Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very briefly please, Mark Durkan.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

13. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the recent attack in the name of the IRA on a hotel in my constituency was an attack not just on that business, but on the city? Does she support the city in having a strong, resilient response that says, “We are not going to be a place of cold security; we are going to be a place of warmth, welcome and safety”?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can wholeheartedly agree with that statement.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

A man of letters!

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The then Secretary of State answered:

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That still leaves me in a situation where it is hard to understand the purpose of the letter, if it was not meant to be something one could rely on. This gentleman was carrying this letter around with him every time he entered the UK. Why would he do that if it could be superseded at some point?

[Mark Durkan]

If we are to place any burden on what the Secretary of State has just said, does that not create a very serious danger that the case law arising from this case in future will be that anybody can claim an abuse of process based on any mistake in communication they received from a Government official at any level?

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, there is a real question about what the legal status of the letters is now. We can argue about whether they were intended to be amnesties. The question has now become: has this judgment somehow elevated their status to something that was not intended?

The end of paragraph 45 of the Downey judgment refers to a letter sent by the then Prime Minister, which said:

“The Government is committed to dealing with the difficulty as soon as possible, so that those who, if they were convicted would be eligible under the early release scheme are no longer pursued”.

That is basically saying that somebody who could have been prosecuted and would have got a two-year sentence would now no longer be pursued. I am not sure how I can construe that as just being a factual statement. It appears that the intention of the Prime Minister at the time was to give some assurance that people who had gone on the run would not be prosecuted in that situation. That strikes me as being an amnesty under any other name. As the old saying goes: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. This looks very much like it was intended to be an amnesty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I join others in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for acceding to the request that I tabled for this debate. It was of course tabled by the complement of sitting MPs for Northern Ireland and supported by the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.

The parties that sought this debate interpret some of the issues in the background differently, and perhaps will have some differences of emphasis and interpretation in terms of the implications. What absolutely unites all of us was our frustration at how we all appeared to be both insulted and implicated by the terms in which some people responded to this judgment and the fact of it. I understand why he cannot be here today, but I include in that the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). The rest of us were not all in on this in the way he and, sometimes, Sinn Fein has implied. We have seen the adoption of contradictory positions. On the one hand, Sinn Fein has said that everyone knew all about this, and that this is an entirely confected concern now and, on the other hand, it has said that it was out of sensitivity to other people that it was secret and had to be done in that way.

When one reads the whole judgment, it is absolutely clear how long and persistent Sinn Fein was in pursuit of the case for a scheme. It is also clear that a scheme was running from pretty early on. It went through various different mutations, but it was never enough. There was always the need for something more and for something else. What comes through is that in all the negotiations between Sinn Fein and the British and Irish Governments, Sinn Fein was usually negotiating for itself and its people. It was never about the broad interests of the people or the agreement and its implementation. It was never about the Irish democratic interest or about the interests of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland; it was about Sinn Fein and its people. That is what comes through consistently in the evidence.

Contrary to the way in which the media have tended to treat this issue since the court case, it is also clear that the court rested most of its judgment not so much on the content of the letter but on the import of the letter based on the evidence provided in the affidavits from, among others, the right hon. Member for Neath and Jonathan Powell. The two key people who gave evidence to the court that helped to bring about the judgment then condemned and criticised the rest of us, in the media and in other outpourings, for our reaction to it, for questioning its implications and for raising issues in relation to the background.

Let us be clear: the right hon. Gentleman has rested a lot on the fact that it was publicly known that there was a Bill in 2005. Yes, there was a Bill in 2005. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill—misnamed the “on-the-runs” Bill—went far beyond the issue of on-the-runs. It was not just that it provided for a scheme that we now know about, except that it included loyalists and members of the security forces. It went far further and deeper than that. It was a deeply offensive and insulting scheme that used terms such as “special prosecution” to dress up the fact that people were basically going through a process for immunity—they did not even have to go to court to get that immunity; and they did not even have to apply for the certificate themselves. Of course, victims did not have to know about it. However, if something arose in relation to any case and someone wanted to compel a witness to appear, the witness had to appear. The person who was benefiting from the certificate would not have to appear. They would not have to spend a day in court or look a victim in the eye, but a victim who fundamentally disapproved of this whole bizarre, obscure and sick process for which the previous Government were ready to legislate in 2005 would have been compelled to appear on penalty of contempt. That is how strange it was.

We also must remember that the big scheme of 2005—the general scheme of amnesty—with its architecture of special tribunals, appeals commissioners and special prosecutors was never cited at the time by the Democratic Unionist party as a deal breaker on the way to what everyone knew was going to be an agreement that would see a restoration of devolution with Sinn Fein and the DUP in partnership in the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister. We all knew in 2005 that we were on the way to that. There had been the abortive comprehensive agreement in December 2004. We all knew that the talks were ongoing and that they involved the British and Irish Governments and Sinn Fein and the DUP. When this Bill appeared, people were rightly aghast, but the DUP did not make it a deal breaker. Other issues were deal breakers, such as how the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were to be appointed and about what was going to happen with north-south reviews. This scheme, the worst one that the British Government were prepared to legislate for, was not in itself a deal breaker. That is the point that Jonathan Powell might have been referring to in his book. Whether it is accurate to say that a letter had been sent to Ian Paisley, I do not know. I know that there are many other things in Jonathan Powell’s book that are not accurate. But I do know from when I was strongly opposing the Bill in Committee that the then DUP MP for East Belfast told me that he did not understand why I was investing so much political capital in trying to stop a Bill that was a done deal.

The DUP’s concern was to ensure that everyone knew that the deal was done under David Trimble, so that they could hang it around his neck. The constant misleading reference to Weston Park, which was made at the time of that Bill and in the very court case that led to the Downey judgment, has continued because the Government of the day contrived to say that everybody was in on it and that it was agreed by all parties at Weston Park. It was not agreed by all parties at Weston Park. First, all parties were not around the one table. Secondly, there was no agreement at Weston Park. The different parties were being talked to by the two Governments about different things. It was no way to run a process, and we loudly complained about it at the time. We said that there would be more side deals, sub deals and shabby and secret deals, which would end up corrupting the process. Those chickens have now come home to roost. It is not the case that this was agreed at Weston Park by us. When the two Governments published a paper after Weston Park that included reference to the on-the-runs issue, we made it clear that it was not part of the agreement and that we understood that people were making a case around an anomaly. We did not see it as part of the agreement as such.

Let us look at some of the arguments that have been made since this has become public. On the one hand, we hear from Government and others that these letters are not an amnesty; the right hon. Member for Neath has told us that the letters are not an amnesty. Yet he goes on to say that because these letters are now known about, there should be a general amnesty, including for the soldiers, loyalists and others who might possibly face charges in relation to Bloody Sunday. It is strange to say that the scheme is not an amnesty, but if it becomes publicly known then there should be an amnesty for everyone else.

If people did receive indications from the police and prosecuting authorities that there were no grounds for pursuing them and that there was no live interest in any possible case against them, I see that as entirely fair. If, however, as with the soldiers on Bloody Sunday, there is an inquiry on the basis of evidence, that has to take its course, just as it must for anybody else. I share people’s disgust at the way in which this scheme has been conducted—where it has been worked through as a Shinners list. One party goes to the police with a list of names and the list seems to grow all the time. When we first heard about the on-the-run scheme, we were told that it involved only a few dozen people. Now we know that it is many, many more. We said that there would be many more, but were told by Tony Blair and others that that was wrong. Sinn Fein, which says that it believes in an Ireland of equals, has complained about political policing. It has criticised some investigations into offences since 1998 and has said that those investigations amounted to political policing, even though they were driven by evidence from victims.

If anything is political policing it is when the police end up providing a scheme on a parti pris basis, with one political party for a certain political motive, just because that has been brokered or directed by the Government of the day, and that is what has happened in this instance. I do not go along with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who I know takes a deep interest in our affairs, in saying that we now need to know the names of everybody who received letters. The fact is that the people who got letters were those whose names were not known to the police; they were not actually being sought in any way. Some people took themselves on the run for different reasons. They could have been supergrasses who thought that they would be at more risk. Some might have felt that they were at risk of being under duress to turn supergrass themselves on the very limited information that they might have had. Many people might have had their own reason for taking themselves outside the jurisdiction.

We never had an objection to a scheme that was about notifying people who were outside the jurisdiction that they could return without being in peril of arrest. When we said that and when we opposed the 2005 Bill, we were told by the then Government that that could not be done and it would not be enough, and Sinn Fein was saying the same.

[Lady Hermon]

May I press the hon. Gentleman a little further to clarify his position and that of his party? Victims’ families feel extremely aggrieved by the Downey judgment and the fact that they now know that suspected murderers, perhaps of their loved ones, have been given an administrative letter. If members of those families come forward and ask the Secretary of State to confirm whether someone who is alleged to have been involved in the murder of their loved ones has received one of the administrative letters, surely to goodness the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would support the release of that information to those families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I want all families to get as much information as they possibly can. The Government do not seem to be sure how many letters they sent and are now having to refer to Sinn Fein to find out who might have got letters, so I am not sure how reliable that would be.

The answer to this added grievance for those who suffered grief during the troubles might lie in ensuring that the scandal surrounding the scheme does not damage the Haass process and its prospects for dealing with some of the outstanding issues about the past and making good the difficulties with the mechanisms for dealing with individual cases, including the police ombudsman’s powers on past cases and the difficulties with the Historical Enquiries Team.

That work should be supplemented with and complemented by the hugely important thematics arm provided for in the Haass proposals. It is our view, which we raised during the Haass talks, that we need to address not only what happened during the troubles but how the past has been treated since the troubles. At times, there has been dereliction and a collective failure in the process, because we have not addressed promises made to victims and pledges made about the past in the Good Friday agreement.

Some of us tried in talks after talks to say that we should deal with the promises made to victims and the past, but, for instance, in Hillsborough 2003, when the Social Democratic and Labour party and Alliance party were arguing for a victims’ forum, partly with an eye towards considering what could be done about the past, that was vetoed because the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein did not want it. Of course, at Hillsborough 2003 the two Governments produced yet another statement on the on-the-runs, saying that they would deal with the situation through a scheme that would apply to all scheduled offences. That was why it was pretty dishonest of Sinn Fein to then say that it was shocked to discover that the 2005 Bill included everybody and anybody. That was clear from day one of the Bill, but it took it until December—weeks into the process—to withdraw its support. The opposition that some of us voiced to the Hain-Adams Bill helped to mobilise victims’ groups to put pressure on Sinn Fein to withdraw its support. The Government nevertheless persisted in coming up with a bespoke scheme for Sinn Fein and this administrative scheme, which they kept relatively private.

I know that you gave us some advice on time limits, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as I led the bid for this debate I want to make some points in anticipation of some of the things that I might find myself asked by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.

In some of the talks subsequent to the withdrawal of the Bill, such as those at St Andrews and, latterly, those that led to the devolution of justice and policing, we asked, by the by, what was happening about the on-the-runs as that had clearly been a big issue in all the previous declarations and we did not seem to be hearing about it at those talks. We were quietly told that it was not an issue and that we should forget about it.

I am particularly sorry that we do not have the benefit of the presence of Paul Goggins today, a Minister who served with absolute distinction and aplomb in the course of all this. He would have had insights to reflect on from that period. I know from conversations I had with him at St Andrews and in other places that there seemed to be a concern that the SDLP would create problems for Sinn Fein because our objections to what was being done in relation to MI5 were too vocal—because we got too outside of ourselves—and that if we asked too much about the on-the-runs, there was a danger we would spook things for the Democratic Unionist party and create difficulties. It is not our business to create difficulties for anybody; we want the process to move forward—but it must move forward on the basis of ethics and morality.

The right hon. Member for Neath has sought to say a lot about a lot of us in this regard. He says that we must move on and that there needs to be a wider process of amnesty. He will know full well that in South Africa a key piece of language used in the law that established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the phrase

“to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation.”

That is what we have to do. The Bill that the previous Government tried to introduce in 2005 was not a morally accepted basis for dealing with the past, nor is this scheme. The Haass proposals offer us a morally acceptable basis for dealing with the past, and one thing that should be clear is that, whatever else there is disagreement over in the text of the proposals, one point on which there is no disagreement is the part that repudiates amnesty as a basis for dealing with the past. The right hon. Gentleman has also commended Eames-Bradley to us, saying we should calm down and get back to it and to Haass. They both say that amnesty is no basis for our dealing with the past.

We are told that the letters are not an amnesty. We are also told that everybody knew about them, yet one of the people who tells us that, Jonathan Powell, has also said that of course the letters were private as they were nobody’s business but that of the police and those who received them. Nobody’s business. The victims and the wider democratic public have no business in them whatsoever. The idea is that a private scheme can produce letters that will then be someone’s private property—but they can then be produced in a court and have the effect that the letter appeared to have in this case. That effect was down not to any legal strength or standing—we are told that the letter was a mistake—but to the import it was given by other evidence. The suggestion was not so much that the peace process might fall apart if the prosecution proceeded, as they were perhaps too subtle for that, but that the state could never be trusted again by anybody in any negotiation or any process if the mistaken word of an official under such a shaky scheme was not seen to be upheld.

The imperative was that the word of the Government through this mistaken letter from an official had to be seen to be upheld at all costs. Many words have been given out in this process that have not been upheld. The promises made to victims in the Good Friday agreement have not been upheld. The commitment of the British Government to legislate for a Bill of Rights has not been upheld. The solemn commitment at Saint Andrews about an Irish language Act and so on have not been upheld. Clear commitments were made that if Judge Cory recommended public inquiries, including in the case of Patrick Finucane, there would be a public inquiry, but they were completely absconded from—mind you, that has no implications for anybody as it is just about the broad democratic process. Those were merely commitments made in Parliament.

In relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), we should remember that this House was told on the day of the Saville report that any evidence that was there to be pursued by the police and considered by the prosecution authorities would have to be so pursued and so considered and that the process would have to take its course from there. That was a solemn commitment and a solemn pledge from which, unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Neath and the hon. Member for Aldershot seem to want the Government to abscond. There are all sorts of double standards here; it is not just Sinn Fein who are guilty of double standards in this whole sordid process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Woodward]

It is always dangerous to extrapolate from one person’s words and somebody else’s conclusion. One talks about “an interest”, but the hon. Lady’s refers to it as a “pressure”. All I can say to her is that, if there were questions from the Northern Ireland Office, as far as I am concerned, they could only ever be questions about facts. They could not in any way be about trying to interfere or change the outcome of any inquiry. The Secretary of State should know that, given the now legal status of the letters, the hon. Lady is entirely right to pose that question. It would be grossly misfortunate if the Justice were not to address that question. I remind the House that the situation is about an abuse of process, not just a letter. The entire process, of which the letter is a part, has been thrown up by the judgment.

That throws up the question of whether or not a status is conferred on the letters now—the letters were issued, as we thought, as statements of fact—that takes them beyond statements of fact. That is an issue of confidence. As the Secretary of State considers the debate—I expect her not to reply this afternoon, but to take away many of the considered comments made by right hon. and hon. Members—she should consider that the Downey judgment genuinely throws up the question whether or not letters issued in good faith by Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office as statements of fact are now more than statements of fact. If that is the case, the House deserves to know. It will be very difficult to rebuild confidence, which has been damaged across the process, without answering that question.

I am conscious of the time and do not wish to prevent other hon. Members from speaking. At the end of Justice Hallett’s review, we will have answers to some questions but not all. What will remain are questions of how we deal with some remaining dimensions of the past. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) rightly puts back on the table the issue of the soldiers who were named and effectively indicted through the Saville inquiry. For them, in their old age, terrible worries ensue. Nobody should be above justice and I would never argue that whoever may be involved should be above justice. However, the case throws the issue on to the table once again and the Secretary of State may wish to reconsider it. That does not mean dragging out the discredited 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, but perhaps we are approaching a point at which it would be sensible to consider a process that allows us to deal quickly and effectively, but only if it is fair, with those individual cases that arise out of dealing with the past of the troubles in Northern Ireland. It is an intolerable situation for those paratroopers to face, as the hon. Member for Aldershot set out so eloquently. It is equally intolerable for those who were victims of the troubles. I am not remotely suggesting that we revive the discredited 2005 Bill, but we know that Northern Ireland needs to move out of the past—not in the sense of forgetting its past, but it needs to move out of the grip of the past where that part of the past is a millstone around its neck.

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Aldershot. I would hope that in doing so he is not endorsing the hon. Member for Aldershot’s description of the events of Bloody Sunday as mistakes in the heat of the battle.

[Mr Woodward]

Not for one moment. The hon. Member for Aldershot was kind and generous enough to say that when I was Secretary of State I always tried to deal with all these issues with impartiality. That does not mean to say that I do not think it is quite proper for right hon. and hon. Members eloquently to make cases on behalf of those they wish to represent. Whatever view Members may have, the House would have to recognise the distinction with which the hon. Gentleman has represented the case of those who were, of course, serving British interests by being soldiers in Northern Ireland at the time. That is not in any way to be a judgment by me on whether they acted in one area or another, appropriately, rightly or wrongly, but it is none the less to recognise the role they played.

I very much hope that the House will find time to debate Justice Hallett’s review when it happens. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm that the Government will give Government time for a full day’s debate on that review, because I think it is essential to rebuild the confidence that has been damaged by the errors that were made by the PSNI. It is crucial that the Government are able to re-establish confidence, and that this administrative process to deal with people finding out whether they were wanted or not wanted is restored to its credibility as an administrative scheme, and not some back-handed way of dealing with them in a special high-handed way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

Let me say this unequivocally: absolutely, that is the law. Where there is evidence of criminality, the law must run its course. If the person is living in a foreign jurisdiction, that is an issue we have to consider. I regret the use of the expression “get out of jail free” card. No one is walking around with that in their pocket; that is not the case. I hope that these matters will come out when the House gets to consider the various reports, certainly the review led by Lady Justice Hallett.

While there are the issues of legality and fine points of law, the one thing that most people reading Hansard or listening to the debate would be struck by is the immense courage and bravery of many of the speakers who have, from their personal experience, expressed their views. I particularly praise the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for refusing to allow himself or his party to go down the nihilistic road of destruction and tear down the structures because of this issue. That is a courageous statement that would not be massively popular with every single element in his constituency, and he deserves praise and credit, as does his party, for making it.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said—I think that this resonates with many of us, and I will never forget it—that the matter we are discussing today has undermined the peace process, not underpinned it. It is that serious. We have to realise that this is not a minor administrative issue; it is a major point that has to be considered in depth, and I very much hope that the three inquiries will do so.

I want to leave time for the Secretary of State to respond to those points. As the Prime Minister said, this is not the time to unpick the peace process. It is not the time to say, simply and in the name of expediency, that everything that has gone before should be forgotten. It cannot. We have heard from many speakers today how painful, raw and fresh the wounds still are. We cannot forget. We have to analyse and discover what went wrong, and we have to be open and honest about it. The fact that the current First Minister and Justice Minister were not privy to all the decisions is profoundly regrettable. I say no more than that, but I am sure the House will appreciate how much of an understatement that truly is.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) for his contribution, which was extremely frank, open and helpful, and I very much hope that he will be involved in the various inquiries.

We have spent this afternoon talking above all about a time of great darkness when things happened that we regret. Every single one of us must bend every bone and strain every sinew to ensure that if we achieve nothing else in this House, it will be a move forward from that darkness into the light, where we can be open, honest and transparent, and where there is a better future for the people of that very brave part of the United Kingdom, because, frankly, they deserve no less than that.

With that in mind, I support the inquiries. I am very grateful for today’s contributions and apologise for not being able to respond in detail to some of the points that have been made. However, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath will respond—I can assure the House of that—and profoundly hope that when this matter is again ventilated on the Floor of the House we will have more information.

[Mark Durkan]

My hon. Friend says that, in the interests of truth, he will ask the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) to address the answers he gave saying that there was no scheme. At the time the right hon. Gentleman announced the withdrawal of the Bill, he said he would have to come back to the issue. That did not necessarily mean that he would come back to it in the House, but he did say that it would have to be addressed through other means. That is one of the reasons why some of us asked at subsequent talks, “What is happening about the on-the-runs?”, but we were basically told, “Shut up about it, because nobody else is worrying.”

[Stephen Pound]

If I have learned one thing in my life, it is that such language should not be used when speaking to people such as my hon. Friend or to any Member of this House, least of all Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I will certainly carry that message back. I think that the point my hon. Friend made earlier about precedent is one to which we will return, because it is of profound concern. If this document had no legal standing, did it create a precedent?

This has been a sombre and sober occasion. It is appropriate that we have been discussing matters of great moment this afternoon. I profoundly hope that the occasions on which we have to have such debates become fewer and fewer. May I thank all 15 hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate? Nothing that has been said on the Floor of the House this afternoon has been less than greatly impressive. It demands attention and will be acted upon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

I am not able to comment on individual cases today, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is evidence to prosecute individuals, it is vital that the PSNI pursues that evidence and that prosecution takes place in the normal way.

[Mark Durkan]

On the status of the letters, when the Attorney-General spoke in the House on 26 February, in column 265 of Hansard, he said:

“Neither I nor the CPS were prepared to accept that the letter and the circumstances in which it had been given were such as to automatically prevent Mr Downey’s prosecution.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 265.]

Was the Secretary of State or the NIO asked to make that representation to the Attorney-General, because somebody seems to have made that case to him?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said, these are hugely important matters. It would be of great benefit to Northern Ireland if an agreed way forward could be found. Some very important work has been going on in recent weeks between the party leaders, with real dedication to try to find a way forward. There is no doubt that finding a way forward will now be more difficult, given the events of the past 24 hours, but I continue to encourage the parties to do so.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that a key reason why we must deal with the past is the need to assure people that we did not end the dirty war just to end up with a dirty peace? Is that not even more imperative after yesterday’s revelations, which prove that some of us were right when we warned the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and others that they were blighting the peace process with their penchant for side deals, pseudo-deals, sub-deals, shabby deals and secret deals, which are now doing fundamental damage to the Haass process and to the process more widely?

[Mrs Villiers]

I know that the hon. Gentleman was one of the foremost opponents of Labour’s proposed legislation on an amnesty, which was also opposed by both coalition parties. I cannot agree with him on his characterisation of Northern Ireland’s troubles as a dirty war. I believe that the vast majority of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the military served with great integrity, distinction, courage and bravery, and we owe them all a huge debt of gratitude for creating the conditions in which peace was eventually found.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Lady has quoted. What we wish to see is people in work. Unfortunately, the last Government left this country with the most appalling financial and economic catastrophe. All that the hon. Lady, her Front-Bench team and the Leader of the Opposition can suggest is more spending, more borrowing, more taxes and more debt, which will plunge us back into the disaster they left behind.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Chancellor has indicated that he is considering a new regime for annually managed expenditure, with an overall cap on welfare spending. Does the Minister believe that that will entail a cap within a cap for Northern Ireland’s welfare spending, and what discussions is the Northern Ireland Office having with the Treasury and the devolved Administration about the serious implications of such a development?

[Mr Robathan]

Officials are always discussing things with the Treasury, Indeed, an excellent young man who works for us has just come from the Treasury to increase liaison.

Northern Ireland cannot be exempt from that which is affecting the rest of the United Kingdom. The Belfast Telegraph has said that the Northern Irish cannot pretend that they can

“have it both ways; that we can continue to benefit from the Treasury—we get back more than we raise in taxes—while people in other parts of the UK suffer from the reforms… we cannot expect that situation to continue indefinitely.”

I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is a serious and grown-up politician, will realise that as well.

Haass Talks

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. It is essential that all parties come together to try to resolve the outstanding differences between them.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Mr Speaker, may I thank you for speaking for each of us in your very articulate tribute to Paul Goggins’s ethic and the esteem that he earned in this House and beyond? Paul was not a “selfie” politician. His question was not who would get the credit for a measure or change, but who would get the benefit from it. Those of us in Northern Ireland who benefited from his work are right, on this special day, to give him credit for so much of the progress that he helped to build.

Will the Secretary of State affirm clearly that, in respect of the past, the Haass paper has more balance and much more value than the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) sadly tried to suggest? Will the Secretary of State also affirm that the whole Haass process, and the papers we now have, do have the makings of a worthy, worthwhile and workable advance if the parties agree to work on that, and that what we need to do at this stage is not just maintain working contact between the parties, but have a clear and cogent working compact so that we deal with not only those areas of difference but, more importantly, those areas on which we have reached an understanding that is better than we have ever had before?

[Mrs Villiers]

I think that I can broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman on much of that. While I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I think that what is now on the table is not as unbalanced as she fears—yes, I do think that it has the makings of a workable solution. These proposals can be the basis for further discussions. Clearly, they are not there yet, because five parties have not agreed, but they certainly form a workable basis for moving forward.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 3—Annual report an activity relating to Northern Ireland’s past—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall lay a report before Parliament in respect of each year as soon as possible after the end of the year to which it relates.

(2) The Secretary of State may appoint a person or persons to produce the report required under subsection (1).

(3) A report laid under subsection (1) shall contain in relation to the year to which it applies—

(a) a summary of the work of any body established to investigate, review or report on matters in Northern Ireland’s burdened past in terms and with standards which comply with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

(b) a summary of the work of the Historical Enquiries Team of the Northern Ireland Police;

(c) a summary of the work of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland insofar as it relates to Northern Ireland’s past;

(d) a summary of the work of the Independent Commission for the Location of Victim’s remains;

(e) a summary of the work of other public bodies which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, relates to Northern Ireland’s past;

(f) a summary of findings of any inquiry, review or panel which has reported on particular events in Northern Ireland’s past;

(g) a summary of responses made by Her Majesty’s Government or any other Government or body to any of the work covered by the report; and

(h) a clear indication where the findings of any work summarised in the report contradict remarks recorded in the Official Report of the House of Commons or House of Lords, especially by a Minister of the Crown.

(4) After a report under subsection (1) has been laid before Parliament the Secretary of State shall provide a statement to Parliament which shall contain references to—

(a) independent legal assessment of the compliance of the work covered by the report with Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights;

(b) the progress made during the year in dealing with Northern Ireland’s past;

(c) any apologies that have been given by any Government or public body in relation to the work summarised in the report;

(d) any apologies that have been given by any Government or public body in the context of any other reports, revelations or admissions which relate to Northern Ireland’s past; and

(e) any other relevant issues or concerns as they relate to Northern Ireland’s past.

(5) Any existing provision prohibiting publication of the material to be summarised under subsection (2)(a) shall, subject to subsection (6) below, not apply for the purposes of this section.

(6) No personal information shall be included in the report as laid before Parliament without the permission of the person concerned or, if they are dead, of their relatives.’.

This Clause would allow for a new Article 2 compliant mechanism to investigate past events. This could replace the Historical Enquiries Team and Police Ombudsman’s respective roles on the past. It provides an annual report on all work on the past accompanied by a ministerial statement addressing certain matters.

[Mark Durkan]

New clauses 1 and 3 are tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie).

I should explain to the House that new clause 1 expands on an amendment I tabled in Committee— in the Public Bill Committee upstairs, rather than in Committee of the whole House. The point of the new clause is to afford the House an opportunity to consider whether some of the work undertaken on the past in Northern Ireland could be consolidated and could have its value advertised and added to by creating the capacity for the Secretary of State to commission a report or reports by a person or persons on various groups or classes of cases, on events in a particular locality or period, or on the activities of a particularly paramilitary group within a particular period of time.

We are suggesting that a class report, based on other reports and findings that have already been produced—whether by the Historical Enquiries Team, established inquiries or independent panels, or even by reviews that might be established in the future—would be necessary because at the minute we have a fairly inadequate arrangement whereby if the HET reports on a case the report is given to the family concerned and treated as though it is the property of the family. It is published only if the family chooses to publish it and only in the manner the family chooses.

When there have been issues with some of the HET’s work, not least when it has investigated what have been called “Army deaths”, that situation has meant that although the HET has done some good work over a number of years, which has been valuable to the families, many families have not felt that they could discharge the burden of publishing the work. Of course, other families have been able to publish that work or to turn to the assistance of others to have it published. In recent times, a powerful compilation examining different HET reports has been produced by the Pat Finucane Centre, resulting in a book called “Lethal Allies.” It draws on the HET reports on a number of cases, on Ministry of Defence files and on other papers in the national archive to set out more of the circumstances behind a certain group of murders—the up to 120 murders conducted by the Glenanne gang. That powerful book has been able to draw on HET reports simply because those families gave the reports to the Pat Finucane Centre and entrusted it with that work. That points towards a wider gap in the provisions on the past, not least those that the Secretary of State would preside over in the public interest and in the name of the wider political process.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous regard, in full flow, but is he speaking on behalf of a small group of families whose loved ones’ murder the HET has investigated, or is he speaking on behalf of the majority of those families, they having asked him to make this change?

[Mark Durkan]

In no way could I claim to be speaking for a majority of all the families whose cases have been investigated by the HET, but I have met many of the families, and I appreciate the very different experiences that they report to me. Some families are unhappy about how the HET investigated their case, and what it was able, or not able, to find; other people were particularly satisfied, and have taken consolation and a sense of closure from what the HET has been able to do for them. The point is that many families feel that there may be an unequal process in relation to the past, and they are coming at that from different points of view and experiences. The new clause tries to ensure that our approach to the past, not least in terms of the HET, is more holistic.

The Historical Enquiries Team has been seriously compromised by a report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that found that the HET’s conduct of investigations of what are called “Army deaths” was so unequal and off-standard as to be illegal. That has put a serious question mark over the future of the HET’s discharging of its investigative role. Many of us believe that there is a need to replace the HET with a new body that is clearly compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights, and that if such a new body were created, the role relating to historical investigations that attaches to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland could devolve to that new body; we see the possibility of that article 2 compliant body taking over both the HET’s role in investigating the past, and the police ombudsman’s role in investigating complaints about past police conduct. Whether or not that new body is created, there needs to be an ability to draw on the good work already done by the HET in a lot of cases—work that currently is not celebrated, or shared in a meaningful way with the wider public.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate to the House whether the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Matt Baggott, has in recent weeks made it evident that he has any intention of replacing the HET and has lost confidence in it? That certainly was not the information that he gave to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs two or three weeks ago.

[Mark Durkan]

I am not speaking for the Chief Constable; I am speaking to the new clause. I have said that many of us believe that the HET has been seriously injured, and that the viability of it serving its purpose in future, and its reliability, have been fundamentally wounded. I know that many people on the Northern Ireland Policing Board have that view as well. As to whether the Chief Constable has come to that view, we will have to see. The new clause does not legislate for a new body; it simply allows us to ensure that if a new body were created, that would not negate good work already done by the HET, and good work done, and sound reports produced, by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

The new clause would ensure that reports can be commissioned not just on individual cases and events, but on evident lessons or patterns in findings relating to different cases and events. Anne Cadwallader, on behalf of the Pat Finucane Centre, has been able to bring out glaring and compelling points relating to the Glenanne gang and its work: the connections between many different killings; the repeated use of various weapons; the likely involvement of some people; and issues of collusion and complicity in all that. That approach should be available for other cases, too. It is not just about being able to tell that narrative about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries; there are compelling narratives that need to be told about the activities of republican paramilitaries as well.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The new clause has been tabled while talks are under way with Haass and so on, and there is a process that deals with issues from the past. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the new clause puts the cart before the horse, or does he think that it complies with that general process?

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

Is there not a confusion in what the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House? On the one hand, he tells us that there is a report about the HET and its fairness and ability to investigate collusion and so on which puts a question mark over it. On the other hand, he brings out the virtues of the HET, which somehow aids a “powerful” book, so-called, whenever it comes to security force collusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The HET has done some good work, but it has also done some work of very questionable quality. No less an authority than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found the HET’s work wanting in relation to the investigation of Army deaths, how they were investigated and how witnesses and potential witnesses were treated in that situation. It was a damning indictment by HMIC that the HET’s standard of performance in relation to a certain class of cases was illegal. That is not my finding, but accepting and recognising it and its seriousness does not lead me to rubbish cases in which the HET has done some good work and been able to marshal firm evidence that was of significance to families—evidence that was not shared with those families by anybody except the HET before now.

[Dr McCrea]

But how can we be sure that the reports that the hon. Gentleman says are virtuous actually are so?

[Mark Durkan]

First of all, I am not creating a class of good HET reports or bad HET reports. I am not saying that the Secretary of State must commission reports in relation to every single death on the basis of HET reports. My aim is to make good a deficiency in the work of the HET to date: its work counts solely as the private property of families, unless the families themselves choose to publish it. There is no formality in this House, for instance, whereby the Government may make an apology to a family on the back of an HET report. The Government up till now have treated that apology as a private matter, not a matter for the parliamentary record. An apology was duly given by the Ministry of Defence after a family had shared with it an HET report, but we had to go to the bother of an Adjournment debate, which I called, to get that apology voiced on the record. That shows that there is a problem in how HET reports are treated.

This is not just a point that we in the SDLP have come up with. Others have addressed it as well. There are victims groups who say that this is one of the deficiencies in relation to the HET. There is a question mark not only over the quality of the HET’s work, but over what the rest of us are doing with the HET’s work and whether the rest of us are interested in it. In the Haass talks the parties are meant to be addressing what is to be done about the past and what is being done, and it is important to acknowledge that some good work that has been done may not have been valued enough and is not well enough advertised or circulated. The measure is an attempt to improve that.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

When we talk about a level playing field with other parties, and all parties being included in the collusion issue, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a further investigation into the Garda Siochana and the allegations made about collusion there? We talk about apologies. Is it not time that we got a proper apology from the Irish Government and their part in the troubles many years ago?

[Mark Durkan]

I have no resistance to any inquiries about any allegations of collusion that there might be against Garda Siochana or anybody else. In relation to the point that is often made by the DUP about the possible involvement of members of the Irish Government in arming the Provisional IRA initially, I have no problem with an investigation of that or anything else. I point out that members of the Irish Government were sacked at the time and former Ministers stood trial alongside others, so it is not as though the issue passed without moment at the time.

The Berry papers brought those issues out again, in much the same way as the Pat Finucane Centre was able to find in the national archives in Kew many documents that provide a strong back-light on the murderous machinations of the Glenanne gang. In Irish Government records, including the Berry papers, which were perused by significant elements of the media some years ago, there is also significant back-lighting of what happened in and around the arms trial.

I want to return to the point of new clause 1. It is not to prescribe that there shall be one sweeping narrative in relation to all issues in the past, or to refuse any, but to say that where there have been various investigations or reports, whether by a public inquiry, the HET, the police ombudsman, or any other investigative means—the Ballymurphy families, for example, are talking about having something like the Hillsborough independent panel look at their case—if there were common strands to be brought out in relation to different cases, the Secretary of State could commission a report that would do that.

[Naomi Long]

I understand the merit in the proposal, but is the HET, for example, the right basis for the kind of reports that the hon. Gentleman seeks? The purpose of the investigation, for example of the HET, is to look at the matter with a view to the prosecution of those guilty of offences. The understanding and the narrative that forms the backdrop to those events are not necessarily the job of the HET, but are a more complex mix. I want to probe whether the hon. Gentleman believes that those are the right bases for this kind of narrative-building report.

[Mark Durkan]

I believe that they potentially are. If one has been privileged to have a HET report shared with one by a family, one has only to read it to see that it may be pointing less towards any possible prosecution, than bringing out significant information about the background events and circumstances. The first time that many families found out that their loved ones were murdered by the same weapons was when they read the HET reports that dealt with murders by the Glenanne gang. No one ever told them that before. They were never told that as a result of RUC investigations or any other revelations, or comments or observations made by Ministers about the nature or network of crimes or murders. None of that information was ever shared with those families until they received it from the HET, and until the Pat Finucane Centre literally brought them together as victims of the same weapons.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I seek clarification on the issue of the HET inquires. As an elected representative during the last couple of years I have made four, perhaps five, referrals on behalf of individuals to the HET. The HET has replied, but they are confidential, private, individual issues. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they should be made known to everyone, even though the families themselves want them kept secret?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to subsection (5):

“No personal information shall be included in the analysis as published without the permission of the person concerned or, if they are dead, of their relatives.”

One of the issues at the moment with the HET—too much of this debate is focusing purely on the HET—is that it is limited in that it cannot make its reports public. Many of us assumed that that was a statutory restriction on the HET, but it turns out that it is not. The clause allows germane facts that can point to the wider pattern and help to fill in the wider narrative in relation to forces, whether paramilitary or anybody else, who carried out murders and series of crimes. Where that wider narrative is brought out it would not be at the expense of publishing any information that is in the HET report that has previously been regarded as private, for whatever reason of sensitivity. But the wider narrative lesson should be able to be drawn out by a wider report.

Again, I make the point that there has been a significant response to the book “Lethal Allies”, including in Armagh and Tyrone. The Glenanne gang carried out its nefarious sectarian murder campaign against innocent Catholics. Remember that only one of the 120 whom it killed had any link whatever with the provisional republican movement. The people it killed were members of my party, the SDLP, people who were in the Gaelic Athletic Association, people who had bought property who were setting up in business. That is why they were targeted. Those who were specifically targeted and shot in their workplace or in their homes, as opposed to those who were more randomly killed by bombs, were all people of the ilk that I have described.

It was not only those forces that were involved in a sectarian campaign in Tyrone and Armagh and other places; so too, I believe, were the IRA and many others. That is the belief of many of the IRA’s victims in those places in those years.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because we are moving into a very sensitive area. There seems to be a hierarchy of victims. Will he tell me why Robert McLernon, at 16 years of age, and Rachel McLernon, at 21 years of age, on the day she was engaged to be married, were targeted by the IRA? Should we not know that? Who is going to tell us that?

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

[Lady Hermon]

In the new clause, the hon. Gentleman refers to the Historical Enquiries Team, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and various other inquiries and inquests. Will he kindly take this opportunity to put on the record his genuine appreciation of all the retired police officers, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and members of the armed services who, time beyond number, have willingly and freely given up their time to co-operate with the police ombudsman, the HET and various other inquiries and inquests?

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

While I understand the merit of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, is there not a huge danger of such a process creating a free-for-all for lawyers, with ultimately only lawyers benefiting from it?

[Mark Durkan]

No, there would be no free-for-all for lawyers in my proposal, because it would not add any new form of investigation relating to the past. The new clause basically says that whatever different strands are dealing with complaints about the past, whether it be the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims Remains, the HET or any successor body, the police ombudsman, or any other inquiries or panels—and whatever their work is—this House would receive an annual report showing what had been done in that year. It would also address article 2 compliance, because that is a serious issue that has arisen in relation to the HET, and other matters.

One issue the annual report could address is whether the reports of that year show new findings and put new light on events that were previously the subject of very different accounts in Parliament. We know that Ministers reported very differently to Parliament about a lot of these events, compared with the evidence now available from HET reports and Government papers that have emerged from the archives, thanks to the work of the Pat Finucane Centre and others. The annual report, with the statement from the Secretary of State, could be a parliamentary point of record for any apologies that have been issued by anybody in Government, and not only the British Government. Any apology by any public body or any Government in respect of findings or reports would be recorded, rather than being left as though it is just a matter of private correspondence between a victim’s family and a Government Department, which is the Government’s current position. The Government say that if they issue an apology on the back of something in an HET report or anything else, they do not see it as being up to them to record it or to acknowledge it in Parliament in any way. If the Government are iffy about doing that in every single instance, an annual report that reflected on work on the past and responses to it would provide a way for them to do it.

It would be very important for this House, as its encouragement to the parties in the Haass talks, to say, “Yes, we know that on the issue of the past there is a huge responsibility on the parties to come to an agreement and an understanding on how better to deal with it. More honestly addressing the serious events of Northern Ireland’s past is not the job of the Northern Ireland parties alone; there is a serious and particular role for the British Government and for this House, which held Northern Ireland under direct rule for so many years and heard so many accounts and versions of events that may now have to be addressed differently in the light of what reports find.”

[Lady Hermon]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that what he is proposing smacks entirely of a one-sided report, account and interpretation of the past? The vast majority of murders throughout the 30 years of mayhem in Northern Ireland were committed by the IRA. Who, exactly, is going to stand in this House and apologise for the murder by the IRA of innocent victims in their hundreds?

[Mark Durkan]

Unfortunately, I do not know who will do that. If families have received apologies from the British Government or the Ministry of Defence, there is no reason why they should not be recorded in this House. Remember, many people lost loved ones and saw those deaths misreported and mis-accounted for in this House and in other places, and that is one reason why we need to reflect that. If apologies have been given in response to any reports on or inquiries into the past—whether the HET, the ombudsman or any of the other channels provided for on a non-pre-emptive basis in the new clause—there is no reason why they should not be properly recorded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way so often. He will be aware of the phrase, “Victors write history.” Is he not in danger of handing the historiography of the troubles to a group that he would not even agree with?

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Let me first repeat an apology that I am sure you have already received, Madam Deputy Speaker, from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is currently on ministerial duty in the United States of America. Let me also echo the condolences and sympathy that have been expressed for the family of Eddie McGrady. I knew him a little, and took part in debates with him. I would say of him, overall, that he was a particularly decent man. I may have disagreed with him on various issues, but he certainly stood up for his constituents, and stood up for what he believed in in Ireland. He was both decent and courteous. I wish that we could say that about every Member of Parliament, but I am not sure that people would.

Let me also say that I deplore the petrol bomb attack on the constituency offices of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who represents the Alliance party. As others have said, such acts have no place in the democratic process. This was a very worrying incident, and I hope very much that we shall not see more such incidents.

I used to take a great deal of interest in Northern Ireland affairs, but this is the first time that I have spoken in a Northern Ireland debate for eight years. I have been otherwise detained elsewhere—and I think that that is more or less the right description. I believe that I made my last speech about Northern Ireland during a debate on what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) described in his opening speech as one of the worst pieces of legislation ever brought before the House, namely the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. I dug out my speech the other day, and I stand by every word of it. The Bill was indeed a disgraceful piece of legislation, and—as a result of pressure from all sides—it was rightly dropped by the last Administration.

I understand that the issues raised by new clauses 1 and 3 were considered in Committee, and that the hon. Member for Foyle initiated those discussions as well. I appreciate that his party would like more to be done to address legacy issues, and I sympathise with that to a large extent. Like him and, I think, all Members of Parliament, we want to see a way forward that commands the support of all parts of the community and all parties in Northern Ireland, but it was not evident from the interventions on his speech that there was support for this particular way forward.

Much of the responsibility for dealing with legacy issues is now devolved, and it is right for us to allow the local parties—which are, of course, represented here—to work towards an agreement on dealing with the past. I welcome the initiative that is being taken by the main local political parties in Northern Ireland to address the issue of dealing with the past through the all-party group chaired by Richard Haass. We have heard a certain amount about that today, and I agree with the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) that we must not pre-empt, or in any way undermine, what is being done by Richard Haass. The Government support the efforts that are being made, and hope that progress can be made. As a House and as a nation, we should await the outcome of the talks, and Dr Haass’s report.

A great deal has been said about the Historical Enquiries Team. We should be clear about the fact that its work and the work of the police ombudsman are not the responsibilities of UK Ministers. Those bodies are accountable to the devolved institutions, and a carefully negotiated framework exists in relation to accountability of policing. There are already mechanisms for reporting on the work of the bodies that are the responsibility of the devolved Administration; creating a further mechanism is likely to incur unnecessary expense, and would also duplicate the work of other bodies.

Let me say in relation to new clause 3 that the Secretary of State already reports to Parliament by way of parliamentary questions and the Northern Ireland Office’s annual report regarding the work for which she is responsible. That does not provide for everything that the hon. Member for Foyle wants, but the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee does examine the annual report.

We cannot agree to the removal of the Secretary of State’s powers to exclude certain material from publication when it is in the interests of national security—or some other important public interest, such as the protection of life and safety—for that to be done. The Government therefore cannot support the new clauses, and, although I listened with interest to what was said by the hon. Member for Foyle, I ask him to withdraw his motion.

[Mark Durkan]

A number of points have been made about both new clauses, and I accept the spirit in which many of those points were made. I could readily rebut the detail, but I shall desist from doing so.

Let me take this opportunity of acknowledging the warm tributes that have been paid to Eddie McGrady, with whom I served in the House and whose election campaign I managed in 1987, when he unseated Enoch Powell. He served all his constituents, and indeed the wider community in Northern Ireland, well, and he was clearly held in high honour. He was also a man of much greater humour than his public persona may often have allowed him to express, but he was absolutely dedicated to the sanctity of life and the solidarity of community on a totally inclusive basis. The parity of esteem of which he always spoke was something that he himself clearly enjoyed across the political divide.

Important issues have been raised. I said at the outset that I did not wish to divide the House, or to do anything that could possibly be seen as pre-empting the Haass process. However, I think that the House must face up to its responsibilities in relation to the past, both now and in the future. It is in that spirit that I tabled the new clauses, and it is in that spirit that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Petitions of concern

‘(1) In section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Petitions of concern), omit subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) When a petition of concern is lodged against a measure, proposal or a decision by a Minister, Department or the Executive (“the matter”), the Assembly shall appoint a special committee to examine and report on whether the matter is in conformity with equality and human rights requirements, including the European Convention on Human Rights and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

(4) Consistent with paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 (Strand 1) of the Belfast Agreement, a committee as provided for under subsection (3) may also be appointed at the request of the Executive Committee, a Northern Ireland Minister or relevant Assembly Committee.

(5) A committee appointed under this section—

(a) shall have the powers to call people and papers to assist in its consideration; and

(b) shall take evidence from the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.

(6) The Assembly shall consider the report of any committee appointed under this section and determine the matter in accordance with the requirements for cross-community support.

(7) Standing Orders shall provide for—

(a) decisions on the size, timescale and terms of reference for such a committee; and

(b) procedure(s) to allow for subsection (8).

(8) In relation to any specific petition of concern or request under subsection (4), the Assembly may decide, with cross-community support, that the procedure in subsections (3) and (5) shall not apply.”.’.—(Mark Durkan.)

This Clause would amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to reflect the terms and intent of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of strand 1 of the Belfast Agreement. It would qualify the exercise of veto powers, via petitions of concern in the Assembly, through the consideration of possible equality or human rights implications.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3,  clause 6, page 6, line 37, at end add—

‘7B The alteration of the number of members of the Assembly required to express their concern about a matter which is to be voted on by the Assembly, such concern requiring that the vote on that matter shall require cross-community support.

This paragraph does not include the alteration of that number to a number exceeding 30.”.’.

Amendment 4,  clause 22, page 16, line 3, at end insert—

‘(1) After subsection (2) of the section 75 (Statutory duty on public authorities) of that Act insert—

(2A) A public authority shall not interpret its obligations under subsection (2) in a way that is incompatible with measures taken on the basis of objective need.”

(1B) In subsection (5) of section 75 of that Act insert ““good relations” shall be interpreted in line with international obligations and, in particular, with regard to—

(a) tackling prejudice, and

(b) promoting understanding.”.’.

This amendment would apply to Northern Ireland, the clarification provided in the Equality Act 2010 to restrict the good relation duty being cited against fulfilling equality obligations based on objective need.

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a more cynical interpretation of why those concerned neglected to deal with this at that stage is that the UUP and the SDLP were then the largest parties, and they were hoping that they might be able to use the veto? Perhaps the reason for the concern now about the petition of concern is that the SDLP is not in a position to use it—as was originally intended, which is the reason why the legislation did not reflect what he is now saying that he wants.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman might have some basis for saying that if there was any truth in it, which, of course, there is not, not least because we deliberately set the petition of concern threshold at 30 because at that time we thought there was no chance of a party reaching the 30s. That was one of the reasons why the 30 threshold was there; there were concerns about how freely this could be used and that it might block things up.

The need for the petition of concern to be significant was emphasised not just by the threshold but by the special committee procedure to show whether there was a prima facie case on either equality or human rights grounds. The petition of concern was not to be used just for the convenience of a party that wanted to stop something. The fact is, however, that petitions of concern have been used to veto Bills that addressed the question of dual mandates between local government and the Assembly, which is a completely undue use. A petition of concern was also used to veto any question of a binding or significant vote in relation to censure of a Minister; it was never meant to be used in that sort of way.

The fact of a petition of concern being used, or being threatened to be used, by different parties prevents issues from being tabled. The whole point of the petition of concern was not to stop things being tabled, but to ensure that when they were tabled they were duly frisked and tested in respect of sensitive considerations such as human rights and equality. New clause 2 simply tries to get the Assembly out of the rut it is currently in, where vetoes are used far too often in a way that not only negates outcomes but prevents debate.

Amendment 4 seeks to ensure consistency with what was intended and envisaged in the Good Friday agreement and in the provisions that became section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which provides for equality duties and duties of public bodies in respect of good relations. On a number of occasions in recent years there has been a move to say that the good relations duty could sometimes trump the equality duty, so that a public body might not come through with a measure on equality grounds based on objective need because somebody else might feel it would upset good relations. We have seen that arise in relation to the Irish language, and there have been suggestions of its arising in relation to the provision and siting of social housing as well. The amendment seeks to clarify the balance and relationship between the good relations duty and the equality duty.

[Naomi Long]

But surely what the amendment does is not clarify the balance between the two, but in fact give one supremacy over the other? The reality is that in a divided society where there are competing rights and tensions in respect of those rights it is essential to strike a balance. Instead of simply giving equality the upper hand on all occasions, we must ensure that equality and good relations are balanced in decision-making processes.

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

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

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

“the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission.”

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

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

Only then could the Assembly have its vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Paragraph 13 then refers to “a petition of concern” in relation to whether or not that special procedure is involved. But the special procedure—the committee that is set up—is about an investigation at the behest of a departmental Committee or the Executive into a measure or legislation which they consider worthy of consideration under those terms. It is not about whether or not we have a petition of concern.

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It adds:

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

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

I assure the House that I stand fully by both amendments and the case for them, but that will not run to the extent of troubling the House with a Division on them, not least out of respect to other business both on the Bill and on other matters yet to come.

As I have already said, I can refute all the arguments that have been made against both of my new clauses. I can also correct the mistaken reference to the Alliance redesignating to help elect Seamus Mallon as Deputy First Minister. At the time the Alliance redesignated, it was to elect David Trimble and me as First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As I understood it, the whole point about Seamus Mallon being deemed not to have resigned was precisely to avoid a vote. I want to correct that in case anybody thinks that I have been economical with the truth as it relates to me. At the time, I made it very clear to the then Secretary of State, John Reid, that I would have preferred an Assembly election than to be elected on that basis and on those terms. That clear view was expressed to both the Secretary of State and to Downing street at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Mark Durkan]

I had no part in that.

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

Donations

[Mr Robathan]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 37, leave out “October” and insert “January”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Robathan]

I had forgotten what a vexed issue donations are—perhaps I should have remembered—whether from Michael Brown or one or two Labour donors. I can name them if the House wants. Indeed, we have had the odd one in our own party.

Northern Ireland

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like other Members, I want to say how pleased I am to be here today under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I obviously cannot agree with all the terms and tone of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), but I share his strong sense of solidarity with those gathered today in sombre commemoration of the terrible Shankill bombing. Equally, we will all lend our solidarity to those families who go through next week’s anniversary of the Greysteel attack, and all the others who lost loved ones, sometimes in lonely deaths that are not remembered in the commemorations of the landmark atrocities of the troubles, because they, too, have their feelings touched or stirred by commemorations such as today’s and by debates such as this. I also concur with him completely on the need to repudiate any pretence that some sort of claim about a just war can be made in relation to the IRA campaign, or indeed any other campaign of republican violence over recent decades.

It is supposed to be a Russian proverb that to dwell on the past is to lose an eye, but to forget the past is to lose both eyes. That is why we must properly acknowledge and address issues of the past. It is not enough, as some people sometimes suggest, to draw a line under the past and move on, or just to find some glib form of closure. Too many people are burdened by the past, carrying hurt and feelings that are all too present. They cannot just decide that they are well adjusted victims and move on when they are confronted with denial about what actually happened to them and about the nature of the crimes committed against them, their loved ones or their community. In those circumstances, we cannot treat victims as though some are well adjusted and some are badly adjusted because of where they are on the reconciliation scale according to some commentator or other.

We have to confront the past properly if it is not to be repeated. We currently have a group of dissidents who are basically happy to say that they are continuing the methods and principles of struggle pursued by the Provisional IRA. Thankfully, many of those who were involved in the Provisional IRA now choose to repudiate and reject the violence pursued by these dissidents, but it is important that current and future generations know the truth about the nature of the Provisional IRA campaign. Those who were involved in the Provisional IRA cannot give themselves some sort of moral superiority over the violence carried out by today’s dissidents, which is targeted in the same vicious and reckless way.

Other hon. Members—I want to acknowledge the opening statement by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) in particular—talked about the breakdown of victims in that sense, but it was also important that he read out the names, particularly the names of those whose deaths are being commemorated today, so that we remember not only the numbers, but the “whoness” of those people. They were loved and loving members of families and communities. That needs to be remembered as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) referred to the fact that the Pat Finucane Centre will soon publish a book called “Lethal Allies” by Anne Cadwallader, which looks at some very dark aspects of the troubles. It relates to a number of cases—10 in particular—that have been investigated by the Historical Enquiries Team, but the reports have never been made public because the HET reports are offered as the private property of the families. That is a weakness that I think we need to address. I agree with the point the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) made, picking up from Amnesty International. That is one of the reasons why I tabled amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to give the Secretary of State new powers and new responsibilities to do more to consolidate the value of the HET’s work and draw on its work. It should not just be left to the Pat Finucane Centre or somebody else who happens to have had the reports shared with them. That is something that we, as a Parliament, should take more responsibility for. The truth about many of those deaths and murders is coming out now in different ways, but the fact is that here in this House untruths were told about many of those deaths and murders. The claims of my colleagues Seamus Mallon, John Hume, Joe Hendron and Eddie McGrady about the dirty war, and our concerns about intelligence not being properly shared or used, about people not being apprehended and about collusion, were all denied. But the truth shone through in the De Silva report on the Finucane murder and it will shine through in the book I mentioned as well.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South said, some of the victims were targeted by loyalist gangs, which included some members who served concurrently in the security forces. Those victims were targeted not because they were involved in the IRA or anything else, but because they were obviously seen as uppity Fenians—they had been associated with the civil rights movement, were involved in the SDLP, were buying property and developing businesses, so they were put down. It is clear that the people specifically targeted in their homes and cars came into that class. Others, of course—including members of the security forces themselves—were more randomly targeted.

Other Members have paid tribute to members of the security forces. Let us remember that some of those lost their lives in attacks that could have been prevented had intelligence been shared and acted on. However, there was a warped game going on, in which some inside the security forces—particularly in the intelligence services—put the long war intelligence game ahead of the immediate protection of the lives of civilians and members of the security forces.

Collusion was not just something whereby agents of the state allowed loyalist attacks to happen; they also allowed republican attacks and servants of the state and people in the community to be killed. That truth needs to be told. If we do not have the truth about the dirty war, we will be settling for a dirty peace. If we do not have the truth about the viciousness and nastiness of all the violence that took place from all the paramilitaries, we will be selling future generations a false narrative about the experience of the past.

I was amazed to be told by a young man in my own city that the IRA only ever killed so-called “legitimate targets”—only those in the security forces and only in the high heat of active service incidents. That, of course, is completely untrue. It is one of the reasons why we need a proper truth process about the past to spell things out. Will we get the truth from the victim makers? No, but we need at least to gather and consolidate the truth from the victims. They need to know that their truth will be remembered and acknowledged. They must not die with the burden of remembrance heavy on their shoulders, as it is for too many of them.

We have to resolve the issue with a proper framework for dealing with the past. It will not be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it will mean that we politicians have to face up to our failures on this issue. Ever since the Good Friday agreement, every time there were talks and an impasse, both my party and I made proposals about the need to address the past. We were constantly faced with evasion, both from the two Governments and from other parties.

As I was told by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the Secretary of State at the time, the reason why there was nothing in the 2003 talks in Hillsborough for victims and the past was that both Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist party were absolutely clear that there should not be. The past was not to be touched and there was to be nothing for victims in that deal, which was meant to be a breakthrough.

There was a good speech from the Opposition Front Bench today, but we need to remember that the last Government produced the most insulting effort on the past that anyone could have—the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. We were told by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), that the Bill was about bringing closure, but it would have given all sorts of secret immunity certificates to all sorts of people. In fact, the only people who might have been prosecuted or sent to jail for any past crimes in Northern Ireland would have been any journalists or victims who reported or speculated on those who might have got one of those certificates, who might have been at a tribunal and what might have been involved. That was a gross insult.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I would like to hear more from my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Haass initiative is absolutely crucial, and that if all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government dropped the ball, that would be another blow and another impasse?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that the Haass process really does give us another chance. At least the parties are gathered together and we are engaged in a process. Previously we have been arguing about whether there should be a process or the shape of it. People resiled from the very good recommendations in Eames Bradley, and I think that the Haass process will look at those. The HET has already done good work in a lot of areas, but it has not been consolidated and built up. A lot of good and strong recommendations in Eames Bradley need to be revised and revisited.

There is also very good work going on in the cultural sector. I think of Theatre of Witness, which has done so much to portray the true stories and experiences of people, whether loyalists, republicans, innocent victims, members of the security forces, prison staff, or whoever. Those true stories are all brought together compellingly, not in any controlled or contrived balance but in a very powerful and emotional way. That is a strong way of helping to discharge us from the past so that people can see truth instead of injustice and reconciliation instead of retribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

We all recollect exactly where we were and our reactions at that time.

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new position. He indicated that he has been in place for only 14 days, and yet he is rapidly getting to grips. He understands that his position is a challenging profile. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)—the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—said that the future had to be better than the past. All hon. Members concur with that. My hon. Friends the Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), and other colleagues, elaborated on double standards.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made a reasonably positive contribution, although I do not get what connection the Planning Bill, which was debated yesterday in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has with dealing with the past. I will leave that to one side. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) spoke at some length about the need to reconcile the distinctive and profound differences, which all hon. Members understand.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that honesty was required, and I shall speak in the remaining moments I have on the theme of honesty. There is a distinction in Northern Ireland, but it is not between Unionism/loyalism and nationalism/republicanism. There is a distinct difference in how we look at the past. The vast majority of people, be they Unionists or nationalists, look at the past and see that there were those who carried out evil, heinous atrocities. There were then those in the RUC, the UDR and the Army who had to respond and try to deal with the problem that had been created by the paramilitaries. The vast majority of people on both sides know that that distinction is absolutely clear. The security forces endeavoured to contain the paramilitaries that carried out so many atrocities, whether they were republican or loyalist organisations. Unfortunately, that containment was for many years restricted by political considerations. We always knew that the decoded message was, “Do not rock the boat. We’re trying to include republicans in the political process. Please do not rock the boat.”

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He rightly talks about the nefarious activities of all paramilitaries, but does he not recognise that the UDA, which carried out the murders that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) talked about, carried out many of those murders while it was a legal organisation, with the British Government failing to proscribe it and both main Unionist parties supporting keeping it as a legal organisation, even though everybody knew it was up to its necks in sectarian murder?

[Mr Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an intervention that, unfortunately for him, is not based on fact. Whether there was murder by the UDA or the UVF, or any overreaction by security forces, our position has been that if there is any evidence against anyone, no matter what their standing is, it should be brought before a court of law and that person should face the full rigours of the law.

Unfortunately, there are those in the republican community who engaged in paramilitary violence and seem to be beyond the reach of the courts and the prosecution service. No matter how much pressure people bring to bear by indicating their knowledge of previous events, there seems to be a reluctance to call in for questioning Gerry Adams, the former Member for West Belfast, Martin McGuinness the former Member for Mid Ulster, and a host of others.

The position is this: the past is there and we, in different communities, are trying to grapple with it. We are having a difficult time coming to terms with how we move forward. Dr Richard Haass and his team have been involved, and will be involved in the course of the next few months, in trying to help us to come to terms with that past. The perpetrators of violence might not acknowledge their part in it and not accede to the rest of the community that they were wrong. That has been Sinn Fein’s position to date and it gives no indication of changing it. If it holds to it, it may well be that we cannot deal comprehensively with the past. It would have to admit that it was wrong to engage in murder on Shankill road and so many other places, as others were equally wrong to engage in murder in Greysteel and in other locations.

While the guilty refuse to admit their guilt, we cannot come to a successful conclusion about the past. We may have to make do with whatever agreement we can reach to try to minimise the impact the current situation brings to all sides and say, as the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, that we have to make a future that is better than the past. As we are dealing with honesty, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, it would be churlish of us not to say that we must move forward. Let us try to indicate to everyone that what we have done in the past has been done. If the guilty refuse to own up and we cannot bring the evidence to bear to bring them to court, we will have to move beyond that and leave them to the contempt that, hopefully, their peers and successive generations will heap upon their heads.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking. He assesses the current situation correctly. There is a genuine willingness to reach a solution across the political parties in Northern Ireland. Further discussions with the Justice Minister and Home Office Ministers would be a good idea, and I will try to facilitate them as soon as possible.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging the progress on understandings about accountability and primacy that have affected this issue, but will she also address the concerns that we have put to her directly about MI5 potentially using and abusing the future role of the NCA—as it abused the role of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—in nefarious ways and ways that have affected the performance and perception of the PSNI?

[Mrs Villiers]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

Let me pay tribute to what Alan Turing and all the people who worked at Bletchley Park did for our country—it was absolutely remarkable and it was crucial in winning the second world war. Clearly what happened to him was completely wrong and now, looking back, everyone can see that—everybody knows that. I am very happy to look at the specific issue of the pardon and respond to the hon. Gentleman, but above all what we should do is praise Alan Turing and the brave people who worked for him.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q2. Today is world food day. The Prime Minister embraced the IF campaign, including the need to cut pseudo-green biofuel mandates, which in effect hijack food productivity for the world’s poor for fuel consumption by the rich. Today the EU presidency is proposing a 7% cap, as opposed to the 5% cap advocated by the European Commission. That difference could feed 68 million people a year. What efforts is the Prime Minister making actively to avert EU Governments compromising the fight against world hunger?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the campaign that he has waged on this issue. We are absolutely clear that the production of biofuels should not undermine food security, and on some occasions in some countries it clearly does. A 5% cap on biofuels made from crops was one of the key asks of the IF campaign. I support the IF campaign and pay tribute to what it did. That is exactly what we are pushing for in current EU negotiations, and I hope we will be successful.

Northern Ireland

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that conversations about our mutual aid presence in Northern Ireland are continuing, and the Chief Constable is confident that he can secure the mutual aid resources he will need over the coming days.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which I regret she had to make, and commend the comments from the shadow Secretary of State.

Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is rent-a-rant leadership, people cannot escape responsibility for rent-a-mob violence? She referred, rightly, to the positive example on Friday of the Orange Order having its parade in the city of Derry, where it was accepted and respected, but does she understand that the dialogue model used there did not deliver immediately but took purpose and patience? Wider civic and commercial interests were able—and often required—to weigh in to ensure a wider perspective. Will she encourage the Haass dialogue to provide a channel for those wider civic and commercial interests as well?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am happy to do that. The business community made it clear that it wanted a peaceful 12 July weekend. I continue to encourage the business community to engage on these matters for the same reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlines: because they played such a positive role in Derry/Londonderry. I also agree that a sustainable local solution will not be found in just a few days, but will require further work. I hope that the Orange Order and the residents will continue the conversation they started; at the time, both sides said it was positive.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It has been a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). They made very thoughtful contributions, and I appreciate being able to listen to them.

I entirely appreciate, from my own family experience, the challenges as to why there had to be anonymity in Northern Ireland for so many years. I entirely support that, for the reasons that others have mentioned. I have a great deal of sympathy for amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Belfast East, which refers to a £7,500 threshold and has a provision giving people 18 months or so to make whatever substantial donations they make. A lot of thought has gone into the amendment, and in many respects I instinctively understand and appreciate it. The right hon. Member for Belfast North argued for allowing the Secretary of State to have flexibility up until October, because, sadly, the reality in Northern Ireland is that even though there have been enormous advances, things can change on a sixpence. The arguments are therefore very finely tuned.

A key part of normalisation is to make everything as equitable as possible between Northern Ireland and the UK. I fully understand the reasons for the length of time that the process has been given. I think that we are being very sensible in drawing to a close on this. If the Government cannot accept amendment 2, will the Minister categorically assure me that come October 2014 they would be absolutely cognisant of the fact that if another inappropriate excuse for a delay were implemented, it would be a very sad day for this House and for Northern Ireland? I suppose that some eagle-eyed observers will recognise that I am struggling slightly with this and reading between the lines. I would welcome our having equalisation come October 2014. That transparency is vital, and it is the next and final stage. I urge the Minister to make it very clear that while we retain the discretion up until 2014, our default position is to move towards normalisation expeditiously.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On amendments 7 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), I sympathise with the argument that if we stick unquestioningly to the date of October 2014 there is a danger that the same excuse will be given that the security situation does not permit us to move to more transparent arrangements. It is as if the date has been picked almost as a gesture to pseudo-transparency and the hon. Lady is testing that by proposing that it be brought forward. I sympathise with that, but January 2014 would be cutting it a bit fine, given that I assume the Bill will only get to the Lords this autumn.

I believe, however, that there is a case for bringing the date forward from October 2014. Bills are often enacted at the beginning of the financial year and I see no reason why that should not also be the case with this Bill. Members might point out that there are elections due next year, but I would have thought that a starting date of the beginning of the financial year would adequately and competently address the problem. I certainly do not think that the starting date should be after next year’s two intended elections, because that would make it look as though we were legislating with them in mind and almost allowing last orders for donations.

If January were the only date available before October, I would support amendments 7 and 8. I ask the Minister to consider bringing the date forward, because it looks as though the date of October has been set with next year’s elections in mind. Many people are also concerned that, come October, the can will be kicked down the road yet again.

Amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the hon. Member for Belfast East, seeks to ensure that the real commencement date for transparency is made absolutely clear and unambiguous. We heard on Second Reading, and the Minister has told us in an intervention today, that there is no intention retrospectively to reveal donations, even those made in recent years. A signal has to be sent, however, that there will be a date from which a record of all donations can be revealed when the circumstances allow it. That needs to be made clear and explicit. That is what amendment 2 calls for and I support it, because I do not think the public believe political parties when we tell them that transparency, definition and certainty are not possible and that we cannot give them an unambiguous commencement date for transparency. Amendment 2 goes someway to addressing that deficit in public credence.

As I indicated on Second Reading, I am sensitive to the many risks and threats that people may have experienced because of their involvement in Northern Ireland politics, whether as a candidate, the family member of a candidate, an activist, a member or a donor. However, there comes a point when the public feel that the arguments about security are overdone and are an excuse for secrecy. They are not sure whether secrecy is in the interests of the parties or whether it truly ensures the safety of the donors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. On his point about the Environment Minister for Northern Ireland notifying officials when a potential SDLP donor is involved in a planning application, does he know whether that information, when lodged with officials, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and is it available to a member of the public?

[Mark Durkan]

As I understand it, it is not, not least because it is not a compelling point. He informs his officials and the matter is handled in a particular way, but that does not put anybody at any risk. I do not believe that Alex Attwood is inadvertently trying to find a way around the provisions and the whole question of protecting things on a retrospective basis; it is about him as a Minister being honest with his officials and with the responsibility entrusted to him to exercise good, clear, honest and independent judgment. It is also about allowing his officials to do that as well, because many of the issues that have arisen in recent days involve concerns that Ministers are intruding into what officials are doing—that Ministers are being overactive in their Departments in relation to matters being handled at an official level. Questions arise about who meets Ministers and whether they record and declare those meetings fully, and whether they account for those meetings in response to questions in Committees. When those questions are being asked, we need to address transparency requirements.

It will not fall to this House and the Bill to provide all the answers to remedy the situation: the Executive and the Assembly will have to address tightening the ministerial code on ministerial meetings and donations. On Second Reading, I made the point that this issue does not just relate to planning decisions, and recent events relate to significant public contracts and public appointments. There have been a lot of questions on whether public appointments in Northern Ireland always follow the standard they are meant to follow. Many people would anecdotally suggest that there is too much coincidence and pattern in some public appointments.

Those are all reasons why we need more transparency. The fact that Northern Ireland is a small place is often used as a reason why we cannot have too much transparency. When I was a Minister, I would have made it known to a civil servant if a relative of mine was appointed to something. I would not have made the appointment, but it would have been for me to take official note of it. I wanted to disclose that, rather than have somebody else find out later on. Where relatives might have had a perceived interest in a particular project, or even a rival project, I would again have made a point of always declaring it. Of course, I was often told by civil servants, “Look, you can’t do that every time. Northern Ireland is too small a place. You can hardly walk down a street without bumping into people. You couldn’t throw a stone without hitting somebody that you know or are related to.” [Laughter.] That is not particularly good advice and is not the way I would usually want to make contact with people—even I might tweet first before doing that. The smallness of Northern Ireland can become an excuse for not having proper standards of transparency. That smallness is one of the reasons why it is necessary. The danger is that slippage in one area becomes an excuse for slipperiness in another. We should not allow that to happen. I have been definite about my support for making stronger moves on transparency, which is why I support amendment 2.

[Vernon Coaker]

On increasing transparency, does my hon. Friend think that the confidence of people in Northern Ireland would be increased if there was a statutory duty in the Bill to consult with the PSNI before arrangements were changed?

[Mark Durkan]

That could well be a pertinent point; the shadow Secretary of State makes a very good point. When it comes to security concerns, in many other instances, we treat the Chief Constable almost as an oracle. No doubt, the Minister will tell us that in any decision that he and the Secretary of State take, they reference information from the Chief Constable and other intelligence assessments, but it would be useful if that was in the Bill. Similarly, there is the role of the Electoral Commission; we know of its support for the amendments.

Amendment 6 would remove the right of anybody resident in the south of Ireland to make a donation to a party operating in the north of Ireland. I addressed this issue on Second Reading. I represent a border constituency in a regional city that serves both sides of the border in the north-west and which has strong links with neighbouring towns and areas. As such, the economic interest of the north-west is of cross-border economic interest. The same goes for the social fabric of the north-west: most families have a strong cross-border dimension, with many people living and working on a cross-border basis. Many people who work in the north live in the south, and vice versa, which is reflected in complicated—more so than they should be—arrangements for cross-border workers in respect of tax credits and other things.

When such cross-border life is part of the come-and-go flow of life, it extends to politics as well, because people have a strong interest in what happens in the region and want to offer political support, particularly if they are living temporarily in the south, but are from the north originally and might live there again or if they live in the south and have strong business interests in the north. It is natural. They do not regard themselves as being abroad when working or living in Donegal or Derry. They do not regard themselves as engaging in daily international travel.

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

The Member is coming very, very close to asking Donegal to return to the United Kingdom.

[Mark Durkan]

No, I’m not. Donegal is well placed where it is, so close to Derry, and Derry is well placed and well favoured where it is, so close to the bounteous beauty of County Donegal.

At a wider level, there are parties in Northern Ireland that see us as being part of the body politic of the island as a whole—it is our natural body politic, just as the population of the UK as a whole is the natural body politic for those of a Unionist identity in Northern Ireland. The idea, therefore, that when it come to our politics—our political agenda, our political offer, our appeal for support—our natural broader political hinterland, our natural political family, should be precluded from giving political donations to us would be wrong and unequal. It would be absolutely wrong if Unionist parties were able to receive donations the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including the whole of the island of Great Britain, to which they have such affinity, but nationalist parties in Northern Ireland could not receive contributions from people throughout the island of Ireland who want to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

Just to clarify, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not referring to my party’s website, where such information is easily found? I understand who he is alluding to, but it is not us.

[Mark Durkan]

I assure the hon. Lady and her party colleagues that I certainly did not want any stray fire to land on their reputation in that regard, so I am glad to affirm that point.

However, our opposition to amendment 6 is about putting things on a level playing field for all the parties in Northern Ireland, whether nationalist, Unionist or neither. As political realignment hopefully takes shape over the years to come, there will be all sorts of shifts in how parties present themselves, on either an all-Ireland or a wider-UK basis, and how far their nationalism or Unionism is emphasised. That is why donations should be available for parties from throughout the UK and from throughout the island of Ireland. That seems to me to be fair.

[Mr Dodds]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about both the donor and the recipient making a declaration. Currently, the rules mean that individuals or companies in the Irish Republic can provide funding to Northern Ireland parties, but that is not permissible when it comes to funding for parties in the Irish Republic, so the position is even worse. How does he think his suggestion can combat that problem?

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a point that throws up the conundrum that, although we are trying to legislate for Northern Ireland in broad conformity with UK legislation as it is applied for parties here, because of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, the exception is to allow donations from the south. Then there is the discrepancy in the donations rules for people in the south, whereby they can donate under one set of rules to parties in the south and under another set to parties in the north. Perhaps there is a case for saying that we should try to arrive at some conformity on donations across the island of Ireland, or that donations from the south of Ireland should conform to the southern Irish rules as well. I do not have a problem with trying to finesse some of these issues so that we are not left with too many obvious conundrums. However, the answer to the question that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has asked is not provided by amendment 6. It is not the answer to his very valid, pertinent and relevant question about the different standards for people from the south contributing donations.

I made the point on Second Reading that there were many people in the south who were originally from the north, or perhaps from this island, who had a valid and benevolent interest in the affairs of the north and who continued to make a contribution there, often through membership of public bodies. I also made the point that not all of them had been appointed to such bodies by nationalist Ministers. If such people are seen to have a valid role and to make a credible input in the best interests of Northern Ireland by way of a public appointment, I do not see why they should be precluded from doing so by way of donations to political parties.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

It is a pleasure to follow all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far. I intend to make only a brief contribution to the debate, as many of the points have already been raised. I note that amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), uses the word “may”, rather than “shall”, which is in keeping with the rest of the clause that he is seeking to amend. The Select Committee feels that we should move forward in this respect, and that we should try to normalise politics in Northern Ireland. I know that that was the ambition of the previous Secretary of State and the previous Minister, and it is fair to say that it is also the ambition of the current holders of those positions. It has been our guiding principle. Each and every political party that the Committee spoke to during the course of the inquiry approved of moving towards greater transparency.

Everyone on the Committee, myself included, recognises that there is a different security situation in Northern Ireland. The Committee has had a sufficient number of meetings, and paid a sufficient number of visits to Northern Ireland, to understand that fact. Further to my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), a question that has frequently been asked is: why should the arrangements be different for donors and for those who participate in the elections? The right hon. Gentleman gave an explanation for why people might want to be donors but not candidates, and I understand that, but I am still not clear why a donor should be at greater risk or under a greater threat than someone who is standing for office for a political party. I would have thought that it was the other way round. People who support a candidate, largely by signing nomination papers, would surely expose themselves to the same risk.

It has been pointed out that if a business makes a donation, it could put them at a commercial disadvantage, but it is up to the business to make that decision. There is a Co-operative store close to my office in Tewkesbury. The Co-op has supported the Labour party for many years, and I have to make the decision whether to go and buy a carton of milk and a newspaper from that shop. It happens to be close to my office and very convenient, so I do that. I do not think that businesses should be able to hide behind the argument of a security risk in order to protect their business interests. If they make a donation to a particular party in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in Great Britain, they should take that commercial risk. That should be part of the normal run of politics.

I am somewhat intrigued by the substantive clause inasmuch as it allows the Secretary of State to increase transparency, but does not allow her to reduce it. Having looked very closely at the provisions, I am still slightly confused on this point. If the Secretary of State increases transparency, can she reduce it at some later date? In other words, she cannot reduce transparency from where it stands now, but can she reduce it if she has increased it in the future?

I make that point because if she cannot reduce it, where have we got to? What would be the difference from what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley proposes? Let us say that the Secretary of State increases transparency, but in the year after that, the security situation—heaven forbid—got worse, so that she had to come back to introduce primary legislation to change that position. In those circumstances, I do not really see what would be any different from my hon. Friend’s proposal.

The Select Committee and I would certainly be against the publication of any information retrospectively when donors have made donations in the belief that that would not be the case. I am slightly concerned about the wording in clause 1, however, which it states:

“Such information may be disclosed if the Commission believe, on reasonable grounds, that…the relevant person has consented”.

We tried to strengthen that provision, saying that there had to be evidence that the person had consented. The Government response was that if they adopted our proposal, it would create an absolute offence and a mistake could be made. I am not completely persuaded by that argument. I think that the clause does need strengthening to ensure that a mistake cannot be made in this respect and that there has to be a clear indication from the person or organisation that made the donation that permission has been given for any such disclosure. I thus seek clarification from the Minister on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the events of recent days mean that the concerns that lie behind her amendments are clear and present concerns of the public, and are felt profoundly? It is a bit much for the Minister or anybody else to conduct this debate as though those concerns were not there.

[Naomi Long]

I agree entirely. There is a serious risk if people no longer trust their politicians and no longer trust their institutions to act in the public interest. The only way we can overcome that is by clearing the matter up. No party can easily defend itself while this information remains secret. I am willing to accept the Secretary of State maintaining the discretion as to when the information will be published, but I see no risk to anyone from a decision being made now that makes donors and parties aware that anything donated after January will be made public, when the Minister of State and the Secretary of State are convinced that it is safe to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The intention of amendment 20, which appears in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), is to achieve exactly the same effect as that outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) in respect of her amendments. The Clerks said that amendment 20 would be the best way to achieve the principle of one Member, one Chamber. However, I am open to supporting the other versions that would get us to the same point, namely the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East. I also note the extension of that principle in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), which refers to the European Parliament.

Oddly, the provisions on Members of Oireachtas Eireann being Members of the Assembly date back to a situation involving a prominent and senior member of my party, Seamus Mallon, who was deputy leader of the SDLP. In the 1980s, his membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly was challenged on the basis that he was also a Member of Seanad Eireann. Of course, when my party stood in the election to the Assembly in 1982, we made it clear that we would not take our seats and would not sign on for salaries, allowances or anything else. It is therefore not comparable to Members of Sinn Fein not taking their seats here, but taking allowances. When Seamus Mallon was subsequently appointed to the Seanad, a member of the Ulster Unionist party saw fit to make a legal challenge to force a by-election so that a Unionist could take the seat in an Assembly that had no real powers.

On the back of that controversy, Sinn Fein made the case in the early years of the peace process for a gratuitous piece of legislation that was put through this House, which provided that Members of either House of the Oireachtas could be MPs and/or Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Sinn Fein was the only party that sought that piece of legislation. That was because, in building the party and selling itself to its supporters, it wanted to use its heavy hitters as abstentionist MPs and as candidates for the Dail. It was entirely a confection to support Sinn Fein’s ambitions and pretentions in building the party and the movement. This House was convinced to legislate on that basis. Of course, Sinn Fein has not activated the change it sought, and rightly so. Whenever its more prominent elected representatives in the north decided to seek election in the south, they did so on the basis of giving up their seats in the north. They too seemed to accept the standard of one Member, one Chamber. We should therefore ensure that when there is an opportunity to legislate, we should take it.

The Government were right to move on the dual mandate between Westminster and the Assembly, not least because they had served notice that if the parties did not move to rectify the situation, they would move to legislate. They have done that and I support them. As I indicated on Second Reading, I took my own decision on the dual mandate and it is right that legislation sets a clear, common standard.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how that view sits with his party leader, the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), who sits both here and in the Assembly?

[Mark Durkan]

That is permitted under the legislation. In my view, legislation should clearly not allow that; a party leader should not be under pressure to say that, because they are in one and can be in the other, they should sit in both because the law allows it. There is pressure on people because being able to sit in both helps to protect a second Assembly seat in the constituency, but such tactical considerations should not enter into it. The best way to spare everybody from those sorts of considerations is to have one clear, uniform standard in law.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party has Members who sit in both the Assembly and this Chamber. Indeed, they have one Member who sits in Westminster and the Assembly while serving as a Minister in the Executive. I have always argued—when I was a Minister and subsequently —that any Minister should solely be a Member of one Chamber and be fully accountable to that Chamber. I have consistently argued that one should not be a Minister in one Chamber and a Member of another.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about consistency. Is it not a fact that when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly he was also a Member at Westminster?

[Mark Durkan]

No, that is not a fact. When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland I was not an MP. I became a suspended Minister—I was a suspendee, not a suspender —in October 2002, and I was not elected to this House until 2005. I subsequently made appointments when I was a Member of this House; I was the leader of my party and had the power to appoint Ministers. I made it very clear well in advance that I could not appoint myself as a Minister, no matter how many seats we had won and how many Ministers we might have had to appoint in the Assembly. I was an MP and could not be a Minister. That was our party rule, and the party standard has been consistent. Similarly, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Down, who was a very able Minister for Social Development in the Executive, was elected to this House, she resigned as a Minister. That was consistent with that principle: we have consistency and form on this issue.

Regardless of what justification Members or parties might be able to give for having coped with the dual mandate in the past, circumstances are different now. We have an absolutely settled process. It is important to give the public the confidence that we believe it is a settled process by moving on dual mandates. That would indicate that we do not believe that there is any uncertainty surrounding the institutions which might give an excuse for having a foot in two Chambers.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention, but may I run one suggestion past him? I have never had a dual mandate and I do not particularly favour them. However, in the context of a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland that is sustainable and will continue, is there not an argument to be made for the Finance Minister in that devolved Administration to be present in this House, particularly for the Budget, financial statements and the comprehensive spending review, so that he or she can address the key issues across the Dispatch Box to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that day and on those issues?

[Mark Durkan]

No, having been Minister for Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, I do not believe there is such a compelling reason. I would have regarded it as a distraction from my full-time day job if I had been operating in another Chamber as well. The limited opportunities we have here to ask questions on a statement or the Budget do not compare to the effective opportunities a Minister and his or her officials have via the other channels to the Treasury, such as joint ministerial committees that exist for engagement between Governments. Those are adequate for Scotland and Wales, so I do not think we should create an exception in Northern Ireland if someone happens to be the Minister for Finance and Personnel.

[Jim Shannon]

What about your party leader?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously missed my point. We want to legislate so that there are no special cases, no special pleading and no tactical pressure on anybody, be they a party leader or anybody else. That is why we should legislate to a standard, not on an ad hominem basis.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. He alluded earlier to a direction of travel and the destination we all want to reach: a single mandate for each Member. I think there is unanimity there, but would he agree that Scotland and Wales seem to have got there without the need for legislation?

[Mark Durkan]

Perhaps they did, but the fact is that notice was served to the parties in Northern Ireland that, if such a change did not happen, the Government would move to legislate, as they have now correctly done. It would have been wrong for the Government to give the signal, and then not to use the Bill to address the matter. We discussed this on previous Bills, because it came up whenever we considered the question of constituencies and voting systems, as well as House of Lords reform.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Further to the last intervention, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill, if passed, will apply to Northern Ireland. Similar legislation will be passed for Wales, but none will be passed for Scotland.

[Mark Durkan]

That would be a discrepancy as well. If the principle is one Member, one Chamber, it should apply all round. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that those of us who tabled amendments should have included the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, so that there was no question of somebody deciding to be in several Chambers.

[Naomi Long]

That was discussed at length in Select Committee. One reason we did not do it was that, this being the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, there would have been no argument for including it. I think the Secretary of State for Wales is intending to introduce legislation creating that bar, although whether the Secretary of State for Scotland chooses to do the same is a matter that perhaps he could clarify better than me. Either way, this matter should be resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I fully take the hon. Lady’s point; it was a helpful intervention, but the point that the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made was also a good and valid one. If we were using the Bill, in the pedantic sense, to make it truly perfect and to cover all the options, we could have included the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, but we did not, for the sorts of reasons she mentioned.

If we are moving, rightly, towards precluding dual mandates in this Chamber and the Northern Ireland Assembly, the same should apply to the other place as well. If it is to be one Member, one Chamber, it would be wrong if somebody could be in another Chamber in this Parliament—a Chamber which, because of the strange rules, procedures and fixations that people have here, seems at times to have more impact on legislation, by way of amendments, than this one.

The argument then arises about why somebody should be allowed to sit in another Chamber simply because they are not elected and have no mandate. The fact that they are there on an unelected basis does not make their dual membership of two different legislative Chambers any more acceptable than it would be for somebody who had been elected to both Chambers. Indeed, we have heard the Democratic Unionist party make the argument that there is more legitimacy if someone is elected to two Chambers, because the public, in electing that person, know that they are in two Chambers and knowingly give them that mandate. In many ways, the least defensible position is to say that someone can be an elected Member of one Chamber and an unelected Member of another at the same time.

The same thing has to apply to the Oireachtas. If people have rightly been precluded from being a Teachta Dala at the same time as being a Member of the Assembly, they should also be precluded from being a Member of the Seanad Eireann at the same time, whether as a Taoiseach’s appointee or as someone elected through the panels by the electoral college system that exists in the south for the Seanad. Again, if people are sitting in one legislative Chamber, that should be their sole place. That is the point of amendment 20 and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East.

I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley, who wants to extend that position to the European Parliament. Some of us had thought that that was already provided for, but I understand that it applies more specifically to membership of this House—to national Parliaments, as opposed to regional or other territorial Assemblies. In practice, when the parties in Northern Ireland have run Members of the Assembly as candidates for the European Parliament in recent times, they have usually done so on the basis of a full declaration that, if elected to the European Parliament, that candidate’s membership of the Assembly would cease. However, in taking a belt-and-braces approach, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point with amendment 3.

I repeat the point that if we want to have one Member, one Chamber, we should apply that to the second Chamber of Parliament and the Oireachtas, as well as to the first Chambers of both.

[Mr Donaldson]

We do not have an amendment in this group, but I want to speak to a number of the amendments that have been tabled.

I, along with others here, held a dual mandate for some time, being a Member of Parliament and subsequently being elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. At times I think it pushes the boundaries a little to suggest that there is huge public opposition to the concept of dual mandates. When I was elected for two terms in the Assembly, I was a Member of Parliament, but I was elected—I do not share this for any reason other than to illustrate my point—with the highest number of first preference votes of any candidate in the Assembly elections on both occasions. No one voted for me on the basis that they did not know that I was already a Member of Parliament, yet they deemed it appropriate to elect me to a second Chamber. The idea that the public were always entirely opposed to dual mandates is therefore spurious, because the facts do not support it.

Because of the development of the peace process in Northern Ireland, we needed people in the Assembly who had the experience of serving as Members of Parliament. That was important. I recognise that we have now moved on and, on the basis of voluntary undertakings given by parties in Northern Ireland, we now have very few Members who hold a dual mandate between this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and by the next election there will be none. To say that there is a need for these changes is therefore stretching the point, to say the least. Indeed, this issue would be way down my list of priorities for inclusion in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donaldson]

I would also say that a constituent, whether it be in Limavady or Lisburn, is well able to make a judgment about whether the person they elected to a particular chamber better serves the interests of the people by being here to vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, which is of no relevance whatever to the people of Limavady or Lisburn, or by dealing with an issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly that is of relevance to them.

We have moved on from the question of dual mandates between the House of Commons and the House of Lords or the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I do not believe that the same arguments apply in respect of being a Member of the House of Lords and being a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As I have said, I think there is real value to the Assembly in having a small number of Members who are also Members of the United Kingdom Parliament by virtue of their membership of the House of Lords. Equally, I would hope, the House of Lords can see the value of having that sort of representation, albeit on a small scale.

We nevertheless support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) because the European Parliament is an elected chamber, and we draw a distinction between an elected and an appointed chamber. If the argument is made that it is difficult to be in London and in Belfast, I would say that it is even more difficult to be in Brussels or Strasbourg and in Belfast. None of the Northern Ireland parties pursue the option of having their MPs as an MLA, but if the argument goes that we are legislating to prevent dual mandates for the House of Commons because we want to prevent it happening in the future, I suggest that the same principle should apply to Members of the European Parliament as well. It may not be the practice at the moment, just as I believe the practice of dual mandates in this House is coming to an end, but if preventive measures are called for, we have to be consistent and look at the position of the European Parliament.

We are minded to support amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley, but to oppose the amendments that include the House of Lords in the excluding provisions. We believe it is right to include the Irish Parliament within the exclusions, given that it is an elected body, and I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is seeking to extend that to include the Irish Senate.

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Irish Senate is not actually elected in a public sense. Indeed, some of the seats are appointed by the Taoiseach. Those of us who are backing these amendments are being consistent: whether or not a chamber is elected is not what matters; what matters is whether it is a legislative chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

Yes, that is the point that I was making and it is important to put it on the record. We are talking about the difficulties of having a double mandate, but I recall that back in the late 1970s and during most of the 1980s the original three MEPs from Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, John Hume and John Taylor, had three mandates. Nobody is going to say to me that they did not do a very good job for Northern Ireland in Europe. I know that there was a different context and a different set-up then, but they worked very well together. I had some experience of that through working with Ian Paisley in the European Parliament, and I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will know about it from first-hand experience of working with John Hume. That arrangement was necessary and they did an immensely powerful job for Northern Ireland. Indeed, I recall one of those MEPs, not the one from my party, saying that on one occasion he managed to speak in Strasbourg in the morning, in the Belfast Assembly in the afternoon and in the House of Commons in the evening. I asked him whether he used the same speech, but it was not a single transferable speech. Those were different days and we accept that we have moved forward, but it is important to put on the record where we are coming from.

Let me deal with the issue of the House of Lords. The explanatory notes talk about “dual mandates” and people prevented from being a Member of both this House and the Assembly, as is right and proper. What mandate does a Member of the House of Lords have? They do not have any mandate. We have a mandate because we are elected, but a Member of the House of Lords has none because they are appointed. So this legislation does not apply to the House of Lords because it is in a different position. If the House of Lords were elected, there would be a strong argument for saying that we should be legislating to prevent dual membership there, but it is not elected and it is different. Indeed, that was one of the reasons why people opposed reforming the House of Lords, because to do so would put it on the same level as, or make it equivalent to, this House, and that would threaten the authority of this House. So this matter is summed up in the very phraseology used about ending “dual mandates”. It is right and proper to do that in respect of the House of Commons, but Members of the House of Lords do not have a mandate. They have a legislative role, but they do not have a mandate.

[Mark Durkan]

Is the right hon. Gentleman not trying to create a class of Members of the House of Lords who are Members of that House and sit there without a mandate, but who nevertheless have a mandate by virtue of sitting in another Assembly? He is trying to have it both ways; if he is making a virtue of their having no mandate, leave them without a mandate.

[Mr Dodds]

I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads that over again in Hansard, he will perhaps want to reflect on that contribution.

It is clear that we are legislating to end dual mandates. As Members of the House of Lords do not have any mandate, it does not apply to them. In any case, for the other reasons that have been set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, there is a difference. Interestingly, when the Secretary of State for Wales made his announcement in March, he did not include a bar on membership of the House of Lords and the Welsh Assembly; he confined it to the House of Commons. So for all those reasons, the Government are taking the right approach.

On the issue of membership of the Irish Parliament, we very much welcome the Government’s decision to follow the position of the Select Committee and to take on board the representations made on that matter. It is right and proper that that should be the case.

Finally, let me turn to the issue of non-representation—I raised this on Second Reading and return to it now—by people who have seats in this House but who do not take them and do not do the work of parliamentarians. The Minister will know that the issue has been raised and is being pursued. The Bill is not necessarily the vehicle or the means by which it should be pursued, but the Minister should rest assured that, as we talk about dual mandates and about representation and people being fit for jobs and about the jobs they are or are not doing, there remains the outstanding scandal of all—the Members of Parliament who are elected, who get money to run their parliamentary business and who get representative money for which they do not have to account in the way that we do as parliamentarians and that they can use for party political purposes. That is an issue that the House still must, and, I am sure, will, address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It is very important that we consider what the electorate have decided to do. The electorate elect people to this House and to the Legislative Assembly. I pay tribute to those who had more than a dual mandate when there was a need for people to put their heads above the parapet and stand for office when things were enormously difficult in Northern Ireland. We have moved on. We accept that MLAs should not be able to stand for the lower House in the Republic, but we do think, at present, that they should be able to sit in the Lords. MEPs are a matter for another Department, on another day, and another Bill, in the Government’s opinion.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister address the issue of membership of Seanad Eireann?

[Mike Penning]

Exactly the same applies: that situation will be addressed, should the issue of the Lords be addressed. At present, the Government are not addressing the issue of the Lords; we will oppose the amendments on that subject. The Government oppose amendments 10 to 17, and recommend that clauses 3, 4 and 5 stand part of the Bill.

[Naomi Long]

I think the argument regarding dual mandates in the House of Commons and the Assembly has been fought and, largely, won. People may well say that the public do not mind double-jobbing, but it was a live issue in the 2010 elections, which is why all parties made the commitment publicly in their manifestos, before those elections, that they would not maintain dual mandates. People were elected on the expectation that they would leave the Assembly during this term. Everyone has said that that is the point that we want to get to. I know why I feel the need for legislation, but I do not know why the Government do. Perhaps it is because every time we discuss the matter, even those who say that they are in favour of such legislation in principle continue to put up quite a spirited defence of double-jobbing—and are still here to do so, three years after the last Westminster election and two years after the last Assembly election. However, I would not want to speak for the Government on that point. It is important that the Government, having made a commitment to legislate on this subject, follow through on that.

On the other amendments that I have tabled, the issue for me is whether we are applying the rule consistently. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a compelling point: the concern when the issue was raised was not simply about dual mandates, although that became a shorthand for it; it was about serving in two legislatures and the challenge that presents with regard to people being able to do both jobs properly. There is a further point, in that in the House of Lords, the expectation is that people are not fettered or influenced by constituency responsibility. However, if they have that responsibility because they have an elected mandate in another legislature, they are no longer free in that way. That distinguishes elected posts from other forms of employment outside the House of Lords in an important, fundamental way.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that in the context of Northern Ireland, there is a significant point to make about the House of Lords, in that no nationalist political representative takes a seat there? My party will not nominate to the House of Lords, precisely because its Members are not elected, and because of various other constitutional attributes it seems to have. Only Unionists or others who are not nationalists go to the House of Lords. If we make an exception for the House of Lords—an exception that I would not seek to make for Seanad Eireann—we end up with unequal legislation, because it ends up being only Unionist Members, and not nationalist Members, who are able to sit in two Chambers.

[Naomi Long]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s right to advance that case, but it is not my case, or a case that I would choose to make, because if people are elevated to the House of Lords, they have the option of taking up that post. They are not barred from doing so because they have a nationalist perspective, or an Irish Republican perspective, for that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Let us be clear. In my remarks I referred to a nationalist representative. Somebody who was appointed as a working peer because of the competence and skill they have and the clear independence and service to the whole community that they demonstrated against much grudging from other quarters is entirely able to defend themselves as being there not as a representative of my party or even with the designation that my party confers on itself in the Assembly.

[Naomi Long]

I think—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in Committee about this very important, if small, Bill. I feel a little in fear of being in splendid isolation on these Benches, although I am also surrounded by a phalanx of Northern Ireland politicians—something that I am not entirely unused to.

This has been an interesting debate. Perhaps, in referring to clause stand part, I could reminisce a little about why the Assembly has a membership that many believe is rather large, at 108. We could compare that with, for example, the Welsh Assembly. Wales has a population roughly double that of Northern Ireland but its Assembly has roughly half the number of Members of the Assembly in Belfast. There is a reason for that. It came about, as it so happened, on Maundy Thursday 1998 at 3 o’clock in the morning or thereabouts, when we struck an agreement with the parties—although of course at that stage the DUP was not involved; I think they were getting rather cold marching to Stormont in the snow.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will recall, the initial belief was that there should be a membership of 95, but in fact it went up to 108. The final figure was reached quite quickly by the then Prime Minister, and we as Ministers, on the basis that although the idea of having five Members per constituency, making a total of 95, had some merit, increasing it to six would give smaller parties that had been involved in the talks on the peace process the opportunity to be represented in the Assembly—the Women’s Coalition, the Progressive Unionist Party and others. That was sensible. It related to the fact that we already had ready-made constituencies in Northern Ireland that could be used as the basis of the boundaries for the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

In the previous debate we heard interesting reference to how things have moved on. I believe that if we had not had people in the Northern Ireland peace process and political process who did not have a dual mandate, those processes would not have happened, because those people brought an invaluable wisdom and a richness of experience to the talks. Incidentally, I am not persuaded that we should be legislating about who should or should not be allowed to stand for the House of Commons or for the Assembly, but that is another issue, and we have just dealt with it. The point is that those decisions were made at the time to ensure that the process went on. I think that the 108 figure was right for the time, because it did what it had to do. Now that times have moved on, however, it seems to me that we should ask whether that figure is an encumbrance. Is it too big? Is it too expensive? Does it work? I think that this is a matter for the political parties in Northern Ireland to decide, as opposed to this place. It should be the Northern Ireland Assembly that decides whether it should be smaller.

Incidentally, when the Government tried a year or so ago to change the boundaries of our parliamentary constituencies they completely forgot about the knock-on effect it would have on Northern Ireland. Happily, that measure has disappeared, but it would have had a profound effect on the balance in Northern Ireland. The Government had not thought about that when they considered the parliamentary boundary review, but that is another issue.

It is for the parties in Northern Ireland to decide on the size of their Assembly and that is why I support clause 6, but I issue one caveat. I understand—had I read the Bill more thoroughly I would know whether this is the case—that the Secretary of State will have to endorse such an agreement. I think that is right, because the Good Friday agreement, the St Andrews agreements and the entire peace process were guaranteed by the Irish and British Governments and the Irish and British Parliaments, so that is another important factor. I will only be convinced, however, when the Secretary of State or the Minister, in response to this or any future debate, make it absolutely clear that no such changes should be made unless they achieve the consensus of all the parties in Northern Ireland as to what the figure should be.

I understand that the Assembly has a mechanism—the Assembly Commission, which is representative of all parties—that could initially consider any representations. Whatever happens, the decision should be reached by consensus, discussion, negotiation and agreement, and only then should the Secretary of State give her approval. Nevertheless, the principle is a wise one and I support it and hope it will be carried if it is put to the vote.

[Mark Durkan]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who chaired the strand 1 negotiations leading to the Good Friday agreement. The very important and patient role that he played throughout the negotiations is not often acknowledged.

Clause 6 deals with possible changes to the size of the Assembly and the right hon. Gentleman has explained why it ended up at its current size. He has corroborated many of the points that I made on Second Reading about how the figure of 108 was arrived at. The decision was made ultimately by the British Government. Some of us favoured a top-up scheme, but I remember the right hon. Gentleman and the then Prime Minister telling us during the night and early morning that the reason why they saw the option of six Members per constituency as offering the best chance of accommodating smaller parties was that if they went with the option of a top-up of 10 it would be too complicated for them to work out all the different permutations of top-ups. That was significant at that stage of the negotiations. We need to understand why that decision was taken. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly said that it can be revised and reviewed; indeed, the review mechanism of the agreement itself allows for that.

I do not think that there is any disagreement between the parties that the size of the Assembly needs to be addressed. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has previously kicked it about, but we have still not seen any substantive moves. There are sensitivities involved in decisions about the size of the Assembly. A reduction to five seats per constituency would probably be broadly supported. A reduction to four seats per constituency would be much more sensitive, because it would make a serious difference to the capacity for proportional representation.

There is a question over the degree of gerrymandering that will be possible when the Assembly or the key parties therein have the power to settle the number of seats per constituency. The parties could abuse that power. That is why it is right that there should be a reserved power for the Secretary of State. However, some of us are not reassured that the Secretary of State would use that reserved power in an alert or effective way, because when Sinn Fein and the DUP come along, the attitude of the Northern Ireland Office seems to be, “Whatever you’re having yourselves.” That seems to account for sufficient consensus on such matters.

[Naomi Long]

In fairness to the current Secretary of State and the NIO as currently constituted, will the hon. Gentleman reflect the fact that what he describes has always been the case, even when his party and another party were in the position in which the DUP and Sinn Fein now find themselves?

[Mark Durkan]

I am not aware that we tried any such thing. I certainly never agreed to any such moves, not least when I was Deputy First Minister. When my fellow leader suggested that there were things that we could do to ensure better political patronage, I made it very clear that I was not for doing any such thing, regardless of what the NIO wanted to do. I used to spend much time in disagreement with NIO Ministers who had wheezes that they were working out with the First Minister. I did not go along with any of the Jonathan Powell, John Reid, David Trimble, Tony Blair wheezes on further ensconcing the position of the then leader of the Ulster Unionist party. It seemed to me that messing about with the institutions and playing those sorts of games was not the way to do things, either for that party or for the process and institutions that we had.

[Mr Donaldson]

It is just a minor point, but I am interested in how the hon. Gentleman regarded the wheeze that was introduced in the Assembly to unresign the former Deputy First Minister, who was then the deputy leader of the SDLP.

[Mark Durkan]

I think that privately I was the first to make the comparison with Bobby Ewing in the shower. I know that others said it publicly, but I think that the memoirs will show that I made that observation first because it was an obvious one to make. I did not agree with such wheezes. When it came to my election as Deputy First Minister alongside David Trimble as First Minister in the autumn of 2001, I did not agree with some of what the then Secretary of State said about the circumstances in which that election would take place. I made it very clear that, as far as I was concerned, if the Assembly fell and there was an election, that should be that.

Similarly, to correct a misrepresentation that was made on Second Reading, we did not agree to the wheeze of moving the date of the Assembly election. Under the agreement, the date of the second Assembly election was meant to be May 2003, because the first Assembly was to sit for five years to allow for bedding in. We did not agree with the date being postponed from May 2003. The right hon. Member for Torfaen, who was Secretary of State at the time, will remember that we said we were opposed to moving that election date. We have not agreed with any of the wheezes. When things are said, they should remain.

[Mr Donaldson]

Lest we rewrite the Second Reading debate, I wish to place it on the record that the point I made was merely that there is a precedent for extending the Assembly to five years. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now accepts that the 1998 Assembly was extended to five years to, as he describes it, bed in. The point that I made on Second Reading and that I reiterate now is that there is a precedent for extending the life of the Assembly to five years.

[The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark)]

Order. I ask Mark Durkan to address the amendment that we are debating.

[Mark Durkan]

I will do that, Ms Clark.

On the number of Members in the Assembly, the parties seem to be agreed in principle that that can and should change. The agreement provided for a review, just as the agreement provided that the first Assembly would last for five years. The first Assembly was not extended. There was provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and in the agreement, for the first Assembly to be five years, and four years thereafter. We did not agree with the date being changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

On this question, we disagreed with the Select Committee. We agreed with it on some things, and changed the draft legislation accordingly, but we did not agree with it on this matter.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will not give way. I have finished speaking on clause 7, and I hope that the Committee will allow it to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 8

Appointment of Justice Minister

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to move amendment 18, in page 7, line 4, leave out from ‘is’ to end of line 41 and add—

‘repealed.

‘(2) Any provision by Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly which provides, by virtue of section 21A(3) or (3A) of the 1998 Act, for the method of appointment of a Minister in charge of devolved policing and justice functions, shall be repealed.

(3) Any Minister in charge of devolved policing and justice functions shall be appointed in the same way as other Northern Ireland Ministers.’.

[The Temporary Chairman (Katy Clark)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.

[Mark Durkan]

Amendment 18 deals with the appointment of a Justice Minister. I shall not go through the history of the various bits of legislation that have gone through this House—many of them steered through by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain)—to provide for all sorts of permutations and models for appointing such a Minister. The main parties settled on a version that would allow the Minister to be elected by means of a cross-community vote in the Assembly. Of course, the party that gained that Ministry could then end up having a surplus of ministerial positions over and above its entitlement under d’Hondt.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) will recall the tortuous negotiations that we had, and the fact that we were determined that there should be some sort of proportional system, be it d’Hondt or Sainte-Laguë. We went through the various permutations, and d’Hondt was the one that most people were familiar with, because of their experience with the European Parliament. It was deliberately chosen as an inclusive arrangement and to create a situation in which parties were not in a position to vet or veto each other’s ministerial appointments. We actually used that language in the discussions and the negotiations; the parties did not want to be in a position of being able to vet or veto other appointments.

Nevertheless, when it subsequently came to the arrangements for appointing a Minister of Justice in the context of the devolution of justice and policing, there was a departure from that principle—for all the various circumstantial and other reasons with which we are all familiar. I shall not take the Committee’s time in either rehearsing or rebutting them this evening.

If people went for that formula, straying outside the terms, principles and promise of the agreement, they did so on the basis that it was needed to get the devolution of justice started and it was a way of breaking the impasse ensuring that there were no more standoffs. The progress made overall and in the context of justice and policing, means that we have time to consider whether the exceptional arrangements made in and around the position of the Ministry of Justice should still continue.

This clause is designed to end the aberration in the sense of a party being over-represented—over and beyond the d’Hondt entitlement—but that does not simply correct the matter in itself. As I pointed out on Second Reading, it creates other anomalies and potentially some pressures on the parties.

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Member acknowledge that it deals with a second anomaly, too, which is that a Justice Minister could be removed from post by a cross-community vote? That could lead to a different aberration, whereby a party could end up with less than its d’Hondt entitlement to Ministries. Is not that issue relevant as well?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I recognise that. When these measures originally went through, I made a point about the unequal situation and said that the power in the hands of two particular parties in respect of the Justice Minister’s position was potentially abusable. That anomaly clearly needed remedying as well. We always believed that this should be done as part of d’Hondt, and we believed that the number of Departments could have been adjusted at the time—not to add to the number of Departments, but to keep to the 10 that had been approved, absorbing a Department of Justice. The parties chose to go this way and even to add an additional Department even though their stated position was that they wanted to reduce the number of Departments in Northern Ireland.

In our view, the future Justice Ministry—when the Northern Ireland Executive is next appointed—can be decided and allocated in the same way as other Ministries under d’Hondt. We already have a situation whereby there is more tick-tacking, contact and understanding between the parties in advance of d’Hondt being formally run in the Assembly than was originally envisaged or required at the time of the agreement. Some of the issues are about the sensitivities around who will take what post and what might be detonated by that. Those issues will have to be dealt with in the context of the negotiations.

We view d’Hondt as the mechanism for appointing a future Minister of Justice, as with all other Ministers, in full knowledge that that will create a number of difficulties and uncertainties at a number of levels—we have those problems with other ministerial appointments in any case. There are questions this week about existing Ministers, their appointments and the attitudes of parties towards the rules and the spirit of the pledge of office and so forth. It is not as though the issue of the Minister of Justice is the only sensitivity, as there is also sensitivity about the possibility of d’Hondt leading to the Minister of Justice post going to only one political party. There are clearly sensitivities in relation to other matters, which is why the position of the Policing Board and the whole Patten architecture is so important as well. There are various proofs related to the exercise of the powers and responsibilities of a Minister of Justice that have been well observed and honoured in respect of the current Minister, but they would be equally obligatory for any future Minister appointed under d’Hondt.

[Naomi Long]

As I said on Second Reading, I support clause 9. I acknowledged at that time the existence of the twin anomalies that because Justice Ministers were appointed outwith the d’Hondt process, they could end up with a Ministry more than they were entitled to under d’Hondt, and could also lose that Ministry on the whim of a cross-community vote—although I must add, in fairness to parties in the Executive who may feel fearful, that that has not been exercised, or been threatened or in any other way intimated, by any of them.

I am grateful for the way in which the Government have negotiated and listened to what has been said by my party and others, and I welcome the clause. I think it important that including the Justice Minister in the d’Hondt system will result in a fairer arrangement, whether we gain or lose in party-political terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

May I repeat the thanks expressed on Second Reading to Her Majesty’s Opposition for the supportive way they have looked after me in my new role? I look forward to being with the shadow Minister tomorrow, up on the Committee Corridor once again, when we consider another piece of secondary legislation.

I genuinely wish I could support the amendment, but I cannot, as we are not yet in the right position to do so, as the shadow Minister suggested. This is a difficult situation, but I think everybody accepts and understands why the Justice Minister was first appointed in this way and then subsequently again in 2011. We have moved on from that, however. While what we propose in clauses 8 and 9 is not perfect, it does move us forward and address the anomaly in the position of the Justice Minister. We were formally approached by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to look at putting in place a provision that addressed this anomaly. We have done so through clauses 8 and 9, which is why I hope they will be agreed to.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Minister for what was a very straight and straightforward reply. It was exactly as expected. I would not have expected the Government to be moving. I expected that the best we would get would be mutual engagement, but no mutual adjustment. We have had mutual engagement, and there has not been adjustment. I fully understand the points made by other Members as well.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said that there are provisions around the Minister of Justice in terms of the Executive locus. That is precisely what I was referring to when I talked about some of the standards that are there, which are well honoured by the current incumbent, and which apply equally to all other Ministers as well. The existing protections do not need just to apply to the means of appointment, and there are also obligations and standards in place. However, recent events show that we might have more to do either here or in the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of increasing the robustness of some of the standards around ministerial probity and accountability.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill (Clauses 1 to 9) reported, without amendment (Standing Order No. 83D(6)), and ordered to lie on the Table.