Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Northern Ireland Office
Mark Durkan
Main Page: Mark Durkan (Social Democratic & Labour Party - Foyle)Department Debates - View all Mark Durkan's debates with the Northern Ireland Office
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
Mark Durkan Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 3—Annual report an activity relating to Northern Ireland’s past—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament in respect of each year as soon as possible after the end of the year to which it relates.
(2) The Secretary of State may appoint a person or persons to produce the report required under subsection (1).
(3) A report laid under subsection (1) shall contain in relation to the year to which it applies—
(a) a summary of the work of any body established to investigate, review or report on matters in Northern Ireland’s burdened past in terms and with standards which comply with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
(b) a summary of the work of the Historical Enquiries Team of the Northern Ireland Police;
(c) a summary of the work of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland insofar as it relates to Northern Ireland’s past;
(d) a summary of the work of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victim’s remains;
(e) a summary of the work of other public bodies which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, relates to Northern Ireland’s past;
(f) a summary of findings of any inquiry, review or panel which has reported on particular events in Northern Ireland’s past;
(g) a summary of responses made by Her Majesty’s Government or any other Government or body to any of the work covered by the report; and
(h) a clear indication where the findings of any work summarised in the report contradict remarks recorded in the Official Report of the House of Commons or House of Lords, especially by a Minister of the Crown.
(4) After a report under subsection (1) has been laid before Parliament the Secretary of State shall provide a statement to Parliament which shall contain references to—
(a) independent legal assessment of the compliance of the work covered by the report with Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights;
(b) the progress made during the year in dealing with Northern Ireland’s past;
(c) any apologies that have been given by any Government or public body in relation to the work summarised in the report;
(d) any apologies that have been given by any Government or public body in the context of any other reports, revelations or admissions which relate to Northern Ireland’s past; and
(e) any other relevant issues or concerns as they relate to Northern Ireland’s past.
(5) Any existing provision prohibiting publication of the material to be summarised under subsection (2)(a) shall, subject to subsection (6) below, not apply for the purposes of this section.
(6) No personal information shall be included in the report as laid before Parliament without the permission of the person concerned or, if they are dead, of their relatives.’.
This Clause would allow for a new Article 2 compliant mechanism to investigate past events. This could replace the Historical Enquiries Team and Police Ombudsman’s respective roles on the past. It provides an annual report on all work on the past accompanied by a ministerial statement addressing certain matters.
Mark Durkan
New clauses 1 and 3 are tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie).
I should explain to the House that new clause 1 expands on an amendment I tabled in Committee— in the Public Bill Committee upstairs, rather than in Committee of the whole House. The point of the new clause is to afford the House an opportunity to consider whether some of the work undertaken on the past in Northern Ireland could be consolidated and could have its value advertised and added to by creating the capacity for the Secretary of State to commission a report or reports by a person or persons on various groups or classes of cases, on events in a particular locality or period, or on the activities of a particularly paramilitary group within a particular period of time.
We are suggesting that a class report, based on other reports and findings that have already been produced—whether by the Historical Enquiries Team, established inquiries or independent panels, or even by reviews that might be established in the future—would be necessary because at the minute we have a fairly inadequate arrangement whereby if the HET reports on a case the report is given to the family concerned and treated as though it is the property of the family. It is published only if the family chooses to publish it and only in the manner the family chooses.
When there have been issues with some of the HET’s work, not least when it has investigated what have been called “Army deaths”, that situation has meant that although the HET has done some good work over a number of years, which has been valuable to the families, many families have not felt that they could discharge the burden of publishing the work. Of course, other families have been able to publish that work or to turn to the assistance of others to have it published. In recent times, a powerful compilation examining different HET reports has been produced by the Pat Finucane Centre, resulting in a book called “Lethal Allies.” It draws on the HET reports on a number of cases, on Ministry of Defence files and on other papers in the national archive to set out more of the circumstances behind a certain group of murders—the up to 120 murders conducted by the Glenanne gang. That powerful book has been able to draw on HET reports simply because those families gave the reports to the Pat Finucane Centre and entrusted it with that work. That points towards a wider gap in the provisions on the past, not least those that the Secretary of State would preside over in the public interest and in the name of the wider political process.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous regard, in full flow, but is he speaking on behalf of a small group of families whose loved ones’ murder the HET has investigated, or is he speaking on behalf of the majority of those families, they having asked him to make this change?
Mark Durkan
In no way could I claim to be speaking for a majority of all the families whose cases have been investigated by the HET, but I have met many of the families, and I appreciate the very different experiences that they report to me. Some families are unhappy about how the HET investigated their case, and what it was able, or not able, to find; other people were particularly satisfied, and have taken consolation and a sense of closure from what the HET has been able to do for them. The point is that many families feel that there may be an unequal process in relation to the past, and they are coming at that from different points of view and experiences. The new clause tries to ensure that our approach to the past, not least in terms of the HET, is more holistic.
The Historical Enquiries Team has been seriously compromised by a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that found that the HET’s conduct of investigations of what are called “Army deaths” was so unequal and off-standard as to be illegal. That has put a serious question mark over the future of the HET’s discharging of its investigative role. Many of us believe that there is a need to replace the HET with a new body that is clearly compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights, and that if such a new body were created, the role relating to historical investigations that attaches to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland could devolve to that new body; we see the possibility of that article 2 compliant body taking over both the HET’s role in investigating the past, and the police ombudsman’s role in investigating complaints about past police conduct. Whether or not that new body is created, there needs to be an ability to draw on the good work already done by the HET in a lot of cases—work that currently is not celebrated, or shared in a meaningful way with the wider public.
Lady Hermon
Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House whether the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Matt Baggott, has in recent weeks made it evident that he has any intention of replacing the HET and has lost confidence in it? That certainly was not the information that he gave to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs two or three weeks ago.
Mark Durkan
I am not speaking for the Chief Constable; I am speaking to the new clause. I have said that many of us believe that the HET has been seriously injured, and that the viability of it serving its purpose in future, and its reliability, have been fundamentally wounded. I know that many people on the Northern Ireland Policing Board have that view as well. As to whether the Chief Constable has come to that view, we will have to see. The new clause does not legislate for a new body; it simply allows us to ensure that if a new body were created, that would not negate good work already done by the HET, and good work done, and sound reports produced, by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
The new clause would ensure that reports can be commissioned not just on individual cases and events, but on evident lessons or patterns in findings relating to different cases and events. Anne Cadwallader, on behalf of the Pat Finucane Centre, has been able to bring out glaring and compelling points relating to the Glenanne gang and its work: the connections between many different killings; the repeated use of various weapons; the likely involvement of some people; and issues of collusion and complicity in all that. That approach should be available for other cases, too. It is not just about being able to tell that narrative about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries; there are compelling narratives that need to be told about the activities of republican paramilitaries as well.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The new clause has been tabled while talks are under way with Haass and so on, and there is a process that deals with issues from the past. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the new clause puts the cart before the horse, or does he think that it complies with that general process?
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.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Is there not a confusion in what the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House? On the one hand, he tells us that there is a report about the HET and its fairness and ability to investigate collusion and so on which puts a question mark over it. On the other hand, he brings out the virtues of the HET, which somehow aids a “powerful” book, so-called, whenever it comes to security force collusion.
Mark Durkan
The HET has done some good work, but it has also done some work of very questionable quality. No less an authority than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found the HET’s work wanting in relation to the investigation of Army deaths, how they were investigated and how witnesses and potential witnesses were treated in that situation. It was a damning indictment by HMIC that the HET’s standard of performance in relation to a certain class of cases was illegal. That is not my finding, but accepting and recognising it and its seriousness does not lead me to rubbish cases in which the HET has done some good work and been able to marshal firm evidence that was of significance to families—evidence that was not shared with those families by anybody except the HET before now.
Mark Durkan
First of all, I am not creating a class of good HET reports or bad HET reports. I am not saying that the Secretary of State must commission reports in relation to every single death on the basis of HET reports. My aim is to make good a deficiency in the work of the HET to date: its work counts solely as the private property of families, unless the families themselves choose to publish it. There is no formality in this House, for instance, whereby the Government may make an apology to a family on the back of an HET report. The Government up till now have treated that apology as a private matter, not a matter for the parliamentary record. An apology was duly given by the Ministry of Defence after a family had shared with it an HET report, but we had to go to the bother of an Adjournment debate, which I called, to get that apology voiced on the record. That shows that there is a problem in how HET reports are treated.
This is not just a point that we in the SDLP have come up with. Others have addressed it as well. There are victims groups who say that this is one of the deficiencies in relation to the HET. There is a question mark not only over the quality of the HET’s work, but over what the rest of us are doing with the HET’s work and whether the rest of us are interested in it. In the Haass talks the parties are meant to be addressing what is to be done about the past and what is being done, and it is important to acknowledge that some good work that has been done may not have been valued enough and is not well enough advertised or circulated. The measure is an attempt to improve that.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
When we talk about a level playing field with other parties, and all parties being included in the collusion issue, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a further investigation into the Garda Siochana and the allegations made about collusion there? We talk about apologies. Is it not time that we got a proper apology from the Irish Government and their part in the troubles many years ago?
Mark Durkan
I have no resistance to any inquiries about any allegations of collusion that there might be against Garda Siochana or anybody else. In relation to the point that is often made by the DUP about the possible involvement of members of the Irish Government in arming the Provisional IRA initially, I have no problem with an investigation of that or anything else. I point out that members of the Irish Government were sacked at the time and former Ministers stood trial alongside others, so it is not as though the issue passed without moment at the time.
The Berry papers brought those issues out again, in much the same way as the Pat Finucane Centre was able to find in the national archives in Kew many documents that provide a strong back-light on the murderous machinations of the Glenanne gang. In Irish Government records, including the Berry papers, which were perused by significant elements of the media some years ago, there is also significant back-lighting of what happened in and around the arms trial.
I want to return to the point of new clause 1. It is not to prescribe that there shall be one sweeping narrative in relation to all issues in the past, or to refuse any, but to say that where there have been various investigations or reports, whether by a public inquiry, the HET, the police ombudsman, or any other investigative means—the Ballymurphy families, for example, are talking about having something like the Hillsborough independent panel look at their case—if there were common strands to be brought out in relation to different cases, the Secretary of State could commission a report that would do that.
Naomi Long
I understand the merit in the proposal, but is the HET, for example, the right basis for the kind of reports that the hon. Gentleman seeks? The purpose of the investigation, for example of the HET, is to look at the matter with a view to the prosecution of those guilty of offences. The understanding and the narrative that forms the backdrop to those events are not necessarily the job of the HET, but are a more complex mix. I want to probe whether the hon. Gentleman believes that those are the right bases for this kind of narrative-building report.
Mark Durkan
I believe that they potentially are. If one has been privileged to have a HET report shared with one by a family, one has only to read it to see that it may be pointing less towards any possible prosecution, than bringing out significant information about the background events and circumstances. The first time that many families found out that their loved ones were murdered by the same weapons was when they read the HET reports that dealt with murders by the Glenanne gang. No one ever told them that before. They were never told that as a result of RUC investigations or any other revelations, or comments or observations made by Ministers about the nature or network of crimes or murders. None of that information was ever shared with those families until they received it from the HET, and until the Pat Finucane Centre literally brought them together as victims of the same weapons.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I seek clarification on the issue of the HET inquires. As an elected representative during the last couple of years I have made four, perhaps five, referrals on behalf of individuals to the HET. The HET has replied, but they are confidential, private, individual issues. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they should be made known to everyone, even though the families themselves want them kept secret?
Mark Durkan
I refer the hon. Gentleman to subsection (5):
“No personal information shall be included in the analysis as published without the permission of the person concerned or, if they are dead, of their relatives.”
One of the issues at the moment with the HET—too much of this debate is focusing purely on the HET—is that it is limited in that it cannot make its reports public. Many of us assumed that that was a statutory restriction on the HET, but it turns out that it is not. The clause allows germane facts that can point to the wider pattern and help to fill in the wider narrative in relation to forces, whether paramilitary or anybody else, who carried out murders and series of crimes. Where that wider narrative is brought out it would not be at the expense of publishing any information that is in the HET report that has previously been regarded as private, for whatever reason of sensitivity. But the wider narrative lesson should be able to be drawn out by a wider report.
Again, I make the point that there has been a significant response to the book “Lethal Allies”, including in Armagh and Tyrone. The Glenanne gang carried out its nefarious sectarian murder campaign against innocent Catholics. Remember that only one of the 120 whom it killed had any link whatever with the provisional republican movement. The people it killed were members of my party, the SDLP, people who were in the Gaelic Athletic Association, people who had bought property who were setting up in business. That is why they were targeted. Those who were specifically targeted and shot in their workplace or in their homes, as opposed to those who were more randomly killed by bombs, were all people of the ilk that I have described.
It was not only those forces that were involved in a sectarian campaign in Tyrone and Armagh and other places; so too, I believe, were the IRA and many others. That is the belief of many of the IRA’s victims in those places in those years.
Dr McCrea
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because we are moving into a very sensitive area. There seems to be a hierarchy of victims. Will he tell me why Robert McLernon, at 16 years of age, and Rachel McLernon, at 21 years of age, on the day she was engaged to be married, were targeted by the IRA? Should we not know that? Who is going to tell us that?
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.
Lady Hermon
In the new clause, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Historical Enquiries Team, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and various other inquiries and inquests. Will he kindly take this opportunity to put on the record his genuine appreciation of all the retired police officers, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the armed services who, time beyond number, have willingly and freely given up their time to co-operate with the police ombudsman, the HET and various other inquiries and inquests?
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.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
While I understand the merit of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, is there not a huge danger of such a process creating a free-for-all for lawyers, with ultimately only lawyers benefiting from it?
Mark Durkan
No, there would be no free-for-all for lawyers in my proposal, because it would not add any new form of investigation relating to the past. The new clause basically says that whatever different strands are dealing with complaints about the past, whether it be the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims Remains, the HET or any successor body, the police ombudsman, or any other inquiries or panels—and whatever their work is—this House would receive an annual report showing what had been done in that year. It would also address article 2 compliance, because that is a serious issue that has arisen in relation to the HET, and other matters.
One issue the annual report could address is whether the reports of that year show new findings and put new light on events that were previously the subject of very different accounts in Parliament. We know that Ministers reported very differently to Parliament about a lot of these events, compared with the evidence now available from HET reports and Government papers that have emerged from the archives, thanks to the work of the Pat Finucane Centre and others. The annual report, with the statement from the Secretary of State, could be a parliamentary point of record for any apologies that have been issued by anybody in Government, and not only the British Government. Any apology by any public body or any Government in respect of findings or reports would be recorded, rather than being left as though it is just a matter of private correspondence between a victim’s family and a Government Department, which is the Government’s current position. The Government say that if they issue an apology on the back of something in an HET report or anything else, they do not see it as being up to them to record it or to acknowledge it in Parliament in any way. If the Government are iffy about doing that in every single instance, an annual report that reflected on work on the past and responses to it would provide a way for them to do it.
It would be very important for this House, as its encouragement to the parties in the Haass talks, to say, “Yes, we know that on the issue of the past there is a huge responsibility on the parties to come to an agreement and an understanding on how better to deal with it. More honestly addressing the serious events of Northern Ireland’s past is not the job of the Northern Ireland parties alone; there is a serious and particular role for the British Government and for this House, which held Northern Ireland under direct rule for so many years and heard so many accounts and versions of events that may now have to be addressed differently in the light of what reports find.”
Lady Hermon
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that what he is proposing smacks entirely of a one-sided report, account and interpretation of the past? The vast majority of murders throughout the 30 years of mayhem in Northern Ireland were committed by the IRA. Who, exactly, is going to stand in this House and apologise for the murder by the IRA of innocent victims in their hundreds?
Mark Durkan
Unfortunately, I do not know who will do that. If families have received apologies from the British Government or the Ministry of Defence, there is no reason why they should not be recorded in this House. Remember, many people lost loved ones and saw those deaths misreported and mis-accounted for in this House and in other places, and that is one reason why we need to reflect that. If apologies have been given in response to any reports on or inquiries into the past—whether the HET, the ombudsman or any of the other channels provided for on a non-pre-emptive basis in the new clause—there is no reason why they should not be properly recorded.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way so often. He will be aware of the phrase, “Victors write history.” Is he not in danger of handing the historiography of the troubles to a group that he would not even agree with?
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.
Mr Robathan
Let me first repeat an apology that I am sure you have already received, Madam Deputy Speaker, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is currently on ministerial duty in the United States of America. Let me also echo the condolences and sympathy that have been expressed for the family of Eddie McGrady. I knew him a little, and took part in debates with him. I would say of him, overall, that he was a particularly decent man. I may have disagreed with him on various issues, but he certainly stood up for his constituents, and stood up for what he believed in in Ireland. He was both decent and courteous. I wish that we could say that about every Member of Parliament, but I am not sure that people would.
Let me also say that I deplore the petrol bomb attack on the constituency offices of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who represents the Alliance party. As others have said, such acts have no place in the democratic process. This was a very worrying incident, and I hope very much that we shall not see more such incidents.
I used to take a great deal of interest in Northern Ireland affairs, but this is the first time that I have spoken in a Northern Ireland debate for eight years. I have been otherwise detained elsewhere—and I think that that is more or less the right description. I believe that I made my last speech about Northern Ireland during a debate on what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described in his opening speech as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever brought before the House, namely the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. I dug out my speech the other day, and I stand by every word of it. The Bill was indeed a disgraceful piece of legislation, and—as a result of pressure from all sides—it was rightly dropped by the last Administration.
I understand that the issues raised by new clauses 1 and 3 were considered in Committee, and that the hon. Member for Foyle initiated those discussions as well. I appreciate that his party would like more to be done to address legacy issues, and I sympathise with that to a large extent. Like him and, I think, all Members of Parliament, we want to see a way forward that commands the support of all parts of the community and all parties in Northern Ireland, but it was not evident from the interventions on his speech that there was support for this particular way forward.
Much of the responsibility for dealing with legacy issues is now devolved, and it is right for us to allow the local parties—which are, of course, represented here—to work towards an agreement on dealing with the past. I welcome the initiative that is being taken by the main local political parties in Northern Ireland to address the issue of dealing with the past through the all-party group chaired by Richard Haass. We have heard a certain amount about that today, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) that we must not pre-empt, or in any way undermine, what is being done by Richard Haass. The Government support the efforts that are being made, and hope that progress can be made. As a House and as a nation, we should await the outcome of the talks, and Dr Haass’s report.
A great deal has been said about the Historical Enquiries Team. We should be clear about the fact that its work and the work of the police ombudsman are not the responsibilities of UK Ministers. Those bodies are accountable to the devolved institutions, and a carefully negotiated framework exists in relation to accountability of policing. There are already mechanisms for reporting on the work of the bodies that are the responsibility of the devolved Administration; creating a further mechanism is likely to incur unnecessary expense, and would also duplicate the work of other bodies.
Let me say in relation to new clause 3 that the Secretary of State already reports to Parliament by way of parliamentary questions and the Northern Ireland Office’s annual report regarding the work for which she is responsible. That does not provide for everything that the hon. Member for Foyle wants, but the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee does examine the annual report.
We cannot agree to the removal of the Secretary of State’s powers to exclude certain material from publication when it is in the interests of national security—or some other important public interest, such as the protection of life and safety—for that to be done. The Government therefore cannot support the new clauses, and, although I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Foyle, I ask him to withdraw his motion.
Mark Durkan
A number of points have been made about both new clauses, and I accept the spirit in which many of those points were made. I could readily rebut the detail, but I shall desist from doing so.
Let me take this opportunity of acknowledging the warm tributes that have been paid to Eddie McGrady, with whom I served in the House and whose election campaign I managed in 1987, when he unseated Enoch Powell. He served all his constituents, and indeed the wider community in Northern Ireland, well, and he was clearly held in high honour. He was also a man of much greater humour than his public persona may often have allowed him to express, but he was absolutely dedicated to the sanctity of life and the solidarity of community on a totally inclusive basis. The parity of esteem of which he always spoke was something that he himself clearly enjoyed across the political divide.
Important issues have been raised. I said at the outset that I did not wish to divide the House, or to do anything that could possibly be seen as pre-empting the Haass process. However, I think that the House must face up to its responsibilities in relation to the past, both now and in the future. It is in that spirit that I tabled the new clauses, and it is in that spirit that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Petitions of concern
‘(1) In section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Petitions of concern), omit subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) When a petition of concern is lodged against a measure, proposal or a decision by a Minister, Department or the Executive (“the matter”), the Assembly shall appoint a special committee to examine and report on whether the matter is in conformity with equality and human rights requirements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
(4) Consistent with paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 (Strand 1) of the Belfast Agreement, a committee as provided for under subsection (3) may also be appointed at the request of the Executive Committee, a Northern Ireland Minister or relevant Assembly Committee.
(5) A committee appointed under this section—
(a) shall have the powers to call people and papers to assist in its consideration; and
(b) shall take evidence from the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.
(6) The Assembly shall consider the report of any committee appointed under this section and determine the matter in accordance with the requirements for cross-community support.
(7) Standing Orders shall provide for—
(a) decisions on the size, timescale and terms of reference for such a committee; and
(b) procedure(s) to allow for subsection (8).
(8) In relation to any specific petition of concern or request under subsection (4), the Assembly may decide, with cross-community support, that the procedure in subsections (3) and (5) shall not apply.”.’.—(Mark Durkan.)
This Clause would amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to reflect the terms and intent of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of strand 1 of the Belfast Agreement. It would qualify the exercise of veto powers, via petitions of concern in the Assembly, through the consideration of possible equality or human rights implications.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, clause 6, page 6, line 37, at end add—
‘7B The alteration of the number of members of the Assembly required to express their concern about a matter which is to be voted on by the Assembly, such concern requiring that the vote on that matter shall require cross-community support.
This paragraph does not include the alteration of that number to a number exceeding 30.”.’.
Amendment 4, clause 22, page 16, line 3, at end insert—
‘(1) After subsection (2) of the section 75 (Statutory duty on public authorities) of that Act insert—
(2A) A public authority shall not interpret its obligations under subsection (2) in a way that is incompatible with measures taken on the basis of objective need.”
(1B) In subsection (5) of section 75 of that Act insert ““good relations” shall be interpreted in line with international obligations and, in particular, with regard to—
(a) tackling prejudice, and
(b) promoting understanding.”.’.
This amendment would apply to Northern Ireland, the clarification provided in the Equality Act 2010 to restrict the good relation duty being cited against fulfilling equality obligations based on objective need.
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.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a more cynical interpretation of why those concerned neglected to deal with this at that stage is that the UUP and the SDLP were then the largest parties, and they were hoping that they might be able to use the veto? Perhaps the reason for the concern now about the petition of concern is that the SDLP is not in a position to use it—as was originally intended, which is the reason why the legislation did not reflect what he is now saying that he wants.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman might have some basis for saying that if there was any truth in it, which, of course, there is not, not least because we deliberately set the petition of concern threshold at 30 because at that time we thought there was no chance of a party reaching the 30s. That was one of the reasons why the 30 threshold was there; there were concerns about how freely this could be used and that it might block things up.
The need for the petition of concern to be significant was emphasised not just by the threshold but by the special committee procedure to show whether there was a prima facie case on either equality or human rights grounds. The petition of concern was not to be used just for the convenience of a party that wanted to stop something. The fact is, however, that petitions of concern have been used to veto Bills that addressed the question of dual mandates between local government and the Assembly, which is a completely undue use. A petition of concern was also used to veto any question of a binding or significant vote in relation to censure of a Minister; it was never meant to be used in that sort of way.
The fact of a petition of concern being used, or being threatened to be used, by different parties prevents issues from being tabled. The whole point of the petition of concern was not to stop things being tabled, but to ensure that when they were tabled they were duly frisked and tested in respect of sensitive considerations such as human rights and equality. New clause 2 simply tries to get the Assembly out of the rut it is currently in, where vetoes are used far too often in a way that not only negates outcomes but prevents debate.
Amendment 4 seeks to ensure consistency with what was intended and envisaged in the Good Friday agreement and in the provisions that became section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which provides for equality duties and duties of public bodies in respect of good relations. On a number of occasions in recent years there has been a move to say that the good relations duty could sometimes trump the equality duty, so that a public body might not come through with a measure on equality grounds based on objective need because somebody else might feel it would upset good relations. We have seen that arise in relation to the Irish language, and there have been suggestions of its arising in relation to the provision and siting of social housing as well. The amendment seeks to clarify the balance and relationship between the good relations duty and the equality duty.
Naomi Long
But surely what the amendment does is not clarify the balance between the two, but in fact give one supremacy over the other? The reality is that in a divided society where there are competing rights and tensions in respect of those rights it is essential to strike a balance. Instead of simply giving equality the upper hand on all occasions, we must ensure that equality and good relations are balanced in decision-making processes.
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.
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.
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.
Mark Durkan
I assure the House that I stand fully by both amendments and the case for them, but that will not run to the extent of troubling the House with a Division on them, not least out of respect to other business both on the Bill and on other matters yet to come.
As I have already said, I can refute all the arguments that have been made against both of my new clauses. I can also correct the mistaken reference to the Alliance redesignating to help elect Seamus Mallon as Deputy First Minister. At the time the Alliance redesignated, it was to elect David Trimble and me as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As I understood it, the whole point about Seamus Mallon being deemed not to have resigned was precisely to avoid a vote. I want to correct that in case anybody thinks that I have been economical with the truth as it relates to me. At the time, I made it very clear to the then Secretary of State, John Reid, that I would have preferred an Assembly election than to be elected on that basis and on those terms. That clear view was expressed to both the Secretary of State and to Downing street at the time.
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
Mr Robathan
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 37, leave out “October” and insert “January”.
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.
Mr Robathan
I had forgotten what a vexed issue donations are—perhaps I should have remembered—whether from Michael Brown or one or two Labour donors. I can name them if the House wants. Indeed, we have had the odd one in our own party.