Pat Finucane

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Kevin Brennan

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is an unusually great pleasure to be able to serve under your chairship, in your first outing as Chair here in Westminster Hall, Ms Bardell. It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and to belatedly welcome him and his party back to the House of Commons. In the last Parliament, there was a missing piece in the parliamentary puzzle, which meant we did not see the whole picture when it came to Northern Ireland politics. It is very important that the nationalist viewpoint in Northern Ireland is represented here in this House.

Given my own family background, I have taken an interest over many years in the politics of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I have visited Belfast on many occasions during my parliamentary career. When I went there, I was always struck by the similarity between the cities of Belfast and Cardiff, which I represent—in their architecture, in their size and in the warm welcome of the citizens of those two cities.

In drawing on that comparison, I have to ask whether it would be acceptable in my city, and to my constituents, if the state were involved in hampering the discovery of the truth about the murder of one of its citizens. The answer to that question has to be an emphatic no. If that is the case for Cardiff, or for Leeds, Barnsley, St Helens, Sheffield, Worcester or any of the other constituencies that elect Members to this House, it is equally unacceptable for Belfast.

The troubles were a dark and violent time in the history of these islands. Thousands of civilians and soldiers—we remember our armed forces on this Armistice Day—lost their lives as a result of calculated brutality, which still echoes darkly down the generations. In that awful period, the appalling murder of Patrick Finucane in February 1989 was one of the darkest moments. Thirty-one years on, it remains a source of grave public concern, not just in Northern Ireland and Ireland, but across the United Kingdom and anywhere in the world where people seek and care about justice.

Both Lord Stevens and Judge Cory were clear that there was state collusion in the murder of Mr Finucane. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle said, the then Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the outcome of the separate de Silva review as revealing

“shocking levels of state collusion.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 296.]

It is now 20 months since the Supreme Court found that inquiries into Mr Finucane’s murder had been unlawful under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. Investigations that have taken place have had profound shortcomings, and those shortcomings, in the words of Lord Kerr,

“have hampered, if not indeed prevented, the uncovering of the truth about this murder.”

That this crime could happen at all in our country is in itself a shocking stain on the fabric of our recent history. That it has never been investigated to a lawful standard is a tear in that same fabric that needs to be repaired.

The issues at stake could scarcely be more important. The European convention on human rights is the foundation that underpins the Good Friday agreement and is the fundamental safeguard on which citizens rely. Those rights are not trivial. Compliance with them is non-negotiable.

As my hon. Friend has said, the family of Pat Finucane have had to wait too long for the adequate and effective investigation into his murder that is their right and the right of all citizens whom we represent in this place. Last month, as we have heard, Patrick Finucane’s widow, Geraldine, was forced to take action in the High Court to seek a resolution from the Government. Mr Justice McAlinden, overseeing the case, described his deep unease at the approach of the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This delay has added insult to injury. Mrs Finucane has received unequivocal undertakings from the British Government that such an inquiry will be held, and that should now be honoured.

The administrative burden in establishing an inquiry is simply not a justification to prevent the truth from emerging. The long years that have passed since the ceasefire and the Good Friday agreement have served to demonstrate that unless justice is done and seen to be done, the wounds of the past simply will not be allowed to heal, so I say to the Minister: the time has come to right past wrongs and allow this public inquiry to proceed.

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

The next speaker on the call list has given notice that he will be late, so I now call Stephanie Peacock.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Kevin Brennan

Thursday 25th February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Lady mentioned trade associations, but not trade unions. There are 46,000 USDAW members in Scotland, so will she confirm that she will consult that union between now and Report?

[Hannah Bardell]

Yes, we have previously consulted USDAW and had significant discussions. I pay tribute to its work, and we will absolutely consult it again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

As a former Government Whip, I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend, but there is a certain freemasonry of the Whips that always stays with one. I once had lunch with the former deputy Chief Whip of the Conservative Government, Sir Bernard Weatherill, who was also Speaker of the House. He told me that we could not have civilisation without sewers and we could not have Parliament without the Whips. I say to the Government Whip that both should remain pretty much underground for pretty much the same reason. Although he has wanted to contribute to our debates from time to time, there are very good reasons why he should remain silent.

I thank our staff who helped us to prepare. Having served on both sides of a Committee, I can say that debating a Bill in opposition is the parliamentary equivalent of digging a ditch: you work very hard down in a hole, sometimes not really making much progress, and nobody can see you. I am relieved, if I can put it that way, that we have reached the end of this stage of the Bill, but I thank our staff, meagre as they are, as well as the volunteers and others who have helped us to prepare for the Committee.

I thank our friends from the Scottish National party for their contributions, and I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions, because they have been absolutely fantastic. On that basis, I commend the Bill as it goes off to Report. We will have a lot more to say at that stage on many of the issues we have discussed.

[Hannah Bardell]

Further to that point of order, Sir David, I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff West and thank all the Clerks and staff and yourself and Ms Buck. This is the second Bill Committee that I have been part of, but it is the first for my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and I know I speak on his behalf when I say that it has been a largely enjoyable experience.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir David. I begin by stating that we support the amendment. We support its intentions and we believe that transparency in any financial organisation is to be welcomed, especially when it is at the level of the executive of a large corporation. I pay tribute to and congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield on her election as the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and we look forward to working with her. The right hon. Member for Don Valley made a powerful speech and we agree with much of what she said.

I have had discussions and engagement with the Green Investment Bank, and we would like to hear the Minister give guarantees today that it will remain headquartered in Edinburgh. That is very important to us. We would also like to hear that the Government will retain their golden share and their interest. We would also like confirmation that the bank will seek to have responsible shareholders. As the right hon. Lady said, it is so important that whoever invests in this organisation keeps its green objectives and its intentions at the heart of what it does.

As the right hon. Lady said, we are at a tipping point in terms of energy development, technology and innovation. We have a low oil price that is providing significant challenges. In Scotland we have seen the removal of wind farm subsidies, and the carbon capture project competition was taken away. These have been huge disappointments.

We hope that the projects and investment that have already been undertaken by the Green Investment Bank will continue. Some of them are key to the development of green technologies in Scotland. If you will indulge me, Sir David, I will give a list of a few of these projects. There is a £2 million investment in a sewage heat recovery scheme with an installation programme in locations across Scotland, which began in Borders College back in 2015; a £28.25 million equity investment in the construction of the Levenseat renewable energy waste project; a £6.3 million loan to Glasgow City Council to enable the first wave of the replacement of 70,000 street lights with lower energy and low-cost alternatives; biomass boilers across a number of distilleries in Scotland; and a £26 million investment in the new biomass combined heat and power plant near Craigellachie. These are significant and important projects.

When we look at the challenges of the oil and gas industry and the talent that unfortunately has been lost as a result of a low oil price, we have to look at where those skills can be redeployed. Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland have some of the most innovative and experienced people. I was in the service sector of the oil and gas industry before I came to this place. Every day I saw incredible, innovative and inspiring people and technologies. The Green Investment Bank plays a key role in ensuring that projects such as those I have listed can continue to thrive, and that the energy industry’s new technologies thrive and are invested in.

[Kevin Brennan]

Perhaps I might seek your guidance, Sir David, because we have ranged quite widely and I was going to make some remarks in the clause stand part debate that I could incorporate into our discussion of the amendment if you thought that was appropriate. You seem to be nodding, so I will do that and hope that I will not be ruled out of order if I range a little more widely. This will save us the later debate on whether the clause stands part of the Bill.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on their amendment. It is a great advantage having such expertise available to us on our Back Benches. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and the hon. Member for Livingston on their contributions in support of the amendment. My right hon. and hon. Friends have put their finger on a very good point, to which I will return once I have made a few more general remarks, without detaining the Committee for too long.

Enterprise Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Hannah Bardell and Kevin Brennan

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. I have heard no convincing argument from the Minister that there is any other reason than the desire to get the bank off the books at all costs, even at the expense of the statutory protection that the Secretary of State prayed in aid as necessary protection—[Interruption.] If the Government Whip wants to intervene, he is free to do so, although it is not the convention for Whips to do so during Committee sittings.

The Secretary of State prayed in aid that legislation when he was saying that he wanted to privatise the Green Investment Bank while maintaining those green protections. The Minister has said that she is confident, in creating the Green Investment Bank special share, that the Office for National Statistics will allow the Green Investment Bank to be taken off the books. My point is twofold. First, why is it so necessary for the Green Investment Bank to be taken off the books, other than the fact that the Government want to tell a particular story with regard to public sector debt? Secondly, she cannot offer a complete guarantee at this stage that the ONS will approve that mechanism. If we had in front of us a different letter—one from the ONS confirming that it has had discussions with Government, the Green Investment Bank and possibly others and that the arrangement the Minister says we should rely upon, in relation to the ruling and the bank not having to be on the books, is completely acceptable to the ONS—we might be in a different position. If that letter were circulated to us all, we might be better placed to make a judgment on whether it is right at this stage to give up the protection of the clause. We still have Report stage and an opportunity for the Lords to look again at these matters.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

To clarify, Scottish National party Members have had sight of that letter through the Scottish Parliament. It was made available through the Scottish Parliament Information Centre—SPICe. However, I take the point that it should have been submitted to the Committee. That is not the responsibility of others, but it would have been respectful. There has been a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, and our Government in Scotland have sought assurances and come to an agreement, but there is a valid point in terms of procedure that I want to put on the record.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Lady is right; that is a basic courtesy. Rather than resist that, it would be better if the Minister simply said, “Yes, it would have been better had the letter been circulated.” We could then move on from the issue. However, she is not prepared to say that. I say to her gently that in future, it would be better if she followed that procedure if she is going to rely so heavily on a particular piece of correspondence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister shakes her head, but the then Treasury Minister specifically made that promise. I will read the quote again:

“those earning less than £27,000 will be exempted to protect the very small number of low earning, long-serving public servants.”

I cannot imagine anything more emphatically clear being said by a Government Minister, so why has that exemption not been included in the Bill? Amendment 105 would provide that exemption. As such, unless the Minister can convince us otherwise, we should insist on the Government keeping their word by pressing the amendment to a Division.

Amendment 108 is about the waiver process. The Government’s consultation response made mention of a waiver process and said that the full council would

“take the decision whether to grant a waiver of the cap in cases involving Local Authorities and for local government bodies within their delegated powers”.

In the Lords, Baroness Donaghy said that despite the assurances made in the consultation response, there was no reference to that in the Bill. That is a crucial issue for local government and should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than through secondary legislation. The Government’s draft statutory instrument allowing a waiver if the full council agrees has been published. That does not give local government the certainty it needs if it is to continue the job of restructuring itself in the face of the huge cuts to it. We have already seen agreements dealing with pay and conditions that were drawn up in 2010 disregarded just six years later. There is a concern in local government that it is not being given the certainty on waivers that it expected to see in the Bill, and it would like to know why.

Which public authorities will be allowed to exercise a waiver, and which will not? If there are exemptions from the waiver, will the Minister explain her logic in deciding which public bodies should be exempted and which should be included? The Government have done much to try to remove schools from local authority control. Will the waiver apply to all schools in local authority control? Will waivers apply to academy schools? Will there be a level playing field between the two categories of taxpayer-funded schools, or will one be favoured more than the other?

The ability of a local authority or other public sector body to seek a waiver would concur with the Government’s professed desire for local democracy and localism in general. Will the Minister explain how she drew up the rules for including or excluding public bodies and her role in the monitoring of waivers?

[Hannah Bardell]

I echo much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. His comments have been extensive and detailed, so I will not keep the Committee for long. However, I want to support the amendments and highlight our concerns with the Bill. As we have heard, the Cabinet Office confirmed that someone earning less than £25,000 could be affected because of their long service. We share the concerns raised directly with us by Unison that the cap would affect redundancy payments for a wide range of NHS staff. Those people are not classed as executives, because redundancy calculations are made on the basis of length of service and earnings. Because a significant number of NHS staff work unsocial hours, capping the payments could affect staff in band 6 and above.

There is logic and sense in supporting the amendments and some of the comments made in the briefings. For example, the Local Government Association criticised the Government’s plans and the cap of £95,000. We understand the logic behind having a cap, but it is about how we legislate. In the other place there were concerns about the lack of an impact assessment to go with the proposals. Once again, we are seeing legislation that has not been clearly thought through. The Cabinet Office has admitted that a small number of people might be affected, but we need a proper impact assessment to understand that, and the amendments speak to such concerns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, who was very keen to speak, has had to go to another debate. The issues that he wanted to raise relate to his experience and the experience of others in local government, particularly in Scotland. The Scottish Government have not been in favour of compulsory redundancies and have managed their workforce in a more creative way, which is something that should be considered. It is important that we look behind the pay cap and the details of it.

The overarching issue for us relates to the strain payments. As has been said, much of the payment does not actually go into people’s pockets; it goes to making up the shortfall in pensions. In summary, we support the amendments.