Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) must be heard on matters that pertain directly to his constituents.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I extend my courtesies to the new ministerial team.

Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the concern is to avoid not just the creation of new border posts, but the unnecessary and unhelpful borderism that the separation of north and south—of non-EU and EU—would entail? The new Immigration Minister gave an example of borderism yesterday when he boasted of his pre-Brexit bout of borderism with the HGV levy on cross-border trucks.

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly recognise the various points the hon. Gentleman has made. Border issues are significant both for the movement of people and for goods and services, and that is intrinsic to the overall arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is why I have made a very clear commitment in all my statements to ensuring that we do not return to the arrangements of the past, and that is precisely what will remain a priority for me in my role.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

There is absolute determination on the part of the Governments of the UK and Ireland and the law enforcement agencies of both countries that we should continue to do everything we can to co-operate in countering the terrorist threat and the criminality associated with terrorist and paramilitary groups.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State must recognise how much organised crime—including cross-border crime—is derived from paramilitarism, and how much it uses networks and assets that have been accrued under paramilitary campaigns. Does she therefore agree that any serious effort to eradicate paramilitarism on a whole-community and whole-enforcement basis cannot ignore such criminal enterprises with menaces, which are the vestiges of paramilitarism?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree, and it will be well worth considering the views in the panel’s report on the laws that apply to organised crime in Scotland and the ways of cracking down on this kind of criminality there. It will be worth considering whether we could learn lessons from Scotland and impose statutory changes of that nature in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland Economy

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[David Simpson]

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up Brexit.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

A source close to you.

[David Simpson]

A source very close to me, yes. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim is right: despite all the nonsense that has been talked, the manufacturing sector certainly will continue if we leave the European Union.

According to reports this week, Northern Ireland’s growth is dependent on the retail and service sectors, as they

“continue to report the fastest rates of job creation.”

I have certainly witnessed that in each of the three towns in my constituency. Growth is slow, but small retail businesses—I am not referring to charity shops—are starting to move back on to the high street, which is a good thing.

We may be the smallest region in the UK, but we are powerful on the world stage. Some 30% of the famous London red buses are manufactured in Ballymena by a local firm, Wrightbus. That is of course a big contract in London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) for securing the debate and for acknowledging the role of the real job creators—people who start businesses and take them forward, sometimes through difficult challenges. They create new products or find new applications for products; they find new markets and new customers. That is what creates new jobs, before all of us in politics claim the credit for that. What we have to do is make sure that we give these people the best possible environment in which to do that.

The hon. Gentleman quoted Tom Hall of Allstate. I recall signing up Allstate for investment in Northern Ireland along with Mo Mowlam and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) as far back as 1998. We told Allstate that it would be impressed by the people, the talent and the skills in Northern Ireland, and that it would invest further. I asked it to promise that it would not keep the second wave of investment in Belfast but would come to the north-west instead, and so it did.

Listening to the hon. Members for Upper Bann and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it would have been easy to be lulled into a culture of contentment with all this talk of economic miracles and the economy going well, or, as the Deputy First Minister put it a few weeks ago, the economy being in a “happy place”. The reality is that in my constituency the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count is 10.3%, whereas the Northern Ireland average is 4.6% and the UK average is 2.5%. The 18 to 24-year-old JSA claimant count is 12% in my constituency in the north-west, whereas the Northern Ireland average is 5.8% and the UK average is 2.9%. The disparities are similar in the child poverty rate.

Although the emphasis in the previous programme for government, and from the UK Government, has been on the need to rebalance our economy—the move on corporation tax is one part of that—we also need to rebalance our region. We need greater investment in the west and elsewhere. We cannot just have policies and benefits that concentrate on Belfast.

I have limited time, but will the Minister tell us about some of the opportunities for the next Assembly to work with the UK Government on city deals and enterprise zones? Those opportunities were available to us throughout the whole of the last Parliament, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would give Northern Ireland enterprise zones and city deals if he got proposals from the Executive, but proposals came not until one finally came in 2014 for an enterprise zone in Coleraine. We still have no proposals for the areas that are most mired in high unemployment.

Will any prospective city deal include support for further university expansion? Why could there not be a cross-border dimension? We have made a move on corporation tax, but if we are to learn lessons from the south, we must see that it is not just corporation tax that has underpinned its economic performance. It is also key investment in higher education and skills and in infrastructure. Those two things are missing in the north. In fact, the Northern Ireland Executive have been going the wrong way on higher education, which is no criticism of the outgoing Minister for Employment and Learning, Stephen Farry, who has done a key job on skills and apprenticeships. I take fully on board the point that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made about the apprenticeship levy.

I do not expect an answer today, but will the Minister talk to colleagues here in Whitehall about whether, when we next sit down to serious negotiations about taking Northern Ireland forward economically, some of the money that the Irish Government are having to repay to the UK Government to cover the loan could be earmarked to support north-south funding mechanisms? It could also support British-Irish measures through the British-Irish Council, and it could be used to encourage much more co-operation between the devolved regions, the London Government and the south. Such an identifiable pool of money could be earmarked for some constructive and imaginative investments that would release all our energies and capacities, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout these islands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The CBI Northern Ireland, 81% of the membership of the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce, and the Northern Ireland Independent Retail Trade Association all believe that remaining in the European Union is good for Northern Ireland business and good for the economy. That is why the Government believe we are better off in.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

May I join in the condolences that have been expressed by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, and may I add condolences to the family of Sister Clare Theresa Crockett, the nun from Derry who was tragically killed in the earthquake in Ecuador? Has the Minister heard how many of us are so appreciative of the difference that EU membership has made to the border economy and not just to funding in Northern Ireland under programmes, but to funding models? Has he heard others say that that will be dwarfed by the bounty that we will receive as money is redirected to Northern Ireland instead of Brussels? Does he believe there is a crock of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow?

[Mr Speaker]

A ministerial answer of one sentence would not be disorderly.

EU Referendum: Northern Ireland

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

That was a very helpful intervention, and that story has been articulated to me by farmers, and the farming community and its representatives, including the Ulster Farmers Union. They are concerned about the free movement of products, produce and people across the island of Ireland. The north’s greatest export market is the south of Ireland. It is also here in Britain, and the wider common market of the 27 countries. We all know how long it takes for an export certification to be processed. It can take several years. Just look what has happened in China. We are still awaiting a certificate in respect of Taiwan. As for the export of poultry products to China, that has not yet been resolved. The nonsense being perpetrated by the no campaign should stop, because it is scaremongering to farmers, farming communities, and particularly those whom I represent.

To go back to the Cabinet Office report, I stress that it does not say that either the British or Irish Government would want to impose custom points. It simply says that it would become necessary. It highlights how, outside the European Union, managing the border could quickly fall outside either Government’s control. No matter what the wishes of the two Governments were, the border would become a victim of differing policies between the Common Market and the exited UK.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point, because borderism would become inevitable. We are not free of it at the minute, even within the current EU context, as wedding car businesses in my constituency can testify. Once those pressures or issues arise, border controls and border differences are emphasised, and that has an impact on trade.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for a helpful and informed intervention. His constituency has a clear border with County Donegal, and he articulates a particular fear: our concern that customs posts will immediately be put up, and will carry with them a major impediment to and restrictions on trade and people’s betterment. Far from improving control of our borders, leaving the EU would make it harder for the UK to manage the only land border that it has with the Common Market. That is a risk that we cannot afford to take.

We must remember that the south of Ireland is by far the north’s biggest export market. The latest regional trade statistics produced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, released at the beginning of the month, show that a third of all exports from the north went to the south of Ireland, at a value of more than £2 billion. In the decades before the European Union made an open border possible, the hard border prevented north-south trade developing naturally, to the detriment of all communities in the north. By helping to open up the border, the European Union has enabled businesses to begin building a mature all-island economy that benefits and enriches everyone in the region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, and nor do many in the Ulster Farmers Union whom I have met to discuss the issue. In this modern world our farmers need access to markets and access to consumers. One reason why farmers in the Republic have a higher milk price is the efforts of the Irish Government to forge new export markets for their milk products. That is not about leaving the European Union; it is about helping our farmers, whether in England or Northern Ireland, to access new markets and new consumers. We have to remember that the consumers have to be able to afford the products. It is all very well trying to push products outside the European Union, but how many people in the rest of the world will be able to afford European products? There are a few in developing countries, but the idea that our farmers will get easier access to markets if we leave the European Union is just pie in the sky.

[Mark Durkan]

We have heard a number of interventions this morning, and clearly some people seem to believe that if the UK leaves the EU suddenly all the money that the UK sends into Europe will make its way to Northern Ireland instead, for the benefit of farmers and fishermen there. Does the Minister’s right hon. Friend the Secretary of State share the belief that there is a crock of gold for Northern Ireland at the end of the Brexit rainbow?

[Mr Wallace]

We are all grown-ups, I hope, in this House. We all know the pressures that every Department across Whitehall gets on an annual basis from Treasury Ministers and other Ministers alike. Our farmers, with their direct payments from Europe, are often in a position to resist pressures from other Whitehall Departments. Take the idea, for example, that we would have let previous Labour Secretaries of State responsible for agriculture to get hold of that money en route to farmers. How long would it have lasted? This Government will continue to support our farmers, but I cannot guarantee that that would happen if Members from other parties in this House got into government.

The Government believe that being a member of the European Union makes us safer. Co-operation on security is at the heart of a successful security policy. We all remember the days of wrangling with Irish courts about deportation and bringing people back to the United Kingdom for trial. Not so long ago I recalled someone under licence, and they will be brought back under a European arrest warrant. It was straightforward. There is no more of the long wrangling that often saw people walk free. The co-operation that we have around the table in Europe on security issues creates trust, and at the heart of a good security policy is trust. I believe that remaining part of the European Union will allow us to develop that trust and build on it, and I also believe that we will be stronger. We are part of the European Union, and we are part of NATO, the G8 and the G20. All those organisations—all those unions and groupings—allow the United Kingdom to amplify its voice across the world stage. They allow us not to stand alone on many issues, which is very important.

The hon. Member for South Down mentioned the border. It is a fact that if we vote to leave the European Union, we will be outside the customs union. If we are outside it, the EU will require the remaining member states to make sure that there are safeguards to protect that customs union. That will inevitably be some form of barrier to trade, to small and large businesses in Northern Ireland. I met some small businesses in north Belfast only a few days ago. They effortlessly trade and grow their business across the border, and they effortlessly make sure that they have new markets in the Republic of Ireland. I do not think that the whole border will be shut if we leave, but I certainly believe that there will be extra barriers to trade that we do not need or that are unhelpful.

I will make a final point. People will hear the debate about guaranteeing our borders and sovereignty. It is obviously true that within the European Union we have arrangements with regard to our borders, but let us not forget that we are members of the UN. We have obligations under a succession of treaties—the 1951 Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees, the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, the 1984 UN convention against torture, which prevents us from deporting people to countries where torture or harsh punishment exist, and the 1989 UN convention on the rights of the child. All that means that were we to leave the European Union, we would still be obliged to take into this country a huge range of people under our UN obligations. That is an example of where our sovereignty does not 100% lie. Are we saying that we will then leave the UN? Is that the next thing—“Stop the world, we want to get off”?

We should remember that were we to leave the European Union, our borders would not be as easy for trade as we may like, and they would not be as open to the hundreds of thousands of tourists that come to Northern Ireland every year. Our borders would also not be so easy for our air flights to and from Northern Ireland, so that people can arrive in the south, travel up through for tourism and fly out of Northern Ireland. All that is incredibly important to remember.

I have to say to the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) that I am a Unionist. Many of the reasons for belonging to the United Kingdom are the same as the reasons for belonging to the European Union. I do not say that the reasons are all the same, but the freedom to trade, the shared culture and the removal of barriers are things that, in my heart, make me a Unionist. I do not understand the Democratic Unionist party’s view that by putting in a new border we will somehow guarantee ourselves all those investments and good trade practices that are important, and also the ability to be stronger in Europe, rather than weaker on the outside.

Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) in speaking to our amendment, I want to deal with a few of the points that have been made about this group of clauses on the independent reporting commission.

At the original Stormont House talks in late 2014, the SDLP proposed that the agenda should include paramilitarism and organised crime. It did not take the murders that subsequently happened to tell us that that was still a serious issue that should not be ignored in any serious negotiations. Unfortunately, we were not supported by other parties, who seemed to believe that that would somehow not be a problem. So we are now addressing an issue that other parties chose to ignore. Whenever the murders happened last year, a political crisis was created over issues that parties chose to ignore and then dramatically tried to advertise.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive us if we take his comments as tongue in cheek, given that we were told after the Good Friday agreement in 1998 that these problems were all being dealt with, and the agreement was a comprehensive approach to resolving the issues relating to our conflict in Northern Ireland. We are still dealing with them 18 years later so he should not point the finger at those of us who warned in 1998 that the agreement was deficient in that regard.

[Mark Durkan]

Without getting drawn too far away from the subject of the Bill, none of us pretended that the 1998 agreement would absolutely solve the problems or dissolve any of the paramilitary organisations. We committed to a framework for decommissioning and a number of other changes. We consistently supported the existence of the Independent Monitoring Commission to deal with the questions of ongoing paramilitary activity. In this House, whenever the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), announced that the IMC was being wound up, some of us said, “You are taking away the monitoring commission because Sinn Fein has made a political issue of it, but the issue of paramilitarism has not gone away, and it will come back.” We pointed out that something like the IMC would end up being needed. That is exactly what happened last year.

Some of us have been consistent about recognising where there are problems and that they need to continue to be addressed. We were right about the questions arising when the IMC was wound up with no procedure to deal with ongoing concerns. We were right to say that the issue needed to be addressed in the Stormont House agreement. We were right in the proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has described when we said that we needed an enforcement approach and a whole community approach to secure an end to paramilitarism, as well as all the other changes that were needed to achieve a wholesome society. We were the only parties that advocated such proposals. To an extent, some of the sentiment of that is reflected in the agreement, but in a highly edited, partial and incomplete way, and that is why we have tabled our amendments.

We used to have an Independent Monitoring Commission that reported. Now we have an independent reporting commission. The legislation does not seem able to say “monitor”. The “Fresh Start” agreement refers to the term “monitoring”, but for some reason “monitoring” is not in the Bill. It is as though the legislation has carefully avoided saying anything that the commission will actually do. So we have to look at the “Fresh Start” agreement to see what the commission might actually do. For some reason, it is avoided in the lengthy clauses of the Bill.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said that under the “Fresh Start” agreement the appointments, as well as the one appointment by the British Government and the one by the Irish Government, were to be made by the First and Deputy First Ministers. They were not. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) is correct. The “Fresh Start” agreement said that the Executive shall nominate two members. Therefore, our amendment is consistent with what is in the “Fresh Start” agreement. It says that the appointment should be made, rather than by the First and Deputy First Minister, by the Justice Minister after consultation with the First and Deputy First Minister and in agreement with the Executive. So our amendment is more consistent with the “Fresh Start” agreement than the clause or the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment.

[Tom Elliott]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the “Fresh Start” document says that the Executive are supposed to make the appointment. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will tell us why the legislation did not say that the Executive as opposed to the First and Deputy First Minister were to make the appointment so that there could be a collective decision by the Executive rather than a decision by just two Ministers.

[Mark Durkan]

I fully accept the point, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister have heard it. It would be useful if they addressed it.

It is unfortunate that, every time something is referred to as a role of the Executive it ends up becoming an appointment by the First and Deputy First Minister. With all that can be said about their acting jointly, people know that the habit has been that distinct and separate appointments have been made. There is not the trust in the appointments system. It is very like what Macaulay said about Disraeli and Gladstone. One of them is a charlatan and knows it; the other is a charlatan and doesn’t know it. So people do not have full confidence in the appointments system when something wider is required.

The “Fresh Start” agreement specifies that a number of things will be done by the Executive. The work towards an end of paramilitarism and a lot of other commitments in the “Fresh Start” agreement are put in the name of the Executive. I will be addressing the limitations of that in subsequent amendments and new clauses. We are meant to have an approach that is about all the parties, and all the parties may not be on the Executive. If this is about an all-party approach, we should be creating mechanisms that involve all the parties and we should not pretend that these issues will become the sole responsibility or property of the Executive. Nor should we pretend that the due responsibility of the Executive is discharged simply by the First and Deputy First Minister making appointments. I do not believe that any of that is adequate.

The fact that we needed to be back in Stormont House for talks on the negotiations after the crisis showed it was not sufficient that things were done between the First and Deputy First Minister. We had a crisis and needed all-party talks to bring us back from the brink. The First and Deputy First Minister’s positions and parties had brought us to the brink. Now we seem to be ending up with mechanisms that mean that everything will be done by the First and Deputy First Minister in future. So none of the lessons has been learned. None of the mistakes in the scoping of past negotiations, the scoping of the agenda or the politics of how these things are managed has been learned from.

I know that the amendment has been tabled by the Ulster Unionist party in respect of the role being conferred on the Policing Board. As the party which argued most in the Stormont House negotiations that the key roles in the Historical Investigations Unit should be appointed by the Policing Board, I do not agree with the amendment. After all, the HIU has a role which will involve constabulary powers. If there is a policing element to it, the evidence can be gathered, investigated and referred for prosecution. The role of the reporting commission is quite different. Nobody saw that there would be huge tension—apart from dealing with some of the cases that have already been looked at by the Historical Enquiries Team—between the role of the Chief Constable and the PSNI, and the role of the HIU.

There could, arguably, be difficulties between the reporting commission and the Chief Constable. For example, last year in the aftermath of the two murders, when the Chief Constable made an assessment that shared publicly the police’s working theories in relation to that murder, something of a political crisis was created and a panel was set up to look at those issues, including to say whether it accepted what the Chief Constable had said. It would be odd if the reporting commission, which was in part appointed by the Policing Board, had to look at issues that had been the subject of comment by the Chief Constable. That might be a dilemma for the Policing Board and might raise tensions. I do not believe that the Policing Board appointment answers the question.

[Tom Elliott]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his party was to the fore in proposing that the Policing Board would be instrumental in the appointment of senior members of the HIU? There could easily be a conflict between the HIU director or directors and the police. If the proposed arrangement will work for the HIU, I do not see why it should not work for the reporting commission.

[Mark Durkan]

I do not think the potential conflict would be the same. Obviously, there is the issue that was considered in the talks that some of the cases that had already been dealt with by the HET are currently the subject of PSNI investigation. Whether they will be referred to the HIU or reopened by the ombudsman is a factor in that. The prospect of any potential tension around the Chief Constable’s role was among the reasons why we said that appointment by the Policing Board would be a sensible way forward.

A different issue arises in relation to the role of the reporting commission. If we take the example of the controversies last year, the panel, which was a proto make-do version of the reporting commission, had to examine issues on which the Chief Constable had rightly spoken. Obviously, there was argument and tension about that.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I think the hon. Gentleman was arguing that in future the Executive may not consist of all five parties and there will be parties in Opposition. In that situation, would it not make sense for the commission, whose job is to hold the Executive and the two Governments to account, to have its members appointed by the Assembly and the Parliaments, rather than the Executive?

[Mark Durkan]

There is a wider possibility in that, which may take us further away from what was said in the Stormont House agreement. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to ensure an all-party approach and we will address that problem in future amendments and new clauses, which I will not venture into now.

We believe that the way in which the Government have taken matters forward and the way in which the “Fresh Start” agreement has been framed do not recruit and keep engaged the span of cross-party interest that there should be both in the Assembly and beyond. It mistakenly shorthands too much to the Executive, then translates that as meaning simply First and Deputy First Ministers, with all the limitations and difficulties that that brings.

Furthermore, with the Commission appointed in that way by the Assembly, the process for doing that would become more complicated, and it is complicated enough at the Policing Board level. We think that appointment by the Justice Minister, following consultation—properly to give them their due—with the First and Deputy First Ministers, in agreement with the Executive, would be a way of reflecting some of the wider interests without creating difficulties for the Policing Board, adding to the list of appointments that it makes, and maybe creating tensions with some of its other appointment roles.

It should be recognised that the issues that have been highlighted by both the Ulster Unionist party and ourselves in respect of the appointments are not the only questions that should be asked in respect of the ill-defined role of the reporting commission, and how well that sits with the wider responsibilities that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) referred to. If we are serious about the whole community approach alongside the enforcement approach, there needs to be something much more collective and better defined than the Government have provided for in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I cannot answer for the Irish Government; we have to leave that up to them. Our purpose is to allow the commission to come up with a definition and to prosecute it in the pursuit of making its reports.

It is our clear intention to lay the treaty before Parliament before, or at the same time as, the regulations to be made under clause 4. As will be clear, the Bill sets out the broad framework for the commission. It references the functions in the “Fresh Start” agreement and sets out the key duties to which the commission will be subject.

Further details will be required in secondary legislation to give full effect to the international agreement. Clause 4(2) therefore provides such a power, which may be used to make provision about accounts and audit, for example, or about majority decision making, or other key aspects of the agreement. I recognise that that is a relatively broad power and that the regulations to underpin the new commission are likely to be of interest to hon. Members. The regulations will, therefore, be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 5 makes provision about the conclusion of the commission’s work. The “Fresh Start” agreement provides that the work of the commission will inform future Northern Ireland Executive programme for Government priorities and commitments through to 2021.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister said earlier that the Government would encourage the First and Deputy First Ministers to consult the Executive when they exercise appointments to the commission. Clause 5 states that

“the Secretary of State must consult…the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland…the relevant Minister in the Government of Ireland, and…any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

Will the Minister give a guarantee that all the parties that were meant to be involved in the negotiations that brought about the creation of the commission will be consulted, rather than leaving it to just the First and Deputy First Ministers yet again?

[Mr Wallace]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. We have decided that the First and Deputy First Ministers are the most appropriate officers to make the final decision. It is, of course, up to them, as the leaders of the Executive, to consult all their members, and more broadly, if necessary. The Government decided that the most appropriate officeholders are the First and Deputy First Ministers.

[Mark Durkan]

Clause 5(2)(c) mentions

“any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

so what is wrong with the Minister giving an assurance that that should include other party interests? That is hugely important if we are going to maintain the broad span of support to confront paramilitarism.

[Mr Wallace]

The clue is in the word “appropriate”. We want to set up the commission and make sure that it carries the momentum of public opinion to resolve the issue of paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. Our view is that the best way to do that is to assign to two officeholders—the First and Deputy First Ministers— the authority to nominate two members of the four-member commission. That is the decision the Government have taken.

I have read the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 7. The First and Deputy First Ministers do not operate in isolation in the Executive; they consult and speak to Ministers on a daily basis. That may not be his experience, but it has certainly been mine since I was appointed. I want to place on the record my admiration for the current Justice Minister, David Ford, and what he has done over the past few years, and I am sad that he has said that he will not continue in that role. He is incredibly well respected in the Executive, and it is our view that the First and Deputy First Ministers do speak to him and regularly consult him. Perhaps they do not do so as much as the hon. Gentleman might like, but they would be unwise to not consult that office in any future debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Before I move on, I refer hon. Members again to the word “appropriate”. The winding up of the commission is some years hence. What the commission looks like, how it behaves and the importance that is attached to it at the time of winding up will dictate the most appropriate people, office holders and agencies to consult in that winding up. I do not intend to restrict the Government to commitments about specific individuals other than those set out in the subsection about whom we must consult. It is clear that we would consult the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the relevant Minister in the Government of Ireland, because of the nature of the international treaty with the Irish Government. Indeed, the leaders of the Executive in Northern Ireland, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, would have to be involved, given that they are involved in the set-up of the body.

However, when it comes to what is appropriate at the time, I do not think I should hold to hostage a future Government, a future Minister or anybody else on something that may or may not happen in five, six, seven, 10 or however many years’ time. That is why the Bill states quite clearly: as “appropriate”. If I were winding up the commission right now, I would consult a range of stakeholders, including the Justice Minister, but I am not going to prescribe in legislation individual people whom it may not be appropriate to consult in a few years’ time.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Wallace]

I want to move on. We have fought a bit, and I know that hon. Members are keen to get on to the next group of amendments. Clause 5 provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations to wind up the commission, as I have said. Before making such regulations, we will confer with all the stakeholders. The clause provides that regulations to wind up the commission may amend, repeal or revoke an enactment. Similar provision was included in the Act that founded the IMC, the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003, which granted the Secretary of State the power to provide, by order, that key provisions of that Act would cease to have effect. That power was exercised in 2011, effectively winding up the IMC. The clause also provides that such regulations may confer functions on the Secretary of State or any other person, and may make provision about the destruction of information or records held by the commission.

The new independent reporting commission will fulfil an important role in tackling paramilitary activity, in furtherance of the Government’s commitment to challenging all paramilitary activity and associated criminality. I hope that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will withdraw the amendment.

[Tom Elliott]

It is quite clear that neither the Government nor other parties support amendment 1, so it would be difficult for us to win a vote on it. I am disappointed that none of the parties has dealt with the implications of having a more independent appointment process, and moving away from the direct political appointment process. We are where we are with the Bill, however, and the UUP broadly supports it. We would like to have seen some changes, but by and large we want the process to move on.

[Mark Durkan]

Obviously, my hon. Friends and I believe that amendment 7 takes forward the terms of the agreement in a better spirit than does clause 1, but we do not want to press the point to a Division. I want to put it on the record that that does not mean that we are content with the proposals. Equally, we think there are some questions about the other clauses in the group, which the Government should continue to address. In his response to our points about the limitations of clause 5, the Minister did not reinforce the sort of encouragement that he has said the Government want to give the First Minister and Deputy First Minister about consultation. If the Minister had been more forthcoming, we might have believed in the worth of his encouragement to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. On that basis, we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.

[Tom Elliott]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Exercise of functions

Amendment made: 3, page 2, line 17, leave out “or Ireland”.—(Mr Wallace.)

This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s duty to give guidance about the exercise of the Commission’s functions in relation to disclosures of information which might prejudice national security. As amended, the duty will cover only the national security interests of the United Kingdom.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Extension of period for appointment of Ministers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

We support amendment 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). There is much merit in what she says. When we ask Members of a legislature to give an undertaking that they will behave in a certain way and abide by certain principles, surely there should be some sanction when they breach those principles and their undertaking. We are not asking hon. Members—neither is the hon. Lady—to prescribe what the sanctions should be. We merely want to ensure, as is our duty as the sovereign Parliament, that the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly reflect the need for such sanctions. It is our duty to legislate for this element of the Stormont agreement, and we believe that what the hon. Lady has proposed is sensible and prudent. This is a question of not just the politics of all this, but public confidence in the Northern Ireland Assembly, its operation and those who are elected to it.

We talk about a fresh start. We have Assembly elections on 5 May. The Members who will be elected to the Assembly for the first time after that election will be required to make this undertaking. I think that that is the appropriate moment when the Assembly should be saying that we can have no more of a situation in which some people may have been ambivalent in their attitude towards paramilitarism in the past. Everyone has to be very clear about where they stand and it is important to have the undertaking. It is also important, for public confidence and for the accountability of our public representatives, to have a sanction. It is for the Assembly to prescribe that sanction, but it is for this House to ensure that the requirement for that is in Standing Orders. We will support the hon. Lady’s amendment.

[Mark Durkan]

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) said, the SDLP has tabled several amendments on this issue. I take on board what the Minister said in an attempt to give a “prebuttal” of our amendments, and I will come on to amendment 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), when I speak to clause 8.

We have tabled amendments 8 to 12 to clause 7. The Minister tried to say there would be no tension in interpretation between different parts of the proposed pledge of office. Proposed new sub-paragraphs (cf) and (cg) of schedule 4 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998—

“to work collectively with the other members of the Executive Committee to achieve a society free of paramilitarism”

and

“to challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality”—

could well find themselves in tension with another Minister’s understanding of proposed new sub-paragraph (cj), which is to

“support those who are determined to make the transition away from paramilitarism.”

My hon. Friend the Member for South Down described the situation in which she found herself. She tried, as stated in proposed sub-paragraph (cf), to

“work collectively with other members of the Executive…to achieve a society free of paramilitarism”,

and she was told at that time, “No, it’s in your Department. You do your own thing. You make that decision.” She then acted on the basis of, as in proposed sub-paragraph (cg), challenging

“all paramilitary activity and associated criminality”

only to find herself undermined by other members of the Executive, who said that they were actually discharging the requirement of proposed sub-paragraph (cj) as supporting

“those who are determined to make the transition away from paramilitarism”.

That issue ended up in the courts, so there is already proven experience of exactly the contradictions and tensions that can exist between these things when they are different bullet points that can be quoted separately. This is a recipe for confusion, nonsense and obfuscation.

We also need to recognise that people will interpret various parts of the pledge differently. Will the Minister tell us whether denying something as paramilitary activity breaches the line in the pledge to

“challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality”?

When someone turns around and says, “Oh no, so and so is not engaged in paramilitary activity or associated criminality; they are a good republican,” does that mean they are in breach of proposed sub-paragraph (cg)? Is that a failure to challenge? Is denial a failure to challenge, or can denial exist alongside the commitment to challenge all paramilitary activity, because someone can say that as paramilitary activity and associated criminality is not defined by anybody else, it is what anybody wants to define it to be? This touches on a point made earlier by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) on the earlier group.

Clause 7 is wide open for misinterpretation and misapplication, which will lead to people being scandalised. It will not avoid us being in exactly the sort of crisis situation we had last year. In the aftermath of a horrible crime and comments that the Chief Constable could not avoid making, we then had political difficulties. The terms of the pledge of office and the undertaking are meant to avoid our being back in that situation, but they will clearly fail to do so. That is why we have tabled our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, where Standing Orders set standards, the Assembly commissioner has something to work on, so if a complaint is made about whether someone has breached the pledge, there is at least a basis on which an investigation can take place?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I fully accept that, and the clause says that Standing Orders will lay down provision on how the undertaking is made. That is why it was nonsensical of the Minister to argue that we should not set things down in the Assembly’s Standing Orders, when that is precisely what the clause will do. The hon. Member for East Antrim seems to assume that the Assembly Commissioner for Standards would deal with the complaint, so perhaps he sees merit in our amendment that would ensure that someone could receive, consider and assess a complaint. Certainly, the more that those standards are explicit either in the Bill or in Standing Orders, the better; that is fine.

Of course the Assembly Commissioner for Standards does, among other things, address standards of public life. That is one reason why we have tabled amendment 15, to make it clear that the precepts and commitments in the undertaking would in effect be read alongside the Nolan principles, as part of the general standards of public life in Northern Ireland, so that MPs and councillors would be held to that standard. Let us remember that the commissioner deals with those issues separately and that we do not want to create inconsistencies where parties face allegations that their members said one thing at a council meeting and did something else as MLAs and MPs. We would then get into all sorts of confusion about who is amenable to what standards. Let us create consistency and clarity of standards.

In previous debates, Members have raised issues about what councillors from my party have done in different instances, and we have raised instances about what other people have said or done, or who they have consorted with in other situations. This is about trying to get us all beyond that and trying to ensure that everyone in all parties knows what standards are required of them and then adheres to those standards. That is why we have tabled that series of amendments to make good serious deficiencies.

The other rich argument that came from the Minister was that he said that there should be no question of our trying to deal with breaches either of the undertaking or the pledge. In one instance, he said that, after all, the Assembly has the power to censure Ministers; but of course any attempt to censure Ministers on any grounds in the Assembly so far has ended up being vetoed under the petition of concern. He therefore points us to an alternative that is something of a dead end.

If we are serious about trying to resolve these issues and about trying to ensure that no untoward incident triggers the sort of crisis that had the institutions teetering on the brink, as they were in the later part of last year, we need to do better than the Bill, and the Minister needs to do better than come up with humbug, shallow arguments about the degree of consensus about the “Fresh Start” agreement, when it is already clear, even from what has been said from these Benches, that everyone knows that that is very limited.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I will try to be as quick as possible because we are trying to get through a lot. As a party, we fully support trying to move the Stormont House agreement forward and we support the principles in the Bill, and we totally abhor the paramilitaries, so we know where we are trying to go; but although we want to get there as quickly as possible, we have rushed this too quickly. We have two major problems that run through the amendment. The one that we have discussed at great length is the lack of sanctions, and the other is the lack of a definition of “paramilitaries”.

To answer the question that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked about other paramilitaries worldwide, when we go to the Falls Road, look at a wall there and see Basque and Colombian terrorists, Palestinians and others all being fêted, we realise that this is larger than the sovereignty of this Parliament, and that this Parliament needs to use its sovereignty to do its best. We need to look at those matters.

--- Later in debate ---

Draft Budgets

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to move amendment 18, page 5, line 42, at end insert—

‘( ) Statements laid before the Assembly under this section must include information on—

(a) how the total figures in the statement have been calculated,

(b) the application of any funding formula used by Her Majesty’s Government in determining the amount of UK funding for that year as notified to the Minister by the Secretary of State,

(c) the extent to which Her Majesty’s Government’s spending plans, on which the funding formula is based, have been informed or affected by statutory requirements or obligations, including specific clarification on—

(i) the consequential budgetary effects of any primary legislation resulting from Bills brought before the House of Commons after 22 October 2015, which related exclusively (in whole or in part) to either England and Wales, on matters within the devolved competence of any or all of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the. National Assembly for Wales, with indications on how these have been factored into the funding formula.

(ii) any Regulations or other secondary legislation laid before the House of Commons after 22 October 2015, which related exclusively to either England or England and Wales, on matters within the devolved competence of any or all of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, with indications on how these have been factored into the funding formula .

(d) the ring-fencing of funding by Treasury for bespoke purposes,

(e) UK wide or non-devolved funding measures for which services, enterprises or persons in Northern Ireland may be eligible, and

(f) the impact of any relevant implications for Northern Ireland arising from the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

( ) The Minister of Finance and Personnel must lay before the Assembly further timely statements providing additional information on the effect on funding for the Northern Ireland Assembly‘s budget of—

(a) other spending decisions or announcements by the Treasury or the Secretary of State which might have implications for the devolved spending remit by either adding to or subtracting from previously announced or approved plans,

(b) the ring-fencing of funding by Treasury for bespoke purposes,

(c) any legislative changes affecting the totals of spending by or on behalf of the UK Government and

(d) UK-wide or non-devolved funding measures for which services, enterprises or persons in Northern Ireland may be eligible.”

This amendment requires transparency in statements laid with the budget, to show how figures were calculated, the application of the Barnett formula and the consequences of legislative changes made where EVEL applied; and requires additional statements on the consequences for Northern Ireland of other legislation and spending decisions.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Edward Leigh)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Before I call Mr Durkan, I should say that these proceedings have to finish by 3.45. It is of course up to Members how they progress, but we do not have a great deal of time. Short speeches would be appreciated.

[Mark Durkan]

The Government have included clause 9 in the Bill in the name of transparency. I am certainly all for transparency in Budgets, be it here or in the Assembly, and I say that as a former Minister of Finance and Personnel in the Assembly.

Amendment 18 would make the transparency more articulate when the Minister of Finance lays a new statement before the Assembly to reflect the sum allocated to the Executive under the Barnett formula. It should not be just about a figure; it should explain how the figure was reached and the formula that was used to arrive at it.

The amendment is also about making good concerns expressed by parties not just in Northern Ireland but in other devolved areas that legislation passed in this House that conditions the overall plans in the Budget has consequential impacts on the Barnett formula. The Government deny that that is so. Many of us in the devolved parties believe that it is so. The best way of knowing is exactly by having the sort of transparency that amendment 18 would provide.

The transparency is also about avoiding the confusion around Budget announcements. Sometimes the Chancellor will talk about money that is available to Northern Ireland going directly to the Executive under the Barnett formula. Other times money will come from UK-wide funds or it is challenge funds that Northern Ireland is eligible for. Other money is also allocated to Northern Ireland on a purely ring-fenced basis. Often there is confusion about the different sums. Hon. Members are confused when we ask questions during Budget procedures. Members of the Assembly are confused and of course, the public, whose money we are talking about, are completely confused. So if there are to be benefits to transparency, let us make sure that the transparency is complete and articulate. That is what amendment 18 is about.

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 9 delivers the commitment, set out in the “Fresh Start” agreement, that the Government would legislate to promote increased transparency in the setting of Executive budgets. The clause amends section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It requires the Northern Ireland Finance Minister to lay a statement in the Assembly specifying the amount of UK Government funding available for the financial year, as calculated by the Treasury and notified by the Secretary of State. The Finance Minister’s statement must be laid at least 14 days in advance of the introduction of a draft Executive budget.

Upon laying the draft budget, the clause also requires that the Finance Minister issues a further statement showing that the amount of Government funding required by the draft budget does not exceed that specified by the Secretary of State. The clause also makes provision for a similar process to be followed if there is any change in the level of Government funding provided to the Executive. If this occurs, the Secretary of State can notify the Finance Minister of the change in funding. Within four months, the Finance Minister must inform the Assembly of this notification and specify the revisions to expenditure proposals required as a result of the Secretary of State’s notification. In providing for greater transparency around Executive finances, this clause will encourage affordable and sustainable budgets going forward.

I do have some sympathy with the aim of amendment 18, which is to bring about further transparency in the budgetary process—that is what I think clause 9 already achieves. I understand there to be two main purposes behind the amendment to the provisions in the Bill which deal with the draft Budgets presented to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

To deal with subsections (a) and (b) in the amendment, the inner workings of the Barnett formula are sometimes unfairly characterised as opaque. In fact all of the information which underlies the calculations and therefore the calculation of the block grant is set out in the Treasury publication known as the “Statement of Funding Policy”.

As will once again be evident when the Chancellor presents his Budget next week, the Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland relating to funding decisions taken by the Treasury will be communicated to the Northern Ireland Executive almost instantly upon the Chancellor taking his seat. It is the intention behind the provisions in this Bill to make it possible for Assembly Members—and parliamentarians in this House who take an interest— to more easily work out what is going on under the surface to deliver the Executive’s budgetary allocations from the Treasury. I want to reassure hon. Members that the Northern Ireland Office is working closely with the Treasury and the relevant Northern Ireland Departments to determine the format of the new statement that the Finance Minister will be obliged to lay in the Assembly. The statement will necessarily include information on the application of the Barnett formula and its outcomes.

We do not believe the provisions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment will achieve the aims intended, or that they are necessary. In fact, a statement which simply said that “the amount of UK funding included in this statement was calculated by the Treasury with reference to the statement of funding policy” would be technically compliant with the amendment. I do not believe that that is the intent. I ask hon. Members to take it that we will ensure that the statements, when made, are more informative on a voluntary basis than such legislation would compel them to be.

Paragraph (c) of the amendment is of a rather different character, and the Government cannot accept the logic behind it. Indeed, matters related to this subject were debated at some length when the House considered the proposals for English votes for English laws. It is not possible to calculate changes to the block grants on a Bill-by-Bill basis.

The block grant allocations to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly are calculated at spending reviews and adjusted following decisions taken at fiscal events such as Budgets or autumn statements on overall Whitehall departmental budgets. Approval from Parliament to pay funds into the respective devolved Consolidated Funds is granted through the Supply estimates process—itself not subject to EVEL.

Even when a Bill’s impact assessment identifies extra spending or savings, implicitly or explicitly through a money resolution, in many cases this decision may not impact on the size of the block grant at all. So the intent which I understand to be behind the amendment would have no practical effect. The relevant part of the Finance Minister’s statement would say, every time he or she made it, that no effects of the type specified in the legislation has been identified.

In relation to paragraph (d) of the amendment, there is no reason why the statement to be made by the Finance Minister should not clarify any elements of ring-fenced funding being made available to the Executive. However, given the reservations that I explained earlier about the need to prescribe every aspect in legislation, I ask again that hon. Members accept that we will work closely with the Finance Minister to ensure that sufficient detail is made available to permit proper scrutiny and understanding of the various funding sources available to the Executive.

On paragraphs (e) and (f) of the amendment, I am afraid that we are unclear precisely what is intended by the proposed provisions. The Executive’s block grant does not generally include non-devolved elements of funding, and the charter for budget responsibility sets out obligations for the UK Government, not for the Northern Ireland Executive.

Finally, much of what is provided for in the final proposed subsection, which would require the Finance Minister to lay “further timely statements”, is already achieved by the existing provisions. New subsection 64(1C) to (1E) will compel the Finance Minister to lay new statements to the Assembly under certain circumstances if notified of changes to the level of UK funding available. The new statements will not, however, be any more able to deal with the questions of changes provoked by legislative provision at Westminster than as explained previously in relation to English votes for English laws.

I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendment.

I beg to move that clause 9 stand part of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

I am not persuaded by any of the Minister’s arguments in respect of the quality of the amendment, but I can assure him that I will not press it to a Division.

The Minister said he was not sure that paragraphs (e) and (f) were needed. Paragraph (e) relates to the Chancellor’s own statement. Often there is confusion about whether the money made available to Northern Ireland is in the Northern Ireland budget or not. The aim was to ensure greater clarity for Members in this House, Members of the Assembly and the public.

Paragraph (f) refers to

“the impact of any relevant implications for Northern Ireland arising from the Charter for Budget Responsibility.”

The charter for budget responsibility is becoming increasingly important. Like other measures, it was probably bubble-wrapped as a neutral budgetary tool originally, but neutral budgetary tools end up being cuts weapons in the hands of the Treasury. The aim of the amendment was to ensure that that is understood. Let us remember that the welfare cap is part of the charter for budget responsibility. We want to ensure three-dimensional transparency in relation to budgetary matters.

I am glad that there are some aspects of the amendment the Minister would want to see reflected in the further outworkings of clause 9 and that he feels confident they will be. I do not share that confidence, but I will not tax the House with a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 11, page 6, line 25, leave out “section 10” and insert “sections 10, (Victims and survivors), (Election of the First Minister)”

This amendment provides for NC1 and NC2 to come into force on the day on which this Bill is passed.

Clause 11 stand part.

New clause 1—Victims and survivors—

In Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, at the end insert—

“(3) In this Order references to victim and survivor shall not include an individual appearing to the Commission to be any of the following—

(a) someone who is or has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of their undertaking a criminal act in a conflict related incident;

(b) someone who was in whole or in part responsible for an unlawful conflict related incident if that person took part in all or any of the planning or execution of that unlawful act.””

This new clause provides that persons injured as a result of criminal acts in conflict related incidents cannot be treated as victims or survivors if they were themselves responsible for those criminal acts.

New clause 2—Election of the First Minister—

‘(1) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit sections 16A (appointment of First Minister, deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland Ministers following Assembly election, 16B (vacancies in the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister) and 16C (sections 16A and 16B: supplementary).

(3) Before section 17 (Ministerial offices) insert—

“A17 First Minister and deputy First Minister

(1) Each Assembly shall, within a period of two weeks beginning with its first meeting, elect from among its members the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

(2) Each candidate for either office must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.

(3) Two candidates standing jointly shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of a majority of the members voting in the election, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting.

(4) The First Minister and deputy First Minister—

(a) shall not take up office until each of them has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office; and

(b) subject to the provisions of this Part, shall hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Minister and deputy First Minister.

(5) The holder of the office of First Minister or deputy First Minister may by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer designate a Northern Ireland Minister to exercise the functions of that office—

(a) during any absence or incapacity of the holder; or

(b) during any vacancy in that office arising otherwise than under subsection (7)(a);

but a person shall not have power to act by virtue of paragraph (a) for a continuous period exceeding six weeks.

(6) The First Minister or the deputy First Minister—

(a) may at any time resign by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer; and

(b) shall cease to hold office if he or she ceases to be a member of the Assembly otherwise than by virtue of a dissolution.

(7) If either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister ceases to hold office at any time, whether by resignation or otherwise, the other—

(a) shall also cease to hold office at that time; but

(b) may continue to exercise the functions of his or her office until the election required by subsection (8).

(8) Where the offices of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister become vacant at any time an election shall be held under this section to fill the vacancies within a period of six weeks beginning with that time.

(9) Standing orders may make provision with respect to the holding of elections under this section.

(10) In this Act “the pledge of office” means the pledge of office which, together with the code of conduct to which it refers, is set out in Annex A to Strand One of the Belfast Agreement (the text of which Annex is reproduced in Schedule 4).””

This new clause provides for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to be elected jointly by the whole Assembly, provided that the joint candidates for those posts also have a majority among both the designated Nationalists and the designated Unionists voting in the election.

New clause 3—Appointment of First Ministers—

In Section 16A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Appointment of First Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers following Assembly election)—

(a) subsections (4) to (7) and (9) shall cease to have effect,

(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

“(4) Each candidate for the joint office of First Ministers must stand for election jointly with a candidate for the other office.

(5) Two candidates standing jointly shall not be elected to the two offices without the support of a majority of the members voting in the election, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting.

(6) The First Ministers—

(a) shall not take up office until each of them has affirmed the terms of the pledge of office before the Assembly; and

(b) subject to the provisions of this Part, shall hold office until the conclusion of the next election for First Ministers.

(c) in subsection (3)(b) the reference to subsections (4) to (7) shall be replaced by a reference to subsections (4) to (6).””

This new clause provides for the First Ministers to be elected jointly by the whole Assembly, provided that the joint candidates for those posts also have a majority among both the designated Nationalists and the designated Unionists voting in the election, rather than appointed by the nominating officers of the largest political parties of the largest and second largest political designations. This would revert to provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

New clause 4—Implementation and Reconciliation Group—

‘(1) An Implementation and Reconciliation Group will be established to oversee progress on, and adherence to, commitments in the Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan and other relevant agreements.

(2) The Implementation and Reconciliation Group, serving as a forum of joint purpose for reconciliation and normalisation involving Assembly parties and both governments, may receive and make reports and offer advice and recommendations.

(3) The Implementation and Reconciliation Group will have eleven members, including a chair.

(4) Publicly elected representatives will not be eligible for appointment as members of the Implementation and Reconciliation Group.

(5) The chair of the Implementation and Reconciliation Group must be a person of independent and international standing, nominated jointly by the First Ministers.

(6) The other appointments to the Implementation and Reconciliation Group will comprise eight members nominated to reflect the party proportions among the elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, one member nominated by the Secretary of State and one nominated by the Government of Ireland.”

This new clause would establish a group comprising of nominees of Assembly parties, whether represented in the Executive or not, and nominees of both governments to appraise progress on agreed objectives and plans in pursuit of reconciliation and normalisation.

New clause 5—Equality duty—

‘(1) Section 75 (statutory duty on public authorities) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) between those who are victims and survivors of the conflict and those who are not; and

(f) between those who have been members of Her Majesty’s armed forces and those who are not.”

(3) After subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) A person is excluded from any benefit arising from this Act by virtue of (1)(e) if that person has been convicted of a serious criminal conviction.”

(4) In subsection (5), insert at the appropriate places—

“serious criminal conviction” means a conviction, whether the person was convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, for an offence for which—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment of five years or more was imposed,

(b) a sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed;

“victim and survivor of the conflict” is defined as—

(a) any person who has suffered harm caused by an act related to the conflict in Northern Ireland, for which they are not wholly or partly responsible, that is in violation of the criminal law,

(b) any person who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for a person as outlined in paragraph (a), where the harm suffered is a physical or psychological injury.”

This new clause provides for a change to section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to add to the list of exemptions victims and survivors of the conflict and members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. It also provides a definition of victims and survivors of the conflict.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Following the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), I want to make it clear that my party has not set out to oppose the Bill, but in the talks we worked for a better and fuller agreement than we have ended up with in the “Fresh Start” agreement. We also wanted one that was more competent and more cogent, and we feel similarly in terms of the legislation.

In opening Third Reading, the Secretary of State talked about the purposes of the pledge and the undertaking and said they were unequivocal commitments, but contrary to what she said, the debate on the amendments showed that the pledge and the undertaking are actually going to prove equivocal, ineffective and inert. So they will not even be fit for the purpose for which they have been offered, and that is bad legislation on our part. We regret the fact that Ministers remain tied to the idea that the terms of the “Fresh Start” agreement are themselves somehow adequate when it comes to legislation. The fact is that Ministers are pretending that the tyre is only flat at the bottom when they try to say that this is sufficient. The fact is that there are clear difficulties; there are clear gaps. This will not be fit to meet any of the bumps and challenges that we are going to meet in the road ahead, and we can point to experience to prove that.

On the new clauses that could not be fully debated, just as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has addressed new clause 5, which his party tabled, to answer some of what the Minister said, I want to make it clear that our aim was never to pre-empt the legislation that is necessary in relation to the past. That is why we would not have supported any amendment on the definition of victims or anything else.

On trying to make provision to establish an implementation and reconciliation group, our new clause did not venture into any of the possible roles that that group might have in respect of the past. It did not trespass on any of the understandings or discussions so far, but it tried to offer what we offered in the talks, consistent with our advocacy of a whole-community approach to achieving a wholesome society and of having a tied-in approach by all the parties to taking responsibility for ending paramilitarism and overcoming sectarianism and for moving forward on flags, emblems and all those other issues that the agreement is meant to cover but that are not properly carried forward, unless people think that they are all just stuck in a sin bin to be parked at the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

One of the inadequacies of the latest version of the Stormont agreement is that too many of the issues that should have been the subject of cross-party approaches and commitments now end up named as Executive approaches and commitments at precisely a time when we are possibly looking at fewer parties being in the Executive. So the effort was made to get a cross-party agreement, but we end up with something that is expressed in the language of the Executive. We do not want a situation where parties not in the Executive in future can disown their leadership responsibilities on these key issues and somehow make a prosecution case against the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or the parties that occupy that office for the failure to deliver on principles and precepts to which we were all meant to be setting our hand in the Stormont House talks and, indeed, the Haass talks before then.

Some of us have tried to offer broader bandwidth to the implementation and reconciliation group because we want a bigger, better, fuller and more meaningful agreement. We really do fear that some of the parties that support the limited terms of the agreement will be the very people who complain about its inadequacy, as we have heard today. More has been said on some of the issues today than I heard said in our negotiations during the weeks and weeks at Stormont House. It is really is a bit much when parties use this place to table amendments to try to show their difference but condemn the rest of us whenever we are consistent with our arguments in the talks. We are being absolutely consistent with those arguments in our amendments today, and in telling the Government to listen to everything that they have heard in the debate and everything that they will hear beyond it and to try to ensure that we have something that is broader, more sufficient and fit for purpose.

Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, which I was about to come on to. Sadly, I am not able to give her a date for the presentation of that proposed legislation, but, as I will go into, I am determined to work as hard as I possibly can to build the consensus necessary to enable us to introduce it. I agree with her: it is very important that we press ahead.

I must put on record my gratitude for the co-operation of Her Majesty’s Opposition in agreeing to a somewhat faster than usual passage of the Bill through the House. This should enable measures relating to the pledge of office, the undertaking and the extension of the time available for ministerial appointments to be in place in time for the new Assembly when it meets in May. It will enable the new independent reporting commission to be established as soon as possible.

I am very conscious, returning to the point made by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), that some important elements of the Stormont House agreement are not, sadly, in the Bill we are discussing today.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Given that the welfare reform legislation was microwaved through here and that this Bill will be fast-tracked, can the Secretary of State give an undertaking that the legacy Bill will not be fast-tracked and that her commitment to building consensus will extend to proper consideration for victims and the wider public interest, and not just be something cobbled up between parties?

[Mrs Villiers]

I need to reflect on that, but I definitely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the legacy Bill will be in a very different category from the other two pieces of legislation—the Bill today and the welfare legislation. In those circumstances, we should do everything possible to make sure that it has an ordinary timetable. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not give an absolute undertaking on that for today’s purposes, but if we get to the stage of being able to present that Bill to Parliament, it is highly likely that we will want to proceed with it on the basis of an ordinary timetable rather than an expedited one, given the sensitivity of the issues.

As I set out in my speech in Belfast on 11 February, the Government are and remain committed to establishing these legacy bodies. We have a manifesto commitment to do so. We will continue our efforts to build the consensus needed to allow us to present legislation to this House. We have made more progress than any of our predecessors in getting close to achieving an agreed way forward on the past. We are now closer than ever, I think, to resolving the main outstanding problems standing in the way of getting these new bodies set up and operating.

I shall continue to engage with the political parties in Northern Ireland, with victims and survivors and with those who represent them, and I am particularly grateful for the input and work of the Commission for Victims and Survivors in trying to facilitate this process and for working hard to try, with me, to build consensus for the new bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I join my right hon. and hon. Friends and colleagues in acknowledging the presence of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who is diligent as the Chair of the Select Committee. He has suffered a close personal loss in the untimely death of Mark Calway and he has the sympathy of all of us. I also acknowledge the message of sympathy from my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), which I will pass on to my sister.

This Bill takes forward aspects of what has been called the fresh start agreement. I said at the time that an undue amount of political Febreze had been attached to that particular agreement, because it was not as widely agreed as the photograph on the front of Library briefing paper for this Bill would suggest. It implies that all the parties were agreed, but we and the Alliance party have made it clear that we see most of the agreement as being between Sinn Féin, the Democratic Unionist party and the British and Irish Governments.

That does not mean that the rest of us did not make significant contributions to the discussions. My hon. Friend is right to point out that, while other parties said a lot in front of the cameras about how the issue of paramilitarism had to be brought to a head, mine was the only party to make substantive contributions, on paper, on how to progress. We suggested a whole enforcement approach, because many parties and people believed that a blind eye was being turned to different levels of criminal activity and that bye-balls were being given to particular people. There was a feeling that the Governments were happy to allow some crime to continue, essentially on the basis that it related to personal assets. Even if those assets and criminal activities derived from former paramilitary activities and associations, they were somehow deemed not to be political any more.

When we asked the relevant authorities about those assets and activities in the past, we were told that they were being treated as personal and family issues, not as political or organisational matters. Many parties have raised that issue and it has been discussed in previous debates in this House, including by some hon. Members sitting behind me. It relates to fuel laundering, various aspects of smuggling and, indeed, environmental crime, which involves significant quantities of illegal and hazardous waste. Clearly, there are vestiges of former paramilitary associations and a hangover or nexus of certain paramilitary groups or people who were formerly associated with such groups.

Although we advocated a whole enforcement approach, I acknowledge that both Governments were adamant in the negotiations that no blind eye was being turned and that all the relevant agencies, both individually and collectively, were pursuing everything possible. The Governments accepted, however, that perhaps there needed to be even more visibility and that they needed to be more vocal. That is why the commitments emphasise the role of the cross-border taskforce and similar efforts.

We also advocated a whole community approach, because that is what is needed if the north is going to achieve a wholesome society free of all the abnormalities of paramilitary traces and the other divisions that are a hangover of the past. In fact, our paper said:

“Political parties ought to be showing coherent and consistent shared standards which recognise and repudiate nefarious paramilitary interests and involvements. This should reflect a shared approach which is about rooting out paramilitarism and its trace activities, not just singling out particular groups or given parties.

Parties should unite in adhering to a whole-community approach to achieving a wholesome community free of sectarianism, communal division and vicious vestiges of ongoing paramilitarism. A whole community approach should entail more than challenging paramilitary practices or presences in our own constituency or highlighting them in someone else’s. It should mean that we all see pernicious paramilitary activity in any corner of the north as an affront to the wholesome democratic society we should want as this generation’s legacy to the next.

Deep cleansing the spectrum of residual orbits and habits of paramilitarism should be a key dimension in any programme for cohesion, sharing and integration in a healthily united community.

The converse is also pertinent. We cannot eradicate the recurrence of, or recourse to, paramilitarism in given settings without overcoming divisions, tensions, apprehensions and grievances which paramilitaries convert to their own utility.”

In calling for that whole community approach, we posited the idea of parties making new declarations and suggested something along the lines of the Mitchell principles or the Nolan principles of public life. We wanted every party to make meaningful pledges and to adhere to clear commitments, but, as my hon. Friend has said, the Bill does not provide for that. There is no guarantee that the representatives of all the parties will unite around and adhere to any pledges. Instead, the Bill adds to the pledge of office for Ministers and creates a parallel pledge for Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Whenever there have been controversies regarding whether parties have been consorting or engaging with paramilitaries, the allegation has related not just to MLAs or Ministers, but to councillors. Are councillors not bound by the standards of the pledge in the same way as they are to their commitment to non-violence? We are debating this proposed legislation, so should it not also apply to MPs, or are they free of the standards? They apply to MLAs and to Ministers, but not to others. We need a more articulate approach than the pledges as they appear in the Bill.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is right to point out that there is no way of enforcing or arbitrating with regard to any dispute or controversy. That applies not just to the pledge taken by MLAs; it applies very directly to the pledge of office taken by Ministers, because there is no means of arbitrating on alleged breaches of the ministerial code. The Executive have no means of doing that. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister have still not suggested a clear way of investigating and making judgments on alleged breaches of the ministerial code. People can take each other to court alleging breaches of the ministerial code, but the Executive have no sensible, clear or credible mechanism to address the issue, even though that is what is needed.

A similar mechanism is also needed for the Assembly in order to decide whether an issue should go to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or elsewhere. It is not good enough to leave the decision to Standing Orders. The issue should be subject to a higher-order political decision, rather than be decided by the Assembly’s Committee on Procedures when it considers Standing Orders. That was the mistake made many years ago in the original Northern Ireland Act 1998. The provisions around the petition of concern in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the Good Friday agreement were very particular about how limited the use of petitions of concern was to be. Petitions of concern were to be used selectively in instances where people alleged that there had been a breach, or that there was an issue of human rights or equality. A mechanism would be set up on the basis of petitions of concern to test that issue, and then things would proceed.

Unfortunately, rather than providing for what was in the Good Friday agreement, the legislation simply stated that Standing Orders would provide for the devices that were mentioned in paragraphs 11 to 13. That was never done right, which is why we have the situation that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury complained about. We have a wide open, drive-by, veto-style petition of concern, which has been used on a tit-for-tat basis and often frivolously.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point about the principles that should be in play in public life. Is there not a certain irony in the fact that his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly have, alongside Sinn Féin, this evening signed a petition of concern to retain and enshrine religious discrimination in the selection of teachers in the Province?

[Mark Durkan]

My colleagues have signed a petition of concern against a current proposal. [Interruption.] It is a matter of trying to protect existing laws and not change them rashly before an election. The DUP has cited that in relation to other matters. It is about defending the existing equality provisions. What happens with a petition of concern should be what was decided under the Good Friday agreement. Rather than that being the end of the matter, it should be the subject of an investigation by a specially appointed committee to see what issues of rights and equality are involved, to test those issues and to allow the matter to proceed. That is how it should have been, as per the agreement. That has been our consistent position on how petitions of concern should properly be dealt with; they should not be abused as they have been.

I turn to the pledge of office by Ministers and the undertaking by Members of the Assembly. The commitment is confined to Ministers and Members of the Assembly, and does not extend to other party politicians. In addition, the pledge of office requires Ministers

“to work collectively with the other members of the Executive Committee to achieve a society free of paramilitarism”.

I would hope that the Ministers’ commitment would extend much further than simply to working with their ministerial colleagues. Similarly, the commitment of Assembly Members should extend further than just to working with their Assembly colleagues.

There is also the question of what some of the terms mean. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was right to point out the final sub-pledge in the pledge of office by Ministers and the undertaking by Assembly Members, which is

“to accept no authority, direction or control on my political activities other than my democratic mandate alongside my own personal and party judgment”.

In the same pledge of office, Ministers pledge to be bound by decisions of the Assembly and the Executive Committee. The final sub-pledge appears to contradict that, so there is potential tension there. In addition, if we fill the gap that the hon. Member for North Down mentioned by creating clear standards and sanctions, people will have to accept some trammelling of their political conduct, because they will be listening to others as to what the due standards of behaviour and engagement should be. I think that there is a problem, which the hon. Member for Gedling was right to identify.

I want to take up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Down mentioned about the second to last of the sub-pledges, which is

“to support those who are determined to make the transition away from paramilitarism”.

That might seem to be fair enough as a general statement of support, but what does it mean in practice? Are there potential tensions between that and other parts of the pledge, such as the commitment

“to challenge paramilitary attempts to control communities”

and

“to challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality”?

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) earlier questioned whether some of the former paramilitary personalities who have talked a lot about their positive contribution to the peace process have been more laggardly in relation to certain standards and practices, and whether they have turned a blind eye to certain things.

The question therefore arises of whether or not, when we criticise or challenge such people, we will be accused of not supporting those who are determined to make the transition away from paramilitarism. Many people use as a justification for their demands for funding for particular schemes—jobs for the boys, set-ups and all the rest of those things—that they are all about weaning people away from paramilitarism. Other people in the community sometimes challenge that by questioning why they were not interviewed for posts that had become available in community organisations or whatever, while other people were interviewed. We need to look at such issues.

We should remember the very glaring example involving my hon. Friend the Member for South Down. When she was a Minister, she decided to cease her Department’s funding of the conflict transformation initiative because the Chief Constable and other senior police officers made it very clear that those in the Ulster Defence Association, which was essentially funded and supported by the conflict transformation initiative, were up to their necks in a series of high-profile crimes. The Chief Constable made that clear, and high-profile criminal activity was taking place at the time. My hon. Friend brought that to the Executive, which told her she had to decide because it was a matter for her Department. However, when she made her decision, they changed their ideas. Members of other parties said, “Oh, no. The conflict transformation initiative is supporting people who are trying to make the transition away from paramilitarism,” while as far as others were concerned, the money was going to support and indulge people who were up to their necks in crime at that time. Which was it?

There are potential tensions in how any of us might interpret the pledge and the undertaking in clauses 7 and 8. We could take them in very different directions, so work is needed to refine them and define them better. We must also ensure that somebody else can arbitrate, because otherwise there will be a lot of arguments between the parties on such issues. The one thing we do not want is for parties to end up arguing with each other about who opposes aspects of paramilitarism either now or historically. The more united and coherent the parties can be seen to be, the better.

We want to make sure that that applies at all levels to resolve many of the existing issues. If there are controversies about party politicians turning up at particular events or protests that paramilitaries are also attending, we need to be able to deal with such issues. We must ensure that the pledge governs what happens when there are other controversies, such as the naming of the play park that has often been mentioned in this Chamber. It should be clear that we have an absolutely coherent pledge relating to paramilitary practices, either historical or current, and that we all have the same yardstick. That would provide protection for all individual politicians put under pressure at community level to get involved in this, that or the other, or to lend their presence to an event. A proper, articulate and robust pledge could give us a lot in that respect.

There are other issues about the Bill that I want to mention, before I touch on what is not in it. As hon. Members have said, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will appoint members of the independent reporting commission. In the fresh start agreement the reference was to the Executive, but the Bill makes it clear and explicit that the power lies with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I share the view of other hon. Members that that needs to be the subject of wider consideration and consultation. There are also issues to consider about the Secretary of State’s powers in respect of the commission. The fact that the Secretary of State will be in charge of defining and possibly changing many interpretations means that more work and consideration is needed.

I want to make a few points about clause 9, which is about draft budgets. The Government say they have included the clause because they want to ensure greater transparency and sustainability in relation to the budget. I am all for transparency in budgets, as I was when I had the job of the Minister of Finance and Personnel. In various talks, the Social Democratic and Labour party has advocated going much further on budget transparency. As well as designing the whole procedure for a fairly transparent process of draft budgets that are fully considered in the Assembly, open to public consultation and then subject to the revised budget procedure, we have advocated in various talks, going right back to Leeds castle, the idea that after the revised budget is approved by the Assembly, each departmental Minister should, within a number of weeks, make a statement about their own spending plan and be fully answerable to the Assembly on how they will deliver it. We thought that that would add to the transparency, but it was not to the taste of many of the parties that were talking a lot about transparency. I remember Peter Robinson telling me, “We don’t want that much transparency—that would be just too much.” I think there should be transparency in how the Assembly follows up on budgets.

Under clause 9, a statement will be laid before the Assembly about the amount of UK funding to be allocated. Will the Secretary of State consider accepting an amendment to take that further by saying that the statement should specify exactly how the Northern Ireland Barnett allocation was calculated? That would allow people in the Assembly, and Members here, to see exactly how the spending amount for Northern Ireland had been determined on the basis of spending commitments here and, possibly, on the basis of legislation and legislative requirements that had gone through this place. We would be able to see whether the two correlated.

A key argument that the Scottish National party and my party made in relation to English votes for English laws was that England-only or England and Wales-only legislation that goes through this place will inform the spending plans for England or England and Wales, and will, in turn, be factored into the Barnett formula. Therefore, let us have transparency. The Government tried to tell us that no legislation has those sorts of spending consequences. That is funny, because the same Government usually say, when they reject amendments to Bills, that they are doing so because there would be budgetary consequences. So they will not take amendments to legislation because there would be budgetary consequences, but with English votes for English laws they pretend that legislation does not have budgetary consequences.

The Government might be right, or we might be right. The way to prove who is right and to establish the facts in the future is to take the transparency provision a bit further. It should not be hard to colour in the budget statement a bit more. Rather than being just a brief outline statement, it should be well coloured in, whether in respect of the draft budget or the subsequent statement that comes with the revised budget. If people want transparency, that would be a good addition to the Bill.

There is a question over whether one intention behind the statement is that it can be used, in effect, as a budget cap. The Government say that it is about transparency and sustainability. However, when the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill was debated, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the switch-on power would be activated only when the Treasury was satisfied that there was a balanced and sustainable budget. Some of us asked in the Bill Committee whether the Treasury would use that power to make a judgment on the spending plans of the Executive in relation to other matters, such as student finance, water charges or prescription charges. After all, the Treasury was using the Assembly’s failure to pass the welfare reform legislation to make the judgment that there was not a balanced and sustainable budget. The Financial Secretary said, “We will judge a budget on the sum of its parts.” He did not rule out the Government using the power to involve themselves in those other matters.

One reason why I welcome the provisions of clause 9 on draft budgets is that they settle a point that arose after the Assembly budget in 2008, when Peter Robinson was the Minister for Finance and Personnel. We tried to amend that budget and the programme for government, and we voted against aspects of it. A few months later, Peter Robinson announced that because the budget had contained indicative figures for 2009 and 2010, draft budgets did not need to be tabled before the Assembly in the subsequent years. The procedures that were laid down in the 1998 Act were clearly predicated on an annual financial exercise, but he said that he had received legal advice that the requirement for that exercise before each financial year had been discharged by covering the figures for all three years in the 2008 budget.

We challenged that at the time and took it to the Speaker of the Assembly. Unfortunately, he did not rule but said it was up to us to make a legal challenge. The flaky advice given by Peter Robinson was followed by that of his successor as Minister of Finance and Personnel, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who said that the draft budget exercise was not needed. Clause 9 is clear that it will be an annual exercise. There is absolutely no ambiguity or doubt in how it is framed: it is an annual exercise. A draft budget has to be tabled and debated fully every year, with an additional statement made ahead of it. We are glad that that is set out in the Bill. It may restore the Assembly’s role in transparency, which needs to be amplified. The Assembly should be doing much more scrutiny of budgets and spending; that should not just be left to bodies outside the Assembly.

Members have raised issues not covered in the Bill, and the Secretary of State, in her opening remarks, addressed issues relating to legacy. Like my colleagues, I regret that, rather than our ending up with an all-party agreement, welfare reform was agreed by the three amigos of Sinn Féin, the Tories and the DUP—the austerity alliance. This Bill is now being brought forward, and we await the legacy legislation. It is important that it is not rushed. It is also important that we give some issues full consideration again. I recognise that the Secretary of State thinks the measure of agreement apparent around the table at Stormont House was the highest degree of agreement there has been. I would make the point, however, that Eames-Bradley offered a much better prospectus for dealing with the past. So did the Haass proposals, although not as good as Eames-Bradley. They were watered down in the Stormont House agreement, and they have been watered down further in a number of respects.

Victims’ groups have their own concerns, upsets and apprehensions about some of the issues involved. I ask them, and all parties, to consider all the issues in the round, not least with respect to the potential to deal with what have now been called “thematics”. It is hugely important that the historical investigations units is set up to undertake the work formerly done by the Historical Enquiries Team and the work on the past done by the police ombudsman, but we should recognise that the HIU will be confined to looking at killings. We should also recognise that it will work, a bit like the HET, on the basis of reports being provided to the families. Those reports will then be treated as the private property of the families.

Many cases, however, are linked. There are wider patterns, themes and issues at stake, not all of which relate to killings, and many of them need to be scrutinised and given an airing. In many ways, we think that would help to answer some of the questions put by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. He says that there is an unbalanced approach to the past, and that those who are seeking the truth and want the past to be investigated are concentrating entirely on what the state did and not on what paramilitary actors did. The whole question of thematics and patterns in those investigations could lead to more balance, which is why we in the SDLP in particular put such emphasis on that.

I recall that in the Haass negotiations, Richard Haass himself replied to points that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley made about a failed market in relation to the past, whereby people with the means and the motives were pursuing the aspects of the past that interested them, while others were being left aside. He argued that thematics was one way of evening the situation up and ensuring that other pictures and other concerns were looked at.

[Lady Hermon]

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Despite the noises off, I want to take this opportunity to express on behalf of my colleagues and friends how very sorry we are to hear that he has had a bereavement in his extended family. We would be most grateful if he would offer to his sister our sympathy and support at a time when her partner was tragically killed in a traffic accident last night. We are very sorry indeed that death has visited her door and the hon. Gentleman’s door at such an untimely stage of life.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind condolences, which I will certainly pass on. I accept them in the spirit in which she has shared them—not just on her own behalf but on behalf of her colleagues as well. Of course, whenever we experience the shock of death like that, it comes as a throwback. I did not know what had happened when I spotted the tapes across the road and the police action that was going on; it looked like a security operation that would have been familiar to so many of us down the years. In talking to the police at the scene, I had memories of other occasions, which brought to mind once again the position that we are all talking about, from our different party stances, when we deal with the concerns of victims and survivors about the past. This is why we need to give the issue full consideration now.

When the legacy legislation comes forward, we must ensure that it is going to be fit for the needs and purposes of victims and survivors. We must listen to them, and think a little more about what they say. I hope that the sort of consensus that the Secretary of State says she wants to build will not be one in which she just tries to square things off between herself and one or two other parties. It must be done much more widely.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) has said, we will bring forward amendments on some of the issues that I have mentioned, in an attempt to proof and improve the Bill. We are obviously not opposed to its passage, because we need the changes that it makes, for instance to the timeline for the appointment of Ministers, and we need to allow a programme for government to be aired and shared before Ministers are appointed. If that is to happen in time for the mandate of the next Assembly, the Bill will have to go through. We are certainly not throwing any spanners in the works in respect of the timing, but we want to try to improve the Bill and make good some of the gaps and wrinkles in it.

Even in respect of the limited things the Bill does, we think more could have been done. Why should the First Minister and Deputy First Minister remain the singular appointments of two parties? Why not revert to the original Good Friday agreement principle of electing the First Minister and Deputy First Minister? Sinn Féin and the DUP no longer have a problem in going through the Lobbies together. They could not do so originally in 2007 when devolution was restored, which is why the whole system of appointing the First and Deputy First Minister had to be changed, but now that they can do that and now that they are happy to be an axis and be in a power pact, there is absolutely no reason why they should not. The First and Deputy First Ministers should be mandated by the Assembly. We have tried to secure such an amendment to other Bills. I do not know whether we will try it with this Bill, because we may concentrate more on the matters that are in it than those that are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who in every debate is optimistic and positive, and it is especially welcome that in what is, effectively, another stage of the Stormont House agreement and the fresh start agreement, we find ourselves in this Second Reading with the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and all those on the Opposition Front Bench for their continued support for making sure that we move Northern Ireland onwards to normalisation and ensure any bumps in the road that we have experienced are sorted out to allow the Northern Ireland political settlement to bed in and move forward so that the people there can take hold of the opportunities on offer.

With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to some of the points raised in the debate. I reiterate the importance of this Bill in the implementation of November’s fresh start agreement as a whole, as well as of the specific provisions, including those that give effect to the independent reporting commission and increase fiscal transparency in the Executive’s budget-setting process.

Paramilitary activity has been a blight on Northern Ireland society and is an issue which the UK Government, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive will tackle together. The measures in this Bill will create an independent body that will report on the progress made towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland once and for all.

The draft budget measure achieves what was set out in the fresh start agreement, and it will ensure that the Executive cannot consider spending plans that exceed the block grant allocated from the Treasury.

Let me respond to some points raised by hon. Members. I join others in sending condolences to the family of Mark Calway, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) understands that we are here to support him and the family of Mark Calway in their loss. We are also incredibly grateful for the forensic support—if I can put it that way—that his Committee gives to Northern Ireland politics and Government policy. We know that pragmatic, forensic examination of our policies, and those of other people, will help build that trust in Northern Ireland.

I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) that as a former Member of the Scottish Parliament I know the internal workings of devolution, and some measures in the Bill that the SNP supports would not necessarily have been right for it in Scotland. However, I know that the SNP supports such measures for the reasons that the hon. Lady eloquently articulated, which are to try to move Northern Ireland forward and achieve a settlement that will allow people to put the troubles behind them.

I pay tribute to the DUP. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) articulated his tribute to the former First Minister, without whose actions we would not be discussing this Bill today, or indeed the previous Bill. I am grateful for the support that the DUP has given to the Government throughout this process, to try to resolve some of the issues that led to that impasse last year.

I am also grateful for the positive attitude and speeches by DUP Members, and the support that they have provided to allow an LCM to be put in place swiftly. Such determination by the Executive and the First Minister to deal with those issues in Stormont means that I am incredibly optimistic about Northern Ireland and how it will progress, and I hope that the bumps that appeared in the road when I was first appointed to this post are put behind us so that we move forward, deal with the paramilitary past, and hopefully stop such things in the future. We must also grasp with both hands the opportunities and economic challenges that are presented.

I hear the issues about legacy raised by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), and we all want to solve them. In the past few weeks and months my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Minister for the Armed Forces and I met the Lord Chief Justice, and the Minister of Justice, the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister of Northern Ireland. Everyone is united in trying to get to a position where we can deal with the legacy of the past and move forward, and the Treasury has agreed to a package of funding—£150 million —to do that. However, we cannot just impose that £150 million on an unreformed system. We are all trying to work together to produce a long-term solution, not a short-term solution.

The phrase “national security” is often bandied about as if somehow it is being used as an unreasonable block on progress. Throughout the troubles, informers, neighbours, workmates, and ordinary members of the public helped the security forces against people who intimidated their own communities. It was not just informers; it was everybody. It was people who did not agree with violence. They might not have been Unionists; they might have been nationalists. Not only do those people deserve our protection, but we have a duty to protect them. Without their information and helpful tip-offs, without the confidentiality hotline being used, and without people in the heart of those communities saying, “We don’t stand for violence and we want an end to paramilitary bullying”, we would not have reached the end of the troubles. When people bandy around the phrase “national security” as some throwaway line, we should remember that at the heart of this is the need to protect those people and provide the duty of protection that we owe them. Without them, more blood would have been shed on the streets of Northern Ireland, and we should not forget the role that they played.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the Minister agree that when investigating the past, the police ombudsman has always respected such matters fully? It has never breached or compromised anybody’s interest in that regard, so surely others could be trusted to adhere to the same standard?

[Mr Wallace]

Everyone is entrusted with the powers that they are granted. National security does not just cover the actions of the PSNI; it covers the actions of the security services and of a range of people involved in trying to ensure that our society is safe and secure. We should remember that national security is not taken lightly. It is open to scrutiny by our Intelligence and Security Committee in this House, by the ombudsman and by the courts. The coroner and the judges often make the final decisions on many of these issues and they see the full facts, so it is important to remember that national security is about protecting life and people.

The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) is absolutely right about the financial provisions. To enable a stable and secure budget to go forward, it is incredibly important to allow everyone in the Assembly to have a role in producing a budget and delivering services for better governance and better services for the people in Northern Ireland. The extension from seven to 14 days for the appointment of Ministers is absolutely a good example of making Government work better. We are delighted that as a Government we can ensure that that is put in place.

Let me reply to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) on the definition of paramilitary and paramilitary activity. In our view, that should be left to the commission to decide. It would be hard in a piece of primary legislation to prescribe—and it is the Government’s view that it is not for us to do so—how the four commissioners and the commission should look at paramilitary activity.

I hear the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) about paramilitaries leaving the stage. When I hear that comment, I often think I would not like to be in the green room at that time. There is no place for paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, and there never has been. We must make sure that there never is in the future.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Bill and his observations. Of course, the independent reporting commission will also cover paramilitary activity in the south, in Ireland, and that is incredibly important. I know that the people of Ireland will take note of that. The Garda, who have been incredibly supportive over the years in ensuring that cross-border activity is countered, know that all this will be effective between the north and the south, which is something that we will focus on.

The right hon. Gentleman made a powerful point, and it is important that we should be clear about it. It was INLA, IPLO, the IRA, the UVF, the Red Hand Commando and the UDA that killed innocent people on the streets of Northern Ireland and on the mainland of the United Kingdom. No amount of innuendos, or selective leaks and salacious allegations, can change that fact. It does not wash away their guilt by trying to move it on. The narrative that has been growing is very dangerous for the history of Northern Ireland, because the reality is that it was those groups that chose to go out on nights and kill people. It was those groups that planted the bombs. We will not let the alternative narrative be planted that somehow somebody else caused it and that they were therefore not guilty of what they did. We hear that, loud and clear.

[Mark Durkan]

On that basis, given that these organisations need to be rightly blamed and indicted for what they did, does the Minister now regret that the British Government for so long maintained the UDA’s status as a legal organisation and consistently refused to proscribe it?

[Mr Wallace]

If memory serves, the UDA was proscribed in 1992. I was not in this House and I was not privy to the work of Government. In fact, in 1992 I was walking around west Belfast. As for the idea that I can condemn or support the ruling, all I know is that when I was serving in Northern Ireland, I was grateful that the UDA was proscribed. I was grateful that the UVF was proscribed, and the Red Hand Commando. Any paramilitary organisation should be proscribed. Not only should any organisation that uses fear, terror and bullying be proscribed, but the people who take part should be convicted.

To the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) I say that we in this House should not forget the SDLP’s long-standing opposition to paramilitary intimidation. Very often, the SDLP bore the brunt of that intimidation. All the parties in this House have experienced at first hand intimidation by paramilitaries, either within the communities that they represented or in the neighbouring communities that sought to keep them out. I pay tribute to that long-standing commitment to peace and the democratic process. We do not forget that, but I say again that we should not take the issues of national security lightly.

On the legacy issues, as I have said earlier, all of us are trying our best. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly has meetings with the victims community to make sure they feel we are doing our best. We are going to get there. We are going to try to resolve this, and that will happen—we hope—as soon as we can all get agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

We hope to bring forward legislation fairly soon on those aspects of the fresh start and Stormont House agreements that have been agreed. The timing is less certain in respect of the legacy bodies because we were not able to build the consensus necessary for legislation. We did, however, close the gap on many issues. A key issue still to resolve is how the veto relating to national security will operate. I am determined to work with all sides to find a way forward. We have to protect our national security interests, but we will do all we can to ensure that that veto is exercised fairly in all circumstances.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As well as asking the Secretary of State to recalibrate her fixation on the national security issues, may I also ask her to consider using the current delay at least to allow for qualitative pre-legislative scrutiny of what will be sensitive legislation when it comes forward?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is important to use this period constructively to engage with victims groups in particular. I had very useful discussions with the Victims’ Commissioner and with the Victims and Survivors Forum. We will consider in due course whether publication of documentation is appropriate. It is vital that we press ahead and build consensus to get these bodies set up and running.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I am of course very much aware of my hon. Friend’s long-standing concern about that case. He will appreciate that decisions on policing and prosecution are rightly matters for the police and prosecuting authorities entirely independent of Ministers, but I reassure him that I am absolutely confident that the Police Service of Northern Ireland will approach that sensitive case with all the principles of objectivity, fairness, impartiality and respect for human rights that it displays in all its work.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise not just that dealing with the past is what we owe to victims, but that people want to know that we have not simply replaced the years of dirty war with a dirty peace? Does she recognise that, in the light of the serious questions raised by the “Spotlight” programme last night, the strictures she is placing on national security could suppress the truth not just about what state forces and state actors did, but about what paramilitary forces and paramilitary actors did during the troubles?

[Mrs Villiers]

The UK Government are committed to the Stormont House agreement provisions on the past. We do think that they need to be set up, that it is important to give clearer answers to victims who suffered as a result of the troubles and to do all we can to pursue evidence of wrong-doing. However, I emphasise that I believe the vast majority of the police and armed forces in Northern Ireland during the troubles carried out their duties with exceptional courage, bravery, integrity and professionalism, so I wholly dissociate myself from the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of this as a “dirty war”.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that nearly all the provisions in the order have been thoroughly debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly over a long period, and this House has given considerable scrutiny to the 2012 welfare reforms and is doing so for ongoing reforms in the 2015 Bill. I am happy to arrange for the hon. Lady, should she so wish, to meet officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the DWP to discuss in detail any concern she has about the order between now and the debate next week, if that satisfies her.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister touched on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. It is not really covered in the Order in Council. Will it be the subject of a different Order in Council subsequently under this legislation, or do the Government intend to amend the Bill to extend it to Northern Ireland?

[Mr Wallace]

The answer is that, yes, it will be subject to an order different from this one, which is due next week, as far as I understand.

In conclusion, I emphasise the points made by the Secretary of State. This is a good Bill for Northern Ireland, a Bill which will help resolve the long-running, politically divisive stalemate over welfare reform. The Bill is a crucial element of establishing and building on the “Fresh Start” announced last week. The Bill and the subsequent Order in Council do not guarantee political stability in Northern Ireland, but without them political stability and progress are, frankly, impossible. Our approach may appear unusual or unconventional, but it does have the cross-community support of the vast number of Northern Ireland’s elected representatives. This Bill offers the only realistic prospect of resolving Northern Ireland’s welfare reform impasse, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that I disagree with his viewpoint. The SDLP tabled amendments to the Bill in the Assembly, and those revenue-neutral amendments were refused and declined by the DUP and Sinn Féin.

[Mark Durkan]

Does my hon. Friend recall that in 2011 in the Northern Ireland Assembly, when the Welfare Reform Bill was going through this House, the SDLP proposed in the Assembly that a special committee should be set up to undertake parallel scrutiny and to anticipate the implications of that Bill, so that we could have consensus and address Whitehall? That was voted down by the DUP.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend. I well recall that because I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly at the time, and I was party to that proposal. I clearly remember that we were trying to achieve consensus on the best way to ensure that the best mitigation measures were put in place. That proposal was refused by the DUP and Sinn Féin—the cosy partners in government who deliver only for themselves and not for the wider public.

I speak as a former Minister for Social Development who had direct responsibility for benefits, and I well remember introducing a household fuel payment Bill, which was separate from measures that existed in Britain. That Bill sought to address fuel poverty and ensure that people who felt it would be difficult to pay for both eating and heating—we agreed with them—did not have to make that choice. The SDLP has always stood by the people and by the principle of consensus, and it is a matter of deep regret that others did not do so. I regret that the Bill is not being dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that the power of devolution on these matters has been removed from our colleagues in the Assembly on a cross-community basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My constituency does not have the term “south” in it, although I may have to begin by slightly depressing the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) by responding to one of the final points he made. He made some big claims about the “Fresh Start” deal, talking about how the original Stormont House deal provided for mitigation measures of £90 million a year on average, whereas the “Fresh Start” deal involves £345 million over four years. I think most people would know that four £90 millions comes to £360 million, which is slightly more than £345 million, if we are talking about the average over four years.

Many points have been raised in the debate—points that go far and wide away from the immediate subject of the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill. I will have to follow others in covering some of that ground, relating to the provenance of the whole debate and the Bill.

The SDLP, has been castigated and people have said, “Oh, you never tried to build consensus on welfare reform.” As I tried to explain in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), as far back as when the original legislation was going through this House, we tried with other Assembly parties to build a consensus in the then Assembly, to anticipate what the implications would be and not to wait for the legislation to be passed through this House, with the Assembly and a Minister being faced with the need to take forward karaoke legislation that would not be to our taste or liking. We tried in late 2011 to get a special committee set up in the Assembly precisely to do that on an all-party basis and to feed into the legislation as it was coming through this House.

Among the issues that we said we wanted to address at that time was the bedroom tax. When the legislation was going through, the SDLP was the only party from Northern Ireland that spoke about the implications of the bedroom tax for Northern Ireland and said that measures were needed to deal with it. There we were; we were adopting that approach in this Chamber, and we were trying to work with other parties in the Assembly properly to address those issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said, as well addressing the issues in this Chamber, we were meeting the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud. Early in 2012, he acknowledged that many of the claims made by the hon. Member for North Antrim about allowing for flexibility and the split in universal payments were promised to us. He said that if the Assembly had a unified approach to trying to get those measures, they would be made available. We were promised that the Department for Work and Pensions would have no problem if the legislation for Northern Ireland included the direct payment of housing benefit to landlords. We were also promised that the DWP would make sure that the computer system it was bringing forward would allow for that.

Much of what is being called part of the conclusion to this good “Fresh Start” approach was always available—some of us had always worked on that basis and had always advocated it inside the Assembly, yet we were being told by DUP Members, including the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) who is unfortunately not in his place, that we were scaremongering when we expressed our concerns about the implications of this Bill.

The hon. Member for North Antrim, among others, has referred to the mitigation of sanctions, but again we fought and argued over that issue in the Assembly and in various all-party talks, trying to get agreement with all parties. We had useful discussions, not least with the DUP Minister for Social Development, about that and other matters. I do not think that anyone could say that at Stormont House 2014, the SDLP was found wanting in trying to make sure that we could reach some agreement and resolution on welfare reform.

As I have said, we subsequently ended up being castigated. Sinn Féin accused the SDLP of having sold out or caved in on welfare reform before anybody else, but the point we made in Stormont House was that we wanted to ensure that there would be mitigation and that any mitigation measures would be sustainable and within the devolved budget. That is why we indicated that we could go for a mitigation package. The First Minister told us on a Wednesday evening that officials were telling him that this “option C package”, as it was called—it was a combination of other options—would cost £93 million out of this year’s devolved budget.

The SDLP said that we wanted to see improvement in estimates in some areas, but that we could go with £100 million out of this year’s budget and the projections beyond that. The UUP wanted to see estimates improved and the Alliance had some concerns about the estimate being more than was allowed for in the budget, but said that it would go with the £93 million if it bought about a deal. Sinn Féin on that Wednesday evening said that it would not go with that. It said that it had to be “option C plus”, but it could not tell us what was in that option. It thought it would cost a lot more money. Sinn Féin representatives said that somebody somewhere in the building would be able to tell them, and they would be able to tell us.

By the Thursday evening, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister came into the Executive room where the five parties were meeting, and the First Minister informed us that he and Martin had been having conversations with each other and with officials, that they now had an agreement and that it would cost £94 million out of the budget. Once again, the SDLP position was that we wanted to see the estimates and that we would allow up to £100 million. That is what helped to bring about the fact that people saw that there was a way of solving welfare reform problems. The Stormont House agreement said that proposals would be developed and would be brought to the Assembly, but whenever the legislation came to the Assembly, it was exactly the same as the draft Bill that had existed before the Stormont House agreement. That is why the SDLP tabled amendments in the Assembly. They were not Bill-shattering amendments in any way, but they nevertheless triggered a petition of concern from the DUP, which had the effect of a veto. In any case, the amendments were voted down by both Sinn Féin and the DUP.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those amendments were cost-neutral, which was clearly acknowledged by the Minister for Social Development?

[Mark Durkan]

Several of them were. Some would have had cost implications, but many were cost-neutral. That was one of the arguments that the Minister made at the time. We checked whether the British Government were consulted by the Minister or anybody else and asked whether there would be a problem if the amendments were passed, but the British Government made it clear that they were not consulted and that they had not acted against our amendments in any way. They were not saying that our amendments would have threatened to derail the Stormont House agreement or were in any way in breach of it. It was entirely the decision of Sinn Féin and the DUP to veto our amendments by the petition of concern and by voting against them.

You will not want me to anticipate the Committee stage too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that the amendments we have tabled for the Committee stage capture some of those same amendments. I ask people to read those amendments in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said because they would not derail or damage the Bill.

On the wider politics of this matter I can perhaps reach some agreement with the hon. Member for North Antrim, because they involve a strange change of position on the part of Sinn Féin. All along, Sinn Féin said that it was going to oppose welfare reform completely. All along, it said that no claimant—now or in the future—would be a penny worse off as a result of any changes. SDLP Members said that we could not subscribe to that position. We said that could not pretend that we could guarantee by any tactics, in the Assembly or here, that we could protect every last penny of benefit for any existing claimant or any new claimants into the future. We were very clear, honest and honourable about that.

Sinn Féin election posters this year were on the theme of “Stop the Tory cuts”. Some of us said that Sinn Féin was in no position to stop Tory cuts unless it was in a position to stop a Tory Government, and, as a party that does not take up its seats, that was not going to happen. It was nonsense, but that is what Sinn Féin said. We were told by Conor Murphy:

“The Tories have no mandate in the north for their cuts agenda. The local parties need to make it clear that Tory cuts to public services and the welfare state are unacceptable.”

Now, apparently, those Tory cuts to the welfare state are acceptable to Sinn Féin. Martin McGuiness told us:

“I am not prepared to preside over the austerity agenda that the British government are inflicting on our executive. My conscience would not allow me to do it.”

Well, he has got over his conscience now, and he is quite happy; perhaps he is pretending to himself that he is not presiding over it by virtue of having handed the power to Westminster. I may now receive a voice-activated intervention from the Minister, who will tell us that the power has not been handed over and that Westminster will have a parallel, or concurrent, legislative power, which Stormont will also have. There will be a power switch on both walls, but only the power switch on the Westminster wall will be activated and used for the next 13 months during which, after the Bill is passed, a series of orders and regulations will be made.

We have been told about the sunset clause. Sinn Féin seems to be allowing some people to suggest, in social media, that it is a very clever thing, and that a big line is to be drawn in the sand at the end of 2016, because many of the more nefarious and controversial aspects of the current Welfare Reform and Work Bill are meant to kick in in 2017. The sunset clause, however, will apply only to the decision-making powers that are now being taken by the Secretary of State. It will not apply to the content or effect of any of the decisions that are made by him or her. All the changes that are made in direct rule legislation here, in Orders in Council and in other instruments, will still apply in 2017 and beyond.

We have heard many references to the Assembly’s legislative consent motion. We should bear in mind that it includes the words

“approves the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster”.

Some of us did not approve those clauses as they were initially introduced; we argued against them, and voted against them. I recall members of the DUP expressing concerns about some of those clauses, voting against them, and voting for amendments. Unusually, the legislative consent motion did not even make provision for amendments. Other such motions have not just allowed Westminster to pass a Bill, but allowed amendments to be tabled. For some reason, this motion precluded that.

Many of us are in difficulty because we are being asked, on Second Reading, to approve matters on which we have already voiced and recorded our disapproval. That applies not just to the SDLP, but to a number of other parties. We are being told to do that because it will be the great deal that will move everything forward. Members have touched on other aspects of the deal, but my concern relates directly to the Bill.

I am certainly not saying that we should set aside the mitigations and the other measures that have been so carefully agreed to. Indeed, I think that we should have done more work on those. I also think—I raised this at Stormont House in 2014—that we need to think, collectively, about whether there is the proper demarcation between Westminster and the Assembly in relation to welfare reform.

Perhaps we should look at what has been happening in Scotland. I am not suggesting that we should adopt an exact model of the Scotland Bill, but I think we should take account of some of the issues and ideas that have flowed from those debates. I think we should look to the longer term, and ensure that we do not fall into the trap of either allowing karaoke legislation to be pushed through the Assembly as a result of “budget bullying”, or creating the potential for political crises. There is a different delineation in the scope of the devolution of welfare in Scotland. I think that we may need to examine what is happening there, given the emphasis that many Members here have placed on some of the most sensitive benefits in Northern Ireland, relating to disabilities and other long-term conditions including mental ill health.

It was part of the original Stormont House deal in 2014 that parties would be prepared to look at how wider issues of devolution—not just tax, but benefits—were being handled elsewhere, with the aim of securing a more sustainable adjustment for the future. If we want to avoid the spasmodic crises in which parties end up trying to find a brink on which to teeter every time there is disagreement about important issues such as these, we may need to do something else.

When I raised the need to ensure that we were in a better position in the future and suggested ways of dealing with the medium to longer-term issues, I did not receive much support from members of other parties. The First Minister merely said that my problem was seeing around too many corners too early, and that perhaps we should just let some things go and they would be all right when we got to them. The fact is, however, that we anticipated a great deal of difficulty with welfare reform, which is why we argued for a different approach in the Assembly all those years ago, as well as here. We have been proved right, to the extent that, if we had all taken a different course together, we might be in a better position.

The Bill gives the Secretary of State power not just to translate the rules in relation to benefits from the 2012 Act, but, as the Minister has indicated, to prepare an Order in Council to translate proposals in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The legislative consent motion refers to “the welfare clauses”. I note that the shadow Secretary of State did not receive an answer to his very fair question, which my party colleagues also asked in the Assembly last week: what exactly is meant by “the welfare clauses”? Some Members seem to believe that they do not include tax credits, but the Treasury now counts tax credits as welfare for many purposes, including the welfare cap. We have different notions of welfare, and the welfare measures in that Bill are not restricted to conventional social security benefits; they extend to tax credits as well. We have a right to more clarity, and I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will receive a clear answer to his question.

This has been a bit confusing. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Down pointed out that not all the tax credit losses would be covered by this package, we were told that tax credits were nothing to do with it because they did not constitute devolved welfare. At the same time, however, DUP Members have claimed that the mitigation on tax credits has been the significant part of the deal, and the main justification for accepting it. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it must be counted for the purpose of one side of the argument, but not for the purpose of another side.

In response to the challenge presented by the fact that some are not prepared to work for consensus, the Secretary of State may well confirm that in the Stormont House talks we made it clear that we wanted all the parties to agree that the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be invited to provide us with a quick regional analysis of the implications of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the tax credit changes. That would also test the Secretary of State’s argument at the time that the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was a good deal for Northern Ireland—she used exactly the same words she is using for this Bill for the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, before the Government were moved to say they would amend it or mitigate it in some way. On these measures, she said that we needed to take account of the changes in terms of the tax thresholds and the national living wage that would make good the loss. We were saying, “Let’s get the IFS to do this so we’re not just relying on figures from our own officials in the Department for Social Development or anywhere else.” Again, however—surprise, surprise—the SDLP put forward an idea for all the parties to go with, that was informed and would have been neutral and constructive, but it was not supported. That was not for lack of action by us to try to take a consensus approach and make sure all parties have a better-informed approach in that regard.

We were being told by the Secretary of State—Sinn Féin and the SDLP in particular were being told this—both publicly from the Dispatch Box and in the talks that there would not be a deal on the past if there was not a deal on welfare reform. It was said that welfare reform had to be settled and move forward or else there would be no progress on the past. But now we have a deal that gives us welfare reform moving forward in the way the Government want—entirely in the Government’s hands—and we do not have a deal on the past moving forward. People want to know how that came about; it is not only the victims who want to know that.

When we listen to Sinn Féin on this, it tells us, on the past, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” but then we ask them about welfare reform, and they tell us, “A bad deal is better than no deal.” It is a complete contradiction; the only consistency is Sinn Féin’s inconsistency and lack of principle. Of course Sinn Fein might well try to tell us, “Oh no, we’ve delivered on our promise,” because Gerry Adams’s big promise was, “No one will have a reduction to any benefit under the control of the Assembly or the Executive.” So how does Gerry keep his promise? He removes it from the control of the Assembly or Executive and hands it to direct rule.

We must remember that it is direct rule we are giving; it is going back to the old Order in Council position. Such measures cannot be amended—indeed, the sponsoring legislation for the system we have tonight cannot even be amended either, unfortunately, because of the way the allocation of time motion works. That is what we are stuck with; that is the choice Sinn Féin has made and it has yet to explain adequately why.

Sinn Féin does not have the protections it says it wants, therefore, and it now tries to pretend that we are in a completely new situation because of 8 July—because the Chancellor announced a Budget on 8 July that changed everything and threatened a lot more people. We all knew there was going to be a Budget on 8 July. In fairness, Sinn Fein, like ourselves, pointed out during the election, and even back last year at Stormont House, that whatever package we had, if the Tories got back into government other cuts could be sought. There was speculation: sums of £12 billion or £16 billion were mentioned. We also knew that, even if Labour returned to government, it was committed to applying the welfare cap on a UK-wide basis. So we knew there were going to be difficulties. Therefore, for Sinn Féin to pretend that a completely new situation that nobody could have predicted came about with the return of the Conservative Government and the Budget of 8 July is completely wrong.

Sinn Féin’s argument back in July was that all parties should work together in facing the Government and we should join forces with Scotland and Wales as well. When some of us looked for that approach at the recent Stormont House talks, we found there were no real takers for it, not even Sinn Féin, which had advertised itself as the main sponsor and advocate of that way forward.

People will want to know why we have come to this position, therefore. They will want to know why Sinn Féin has used the so-called threat of collapse of the institutions to collapse its own position. We have known for some time that the DUP has been in something of a roll-over mode in relation to welfare reform legislation, because the DUP position has been that once the legislation went through Westminster—[Interruption.] The DUP position has been that, once the legislation went through Westminster, we have no choice but to go along with it; that has essentially been the line it has pushed in the Assembly. It also never objected to the fine and never raised any argument against it. One would think that it was almost in on it at the beginning as a tactic. The threat of a fine was never used before in relation to welfare changes, which were not always reflected in Northern Ireland on the basis of parity, but it was used this time. But essentially, the DUP’s position has been to say, “We weren’t really for that legislation when it went through Westminster”, even though there were parts of it that they did not really oppose. DUP Members actually voted down amendments from the House of Lords, including measures to protect child benefit from the benefit cap. The DUP’s position has been to say, “We have to comply with this”, whether in the name of parity or to avoid fines. It has adopted a roll-over approach.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is making every effort to build consensus on this issue. He has said on a number of occasions that this is “karaoke” legislation. Is he really saying that, while he is happy to follow the substance of what is being asked of him, he is having difficulty in striking the right tune?

[Mark Durkan]

The karaoke legislation is the legislation that goes through the Assembly. The Assembly is told that, in the name of parity, it has nominal legislative power, but it has to stick to the words and music set down by Whitehall; otherwise, there will be fines, penalties and threats. That kind of budget bullying would rightly not be accepted in relation to the new devolved procedures in Scotland. I am sure that the Treasury would think twice before daring to apply penalties and fines in relation to the concurrent decision-making powers that will apply under the Scotland Bill. The Minister talked about parallel powers. The Scotland Bill contains measures referring to decisions being made concurrently. Some decisions are to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and others by Scottish Ministers, but the clauses refer to decisions being made concurrently and to consultation. There is no suggestion that a disagreement between a Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers would result in the kind of budget penalties that have been invoked in the context of Northern Ireland. That brings me back to the point that we shall need to look at this in a wider context after we get over this particular episode.

I was making the point that the DUP has been in an acquiescent, roll-over mode for some time. The bizarre thing is that Sinn Féin is now in hand-over mode in this regard. Its best way of holding on to its position is to hand over power to the British Government—the Tory Government—and to give them direct rule in relation to these matters for 13 months. Some of us have tabled amendments that would provide a middle way, even though the DUP and Sinn Féin have already got a legislative consent motion through the Assembly. The effects of that could be mitigated if we were to pass amendments to better delineate the powers that the Secretary of State could exercise, as well as the other powers that we are told will remain seated with the Ministers in the devolved Assembly, not least those relating to the vexed question of sanctions. The hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned that in his speech.

Many people in this House have fundamental concerns about how the sanctions regime that stems from the 2012 Act operates. I have even heard Conservative MPs saying that, although they have no problem with the rationale behind the benefit changes in the Act, they have serious questions about the sanctions regime. I believe that Members from Northern Ireland and elsewhere share those concerns. Having listened to the debates on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the Scotland Bill this year, I know that Members have concerns about how the sanctions would apply in Scotland and elsewhere.

That is one reason why some of us are making decisions in the name of consensus. We think we are putting forward concerns that other parties have expressed, and we are trying to create a legislative answer to them and have trust in ourselves. After all, I heard the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) saying that we should not be talking down Northern Ireland and its institutions. Some of us are trying to maintain the democratic institutions there, even if Sinn Féin and the DUP have to let some of these matters go, and we should at least ensure that we hold on to our responsibilities relating to sanctions, among other things. We have to do more than have a form of devolution that says, “Yes, we have all the power and we are making all the decisions, but this one we didn’t want. A big boy made me do it.” Sinn Féin’s answer this time is, “A big girl is going to do this for us.” I refer to “Tough Theresa”, or whatever the hon. Member for North Antrim is going to call her. That is not good enough, because if we are to give people confidence, we have to show that we are serious about using our powers when we have them and not let them go. That applies to the corporation tax power as well as to other things that other people talk about.

The final point I wish to make is about the wider aspect of the fresh start. Some of us made strong contributions about paramilitarism during the Stormont House talks. We emphasised, and shared papers with other parties about, a whole community approach to rooting out all traces and vestiges of paramilitarism in our society—not just singling out groups and singling out parties. We suggested a common declaration that should be taken by everybody. We put forward those proposals—we did not see proposals from other parties. We are glad that some of our proposals have found their way into the fresh start, but we think the proposals there could be better, stronger and more amplified. Similarly, we proposed a whole enforcement approach, covering all the policing agencies and the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pursuits that should be undertaken, including those on a cross-border basis. We sought a whole community approach and a whole enforcement approach.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) has said that he was disappointed about the wider economic aspect of the package, and we see the reason for that when we compare what is in the package with the range of proposals and ideas that my party put forward and shared with other parties. I hear Conservative Members talk about the importance of reducing corporation tax so that we can compete with the south, and somebody was quoting a recent newspaper headline. We need to remember that our task in the north is not just to compete with the south with a comparable rate of corporation tax; we need to recognise that the south has built up because of its huge investment in further and higher education and in skills, and a very significant investment in infrastructure, and we are not matching that in the north. It is not there in the current programme for government and it is still not there in the vision after the fresh start. We need to be moving a lot further on that.

It is not only the south we need to be competing with; we need to recognise that as a regional economy, localities and city constituencies such as mine are having to compete with cities and city regions on this island, too, which are benefiting from things such as city deals and various other packages and measures. Although I do not buy all of the bluff and guff that goes with the whole northern powerhouse idea and so on, the fact is that significant drivers for economic growth are being given, and they are allowing cities and regions to shape things for themselves and we are leaving ourselves out of them in Northern Ireland. We should have had something in the class of city deals as part of this package, too.

Where there are positive things that allow us to move forward on issues, my party is prepared to recognise them. We are not going to be in denial about those things where there are difficulties. As ever, we need to build on what we have. We might not like exactly how we got here and we might not like the detail, but we always have to build forward—that remains our approach. As we build forward, we have to remember that the Assembly is meant to take on its responsibilities and to meet them, and it should not have been sliding over as handily as it did just to spare the blushes of Sinn Féin. The hon. Member for North Antrim says we are being too light on Sinn Féin, but we must recall why the motion has been put through here in the way it has been. We must remember why it is all being done so fast and why no amendments can be tabled. That is all designed to minimise the difficulty and the embarrassment for Sinn Féin. The timing of all this is not just to convenience the step-down by the First Minister; it is to cover and convenience the climbdown by Sinn Féin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The agreement refers to continuing to try to address the legacy. I wish that was covered in the Bill and that we were dealing with it now—I and the team have spent a lot of time working on that draft legislation—but the issue has not gone away. We need to deal with it, and we will continue to consider the options. I ask the hon. Lady to recognise that the Northern Ireland Assembly still has the ability to get on and deal with the legacy should it so wish. I urge it to start that process, because we cannot just move on in relation to welfare and leave the legacy issue behind. I agree with her, and I will be pressing the parties to take forward that issue.

[Mark Durkan]

Is the Minister now suggesting that the Assembly, having passed legislation on welfare reform to Westminster, should act under its own steam to legislate in relation to the past?