pleaded guilty to conspiracy and bribery charges. How do we know all that? It is because the US authorities require that information to be registered in the United States—it is no thanks to legislation passed in this House.

I say to the Government that this is intolerable. It is a scandalous abuse of the electoral system in Northern Ireland. No wonder the IRA and Sinn Fein do not have to rob banks any more, when they can get that sort of money flowing into their coffers from abroad, with no accountability whatever. I urge the Government to listen, to take this argument on board, and to create a level playing field for all the other parties.

This is not an appeal made on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. We will fight our campaigns and get our votes; I am confident that we will do well. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said in an earlier debate that he never foresaw any party in Northern Ireland getting more than 30 seats and being able to trigger a petition of concern. He did not envisage it; I am sure that if he had envisaged it, the trigger figure would have been higher. We have 38 Members. Things can happen in Northern Ireland, and we will fight our battle. When it comes to donations and loans, all that I am calling for is a level playing field for everybody. The Government need to act on that. Frankly, it would be a disgrace if, in this Parliament, a Government led by a Conservative Prime Minister—and a Government comprised of right hon. and hon. Gentleman who have sought to reform the parliamentary system to create greater fairness and transparency—continued to allow this outrageous situation to continue.

[Mark Durkan]

I welcome Government amendments 1 and 2. I want to acknowledge the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who championed amendment 1 at an earlier stage of the Bill. I recall that at one point on that day, she thought she would not be able to divide the House, because she did not have Tellers; we guaranteed her Tellers if the amendment went to a Division. I also want to acknowledge the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who put his name to the amendment and took an active part in the discussion, as a conscientious legislator and a person of consistency. I recall that on that day, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was very strident in pressing the Government to see the sense of the amendment, and in rejecting their arguments against it.

I am glad that the Government have found that there was consensus on the issue, but it was a new, revised consensus, induced by the fact that we had Divisions on the subject in Committee of the whole House. Clearly, very different messages were being given before that, including in evidence to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. It is one of the occasions on which debate in the House brought about change, not just in Government thinking but in how parties responded and saw those issues by understanding how they were regarded by others. The public are vexed about the lack of transparency and the readiness of too many parties constantly to use security considerations to deny scrutiny, which is treated as a matter of course elsewhere.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has looked more widely at the issue of political donations, and we need to look at anything else that needs to be tightened up at any other level. I am particularly alert to the need to allow an active and positive interest by members of the wider Irish diaspora and by democrats throughout the island of Ireland, but that should never allow for any dubious corporate donations or anything else. It is quite clear that the ambit of measures in relation to donations to Northern Ireland has been cynically abused, and it does not match funding that would be allowed elsewhere. Again, for the sake of consistency, without transgressing any legitimate interest of the wider Irish diaspora, including the very recent diaspora, I would point out the need for balance.

Government amendment 2 is a sensible measure, as the provisions of clause 28 would impose quite a scramble and some difficulty on local electoral officers, so it makes sense to kick forward the commencement date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

I would like to say it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), but it is very difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman. Once again, I welcome what he said and the way that he said it, with his customary humour and good grace.

I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well. We look forward to working with him. I formally put on record our condolences to the SDLP and to the people of South Down on the sad loss of Eddie McGrady, who was a very decent and honourable representative for all the people of South Down. I have expressed my sentiments privately and I have written to the SDLP, but I want to put that formally on the record. He was a true outstanding example of what a Member of Parliament and an elected representative should be.

I also want to put on record our condemnation of the attack on the offices of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). I note that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has tabled a motion for debate today in the Northern Ireland Assembly condemning that and other attacks. He made the point that whether these evil acts have a loyalist or republican label, they are equally wrong, regardless of who is responsible. I think that all hon. Members will endorse that. We as democrats must stand up against attacks. Members of my party and of the SDLP, and members of other parties and of no party, have had their person, their offices and their property attacked previously, simply because they stood up and expressed a point of view in a democratic way. It is scandalous that anyone should be targeted for doing that.

We welcome the Bill. It is limited in scope, but nevertheless it deals with some important matters. We wish it had gone further in relation to party donations and the point that I raised in relation to a glaring loophole, but no doubt we will return to that at some point. I welcome the fact that the election for the Northern Ireland Assembly has been brought into line with those for Scotland and Wales. We now have an equal situation for the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. The Government have been sensible and right to do that. There are the new arrangements for the Minister of Justice and the Assembly’s power to reduce the number of MLAs, which we certainly want to see. There are far too many Assembly Members in Northern Ireland, and the number needs to be reduced.

We recognise that other more substantive issues need to be debated and for which provision needs to be made. We hope that after the Haass talks and further consideration in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee we will be in a position to come forward with some kind of consensus on major issues and debate them further and, if necessary, legislate for them in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Dodds of Duncairn Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The Home Secretary has always been clear that she will make every effort to ensure that the NCA’s role in Northern Ireland is completely consistent with the devolved settlement on policing and justice and the primacy of the Chief Constable. She has made a number of concessions along those lines to provide that assurance, and she and her colleagues at the Home Office are keen to continue the discussion on how to provide the reassurance asked for by the Social Democratic and Labour party and others in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

May I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State to his post and wish the outgoing shadow Secretary of State well in his new post? I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) in the same way as I did with his predecessor.

Will the Secretary of State cut to the chase and tell us the estimated cost, in lost revenue to the Treasury and human misery, of the decision by Sinn Fein and the SDLP to block the full establishment of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

The NCA’s current remit in Northern Ireland will provide useful assistance on criminal matters that fall within the responsibilities that have not been devolved, such as fuel smuggling, international smuggling of drugs and firearms. The NCA will also be able to provide advice and assistance on matters within the devolved sphere, such as child protection. However, it is important for Northern Ireland’s political parties to look carefully at this issue. I believe that extending the NCA’s remit to devolved matters would considerably assist the fight against serious crime in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the current discussions result in an agreement on these matters.

[Mr Dodds]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the assessment of the Northern Ireland Justice Minister—who has been quite unequivocal in his denunciation of the current situation—in which he said:

“We are effectively asking some law enforcement agencies to operate with one arm tied behind their backs”?

This is an outrageous situation that can be of benefit only to drug smugglers, human traffickers, cyber-criminals, fuel launderers and all the rest. Apart from convening talks, can the Secretary of State tell us what the Government will do to ensure that the citizens and taxpayers of Northern Ireland are not subject to this criminal empire building?

[Mrs Villiers]

A huge amount of work has been done to provide the reassurance that Northern Ireland political parties have asked for on consistency with the police and justice settlement. Productive work has also been done between the Home Office and the Justice Minister on transitional arrangements—for example, on the cases that SOCA had taken on that can be continued by the NCA within the provisions for the current purposes. We will continue to work hard to make the case for the NCA’s full operation in Northern Ireland as a potent fighting force to bring to justice those responsible for organised crime and other serious criminal activities.