High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Naomi Long Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

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

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate, and I apologise to the House and to other hon. Members, particularly the Secretary of State, for the fact that I will not be able to remain in the Chamber for the whole debate owing to circumstances beyond my control. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time to consider this issue today. It is a sensitive and serious matter, not just from a Northern Ireland perspective, but for the UK as a whole, given the way in which this scheme appears to have circumvented the will of Parliament and allowed others to circumvent due process under the law.

Let me put my remarks into context by setting out a number of points. Like the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I agree that the centrality of victims in issues of justice and dealing with the past must be reflected, recognised and given respect. It is one thing to be honest with victims in Northern Ireland and tell them that they may never receive justice because of the passage of time or a lack of evidence, but it is another thing if, where people have the opportunity to pursue justice, it is denied to them, either by a process that is concocted as this one was, or by any other mechanism that seeks to prevent people from pursuing justice. Like others who have already spoken, I would oppose—as would my party—any form of amnesty.

When discussing this issue it is important that we do not seek to diminish in any way the progress that has been possible as a result of the wider peace process in Northern Ireland. All Members of the House, I think, value the progress that has been made over the past 15 years, and all want to see it furthered rather than regressed. However, it ought not to be peace at any price, and there must be some sense of moral foundation on which we move forward as a society. I believe that this process has failed to engender a sense of confidence among the Northern Ireland public that a moral compass was operating in the Northern Ireland Office at the time these issues were dealt with.

I recognise that all peace processes contain issues of transitional justice, where normal justice arrangements are in some way changed or altered to address specific circumstances. We accepted that in Northern Ireland—to varying degrees, I must say—and that it was done on a particular basis. However painful the early release schemes, they were endorsed by the public directly in the Good Friday agreement referendum. There were other cases of transitional justice where elected representatives endorsed a process. For example, there was limited immunity in the case of decommissioning, and because of the wider benefit of recovering those weapons it was accepted that they would not then be used for forensic testing in order to incriminate those who handed them over willingly. There was an acceptance by public representatives, on behalf of their constituents, that that was a fair, right and just thing to do. Equally, for the recovery of the remains of the disappeared, limited immunity was provided for those who gave information so that they would not incriminate themselves in doing so. The greater good being served was that those families who had suffered the horrendous torture of not knowing the final location of the remains of their families would perhaps be able to get some truth.

Those cases are distinct from this one, however, because they were either considered here openly in Parliament, with the acquiescence or at least the full knowledge of the political representatives who sat here, or endorsed in the Good Friday agreement by a public referendum. The issue we are discussing did not flow from the Good Friday agreement, and no amount of repetition will change that.

I remember voting for the Good Friday agreement, and how difficult it was to do so in the light of the early release scheme. It was one of the hardest things for me to swallow, as somebody who believes in the rule of law. I voted for that agreement, however, because I believed that it was in the greater good, as did the majority of people in Northern Ireland. No reference to the on-the-runs or any other issue of this nature was put to the people of Northern Ireland, and neither were they given the option to vote on that issue. For others to suggest that this scheme was a natural flow from the Good Friday agreement is absolutely false. It was not endorsed by the public or the representatives. More than that, when the tidy up was brought in to try to put this issue on some kind of statutory footing, Parliament rejected the attempt to extend the amnesty, which we now know has been given to those who received these letters, to other categories of person who may have been seeking similar comfort. Parliament rejected that, yet it went ahead.

The allegation is that, without the letters, the peace process would not have survived. No one denies that the issue of on-the-runs did not exist. The question was how it could be addressed in a manner that would keep the principles and foundations of justice intact. At that time, the Alliance party proposed a tribunal process, in which people would have their cases reinvestigated and tried in open court, but they would have to present themselves in person to face justice and their alleged victims to do so. My party has been consistent that no widespread amnesty, such as that floated by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, is an acceptable way forward. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. I go further and say that two wrongs will not make a right. The answer in this case is not to say, “Let us universally wipe the slate clean”, but to resolve it so that justice can be done fairly and squarely for everyone in Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to put on record her candid assessment of the damage done to public confidence in the prosecution service and—I say this with great sadness—in the Police Service of Northern Ireland by the ramifications and revelations of the Downey case?

[Naomi Long]

I am more than happy to do so.

The timing is significant. Over recent years, there has been a perception in the loyalist community in particular that justice acts in a differential way, and not to their benefit. I have not shared that perception, but I am hugely aggrieved that, as a result of the case, it has been compounded, because no loyalists and no members of the security service had access to the scheme. Only members of Sinn Fein or people who came through Sinn Fein had access to the scheme. In fact, there are complaints from other republicans who fell out of favour with the Sinn Fein leadership that even they were not able to access the scheme.

Therefore, justice in Northern Ireland was acting in a partial way during that process, which has undermined public confidence and further damaged people’s respect for the PSNI by implication—the PSNI was asked to do that job by the Government of the day, and did as it was asked to do, as is its duty, but its role in the process has tainted the public view of it. It has been incredibly damaging, and a huge amount of work will need to be done as a result to recover people’s confidence in their politicians, in the justice system and in the wider peace process.

That is why, from the beginning of the negotiations, the Alliance party was clear that side dealing and secret dealing would end up being the undoing of the peace process, not its underpinning, because the truth will out, and when it does, the ramifications, having been kept secret in the first place, are as significant as the deal originally done. It is better to face the truth and deal with the consequences of failure there and then than it is to continue a charade and a false perception of progress, which is shaken to its core when such things later emerge. I feel very strongly that the case has undermined people’s confidence in the process, and that a lot of work needs to be done to restore it.

On the inquiries, other hon. Members have outlined the variety of inquiries taking place in the Assembly, the Policing Board and the House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but I want briefly to consider the inquiry being undertaken by Lady Justice Hallett. That inquiry was always to be narrowly focused and swift, which is to be welcomed. However, I am slightly concerned by the increasingly narrow focus of the inquiry. We would be well advised to keep that under a watching brief. In letters issued to Lord Thomas by Julian King, director general of the Northern Ireland Office, Mr King appears to very narrowly circumscribe the role of Lady Justice Hallett and how far her investigations can go. For example, Mr King has advised that she will not need to look at every individual case as part of her inquiry. For me, that raises questions about who will do the sampling of cases she will look at and on what basis the sampling will take place. How will we ensure that she has the opportunity to look at the different wording in the letters that were issued over the period? The wording did change. Some people received letters saying that unless new evidence was discovered, they would not be requested for trial, but others were told that they would not be requested unless new cases were discovered, which is entirely different in terms of importance. How will we know that every variety of letter and text will be thoroughly investigated unless each case is looked at in detail? Indeed, without reviewing each case, how can we know whether there are errors in other individual letters? Only by looking at each case and the evidence on which those assertions were made can we know whether any of the others were erroneous.

The Downey ruling and the stay based on it make clear that they are not based on the fact that the letter was issued in error. In fact, the reading of the judgment suggests that the ruling was not even based on the content of the letter. The content of the letter coupled with the testimonies of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), Jonathan Powell and Gerry Kelly, who set out their view of the intent behind the letter, were important in the ruling. That is hugely important, because—clearly—the intent was that those people would not face prosecution. That was taken into account in the judgment.

It is understandable that people want to know who knew what and when, and what the process was, not least my colleague the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, particularly given that the scheme continued to operate under devolution, interfering—that is the only word I can suggest—with the devolved responsibilities of the Justice Department and other devolved structures of government. It is important to know that, but it is more important to know the import of the remaining letters. The Secretary of State’s view remains—she has made it clear—that those letters ought not to be treated as an amnesty, but it remains to be seen how a court would view them in the light of the judgment, which was not appealed, and in the light of the evidence given in the judgment of the intent of the letters at the time. Will saying that they no longer count retrospectively count for anything in a court of law? We wait to find out whether they count for anything or not.

Having said that, it is crucial that we decide where we want to go from here. Victims who for reasons beyond our control may never receive any justice are still out there. Some might receive justice, but many will not. We have said for a long time to successive Secretaries of State that we require a comprehensive process to deal with those issues in a manner that ensures that openness, integrity, truth and justice are placed at the core of our peace. The cases should not be treated as commodities to be traded in our political process, corroding respect for the rule of law both within the process and within the communities we represent.

We have in the past cautioned against side deals and their toxic effect. We now need to focus on getting to the truth and on learning the lessons of flawed process and side dealing. We need to refocus our community and find that comprehensive way forward on dealing with the past, for which we have called for some time. I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North, who said that the Haass process—for want of a better terminology —needs to move forward with new vigour, because we need to provide answers on the footing of openness, transparency, honesty and justice, for those families who still await the outcome. We need to bear in mind the hurt and aggravation of the families of four soldiers who will never know the outcome because of the application of double jeopardy in the Downey ruling.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Naomi Long]

It is constantly raised that the letter was issued in error. However, in the judgment the real influence came from the content of the letter combined with the testimony given as to what the effect of the letter ought to be. Personally, having read the judgment, I think that the issue of the erroneous nature of the letter was in many ways a red herring. If another letter, accurately written, had been presented with the same testimony from the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) and the others who gave testimony, the effect would have been exactly the same.

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, I think the hon. Lady must be right on that. The judge seemed to think that the process was meant to confer some kind of assurance on people and that the letter had to be read in line with that, but I am no expert.

We ought to look also at the concerns expressed at the start of this process by the then Attorney-General, who is quoted in paragraph 36 of the judgment. He said that he was

“seriously concerned that the exercise that is being undertaken has the capacity of severely undermining confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland at this most sensitive of times. Individual prosecution decisions have to be justifiable within the framework in which all prosecution decisions are reached and I am not persuaded that some unquantifiable benefit to the peace process can be a proper basis for a decision based on the public interest”.

Those concerns have not arisen retrospectively; there were concerns at the time about what the process would really mean and what it would be seen to mean to various people in Northern Ireland. That is why I welcome the inquiries into this situation.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Paul Murphy]

Mr Deputy Speaker will stop me if we go into the details of what we discussed some weeks ago, but I will simply say that the principle of all parties agreeing a policy is critical to its success. The issue, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, is one that involved not just political parties, but paramilitary organisations as well. The principle, however, has to be agreed: there must be agreement between the parties all the time, even if it takes weeks, months or even years to achieve it. Otherwise, it will be so fragile that it simply will not continue to have any validity at all.

I agree with the Lords amendments. I will also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the consultation that was held on the details of the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I also rise to support the Lords amendments. It is worth noting that my party agrees with the Democratic Unionist party on this occasion, because that has been a rather rare occurrence in recent years. We wish to see significant reform of the Assembly structures and the burden they place on the population of Northern Ireland.

The principles of the Good Friday agreement—power-sharing, inclusion and proportionality—are very important. Whatever changes are made to the Assembly, they need still to reflect those principles. There are many ways in which those principles can be implemented in practice to allow Northern Ireland to have a leaner, more efficient Government. I believe that that would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland and that it is something the Assembly should wish to take forward. We should be open to reform that would make our Government more agile and that would allow our governance to move away from the structures that often impede its ability to deliver for the electorate. Obviously, we would like the Assembly reforms to go much further, but that is a matter for the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. However, I concur entirely with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that the time for talking about this has come to an end. We now need to see real progress and take the opportunity these amendments present to reduce the number of Members per constituency and then, as part of that process, reduce the number of Government Departments so that there is a correct balance between those in the Executive and those in Back-Bench positions holding them to account.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the debate commenced on this very important Bill. Will the hon. Lady identify what the Alliance party believes to be the impediments that the Assembly’s current structures have resulted in?

[Naomi Long]

I appreciate the opportunity to do so, but I will not go too far, because Mr Deputy Speaker will be quick to reign me back in. In terms of what the AERC is looking at, we want a review of the question of an addition to the numbers of Members and Departments. We also want to move away from the Assembly’s designation system—which I believe copper-fastens sectarianism within our structures and manages division rather than addresses it—towards a weighted majority voting system. I believe that that would be much more fluid and that it would allow Government and, indeed, Assembly decisions to be taken much more quickly and easily than is currently the case with our mutual vetoes, which do not serve Northern Ireland well.

I would also like the Assembly to have opposition structures similar to those in this place, which has a properly financed and funded Opposition who can hold the Executive parties to account. It is a very difficult job. During my time in the Assembly I sat as part of the unofficial Opposition—we were not in the Executive—and although it was a very nice place to be and we could be critical of what was going on without having the responsibility of making the decisions, it was not properly funded or researched. Often it was done on a shoe string in comparison to the support received by the majority of Assembly Members, who were members of Government parties and had access to the relevant structures.

[Sammy Wilson]

I think that anyone listening to this debate would be surprised to hear that, while there appears to be a willingness to see the changes mentioned by the hon. Lady, there has been absolutely no move towards making them. Indeed, a properly structured, effective Opposition could be easily obtained if those who talk about it were prepared to drop out of the Executive and take up opposition positions, but, of course, they do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

That is interesting, because it suggests that it might be the DUP’s plan for after the next elections. It, too, has called for a properly structured and funded Opposition at the Assembly, but I do not see it walking away from the post of First Minister and all its other Executive posts. This is not about which is the biggest party in Northern Ireland, because government is founded and constructed on proportionality. Why would we as a party walk away from our proportional entitlement to govern when others do not? This is not about the Alliance party being in opposition—that is not a point of principle. We did our part in being constructive in opposition. This is about having an Opposition who could be formed of Members from bigger and smaller parties co-operating and collaborating together, as can happen in this place. It is rather facetious to suggest that one party leaving the Executive and essentially giving its ministerial responsibilities to other parties with which it fundamentally disagrees would be a way of structuring opposition.

I believe that the AERC reforms will come and I will certainly press for them, as, in fairness, will my colleagues in the Assembly. However, we need to convince those in Northern Ireland—we need to take cognisance of this—who have felt politically excluded over a long period of time that such reform is not designed to further exclude or diminish their role in the governance of Northern Ireland. The stability we enjoy today requires buy-in from all sections of the community, and we cannot squander that simply in order to have efficiency.

[Lady Hermon]

Is there any evidence to suggest that the general public in Northern Ireland wish to have an Opposition at Stormont or whether, in fact, they are in favour of power sharing between parties that, collectively do their very best for everyone in Northern Ireland?

[Naomi Long]

I think there is evidence that the public would like to see an Opposition, and that evidence is their frustration with the amount that can be delivered under the Executive and the structures as they stand. The most common complaint about the Assembly is its lack of delivery, and I think that all Members would recognise that that is a challenge for all of us whose colleagues are representatives there. People feel frustrated that things take so long and that the process is far too cumbersome.

I think that an Opposition would help to speed up that process and that they would, therefore, be welcomed. I concede that people may not necessarily articulate the argument in favour of an Opposition so directly, but I believe that the implication is that most people would respond if we cut through some of the morass of slow and weighty governance and its burden on the Assembly and created more efficient governance.

I am happy to support the amendments. I believe that a reduction to five seats would maintain the principles of inclusion, proportionality and power-sharing. I also believe that they present the Assembly and the AERC with a renewed opportunity to get about the business of reducing the size of the Assembly, reducing the level of governance and, with the powers they have, starting to deliver real change for the people in Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I also rise to support Lords amendments 1 to 3, particularly relating to the size of the Assembly.

We live in days when everything that is spent by elected representatives and their offices and by institutions, ministerial Departments and Government is scrutinised to the nth degree by the public and the press. That is right and proper and we should be above reproach in such matters. That also means that, just as we expect our constituents and businesses to deal efficiently with finances, we must do the same. Leaner does not mean meaner: it means that we can do things better and more efficiently.

For the record, I supported the partnership Government at the Assembly, because that was the way forward at the time and it still is. Although an Opposition will hopefully come at some time, the shape of Government in Northern Ireland enabled all the parties to sign up and be part of the decision-making process. Whether we reduce the number of seats to five or to four, the principle remains that efficiencies need to be made, which means a reduction in the number of Assembly Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I want to make a couple of brief comments about the civil service commissioners and the Human Rights Commission.

Northern Ireland has had its own civil service since the 1920s, and, as others have said, it has done admirably over the years. The Northern Ireland civil service itself is and always has been a devolved matter, but in 1998 it was decided not to devolve the civil service commissioners at least for the time being. Like their Whitehall counterparts, they are responsible for ensuring that appointments to the civil service are made on merit, and on the basis of fair and open competition. I believe that the amendment will ensure that by requiring the Secretary of State to present a full report to the House, so that all will be open and transparent before any devolution takes place, and I therefore support it.

[Naomi Long]

In the light of what was said by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister told us on the basis of what evidence the Secretary of State would prepare the report? The only reason for debating the report would be contention about its content. There would be a reason for debating it if, for example, the Secretary of State said that there was no issue relating to fairness and transparency, but other Members disagreed. The substance on which the report was based would be important in informing any such debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the Secretary of State will be compelled to lay an Order in Council. They would therefore do so only if they were convinced that all was in order. On what basis, therefore, would the report be produced? Any report that we would debate in this House would be a positive one, and we would need to see the evidence base for that. It would be interesting to know precisely where that would come from.

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Lady has put the cart firmly before the horse. I know that this is very old fashioned, but I believe that the purpose of consultation is to consult and to listen to what people have to say. If, for instance, everyone were agin the devolution of these powers, there might not be a report. The purpose of the amendments is to say that we will not bring one forward until there has been consultation. I am astonished to find people criticising the Government for trying to be consensual.

[Naomi Long]

Far be it from me to tell the Minister what his own legislation says, but it does not actually say that at all. It does not say that there will be consultation followed by a report. It says that a report will be produced, and that a debate on that report will be held three months before an Order in Council. That time scale suggests that the Secretary of State will already be intending to have an Order in Council, and will already have decided that the issues are not a problem. It is the basis on which such a decision will be made that we are trying to discover today.

[Mr Robathan]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

A guaranteed total of £200 million in the current spending review and £30 million in the next will be provided to assist the PSNI in its national security work, which will of course enable it to be more effective across the board. As I said in response to earlier questions, the Executive and the PSNI are currently discussing the additional funding that will be needed in 2015-16 to enable the PSNI to commence the recruitment that the Chief Constable believes is necessary.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Given the impact that public order has on policing and budgets in Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State agree that the recommendations in the Haass report, which stated that there should be a legally enforceable code of conduct for all parades and protests, would go a long way to changing behaviour on the ground?

[Mrs Villiers]

There is much to be said for the proposals on parading in draft seven of Richard Haass’s work. It is disappointing that the parties have not felt able to agree with those proposals as yet. Further work is clearly needed before we can get an agreement among the five parties. I urge them to see whether they can find a way to resolve their differences, including on the issue of a code of conduct and what sanctions should accompany it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is not just plan B that we are not hearing about any more. The Opposition seem to have stopped talking about the cost of living. They have stopped talking about how the deficit would not come down. Remember when they told us that growth would never come. They told us that we would lose a million jobs rather than gain a million jobs. But the biggest transformation of all is the silence of the shadow Chancellor. There is a big debate today on banking, but he was not allowed on the radio and he will not be speaking in the House of Commons. They have a novel idea: to hide their shadow Chancellor by leaving him on the Front Bench.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Q14. The Prime Minister has previously shown considerable leadership in apologising to victims of state violence in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, those victims of paramilitary violence who made up the majority of victims of the troubles have not had access to such apologies. Does he agree that the Haass proposals for dealing with the past offer the best opportunity for victims and survivors to receive truth and justice? Will he commit as Prime Minister to backing those proposals, helping by co-operating and also by funding those proposals?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a lot of merit in the Haass proposals—he did some excellent work. I noted that Peter Robinson, the First Minister of Northern Ireland, described them as providing the architecture for future agreement and discussion. I hope that we can take forward the Haass work, including the very difficult work done on the past, with all sides trying to agree.

Haass Talks

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

Clearly, those matters were at the heart of the work of the political parties and Dr Haass. My hon. Friend will be aware that the idea that was floated of a general amnesty was almost universally rejected. The current proposals include a limited immunity, whereby to encourage people to take part in the truth recovery process, their representations and statements would not be admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings. That is not to say that subsequent criminal proceedings could not go ahead on the basis of other evidence. It was clear from what was said by pretty much all the political parties and the public reaction to the statement of the Attorney-General that the option of prosecution must be kept alive. The proposals that are on the table do not seek to take that option away.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

May I take this opportunity to express my sympathy to the colleagues, friends and family of Paul Goggins? He had an interest in Northern Ireland and a concern for its people that extended far beyond his tenure as Minister of State. That has been clear to me in my work in this House and, previously, as an Assembly Member. He was also a true gentleman. He displayed integrity, generosity and grace in his public service, but also in his private dealings. The House is much poorer for his passing.

As a participant in the talks process in Northern Ireland, I pay tribute to Dr Richard Haass, Professor Meghan O’Sullivan and their team. They have shown commitment and dedication to the process over the past six months and not just in its latter weeks, when it became incredibly intense. Richard Haass was clear throughout the process that the issue with finding a resolution was not the shortness of time, but the will to make the necessary compromises. Does the Secretary of State agree that any continuation of the process must remain focused on taking the difficult decisions, rather than avoiding them while creating an illusion of activity, if it is to deliver on the hopes that the public have invested in the Haass process?

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree with the hon. Lady. To achieve success on any of the issues, particularly on the past, compromise is needed. Compromises have sometimes been difficult in the history of Northern Ireland. They will no doubt be difficult on these issues too, including for the UK Government. We are very clear that if the parties are prepared to make compromises to make progress, the UK Government will back them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

1. What assessment she has made of the Amnesty International report entitled “Northern Ireland: Time to deal with the past”, published in September 2013; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

Let me first express my sadness at the passing of Alec Reid and Eddie McGrady, who will be sadly missed as strong supporters of peace in Northern Ireland.

I have considered the proposals in the recent report by Amnesty, which covers devolved responsibilities in the main, but also covers some reserved matters relating to Northern Ireland’s past. I expect the all-party group chaired by Richard Haass also to take account of Amnesty’s contribution to the debate on these important matters.

[Naomi Long]

This morning I hosted the parliamentary launch of the report, which reinforces the need for a comprehensive mechanism to deal with the past, addressing justice, truth, recognition and support for the bereaved and the injured, and also reconciliation. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that the Government will support, co-operate with and properly resource any such comprehensive process emerging from the Haass talks, allowing the Police Service of Northern Ireland to focus its finite resources on policing the present, and, in particular, protecting our community from those—from both loyalist and republican sources—who wish to drag us back to the past?

[Mrs Villiers]

Let me take this opportunity to reiterate the calls made in Northern Ireland in the wake of recent attacks. There is determination that Northern Ireland will not be dragged back to its past, and there is universal condemnation of the disgraceful attacks that we have seen in recent days.

The Government strongly support the Haass process. We welcomed its establishment, and we urged the Executive to examine the very divisive issues involved. We will, of course, consider the outcome of the process very seriously, and will give thought to what resources we can deploy to support it within the constraints of the budgets available to us.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Naomi Long Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

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

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mr Dodds]

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

On the proposal for the Secretary of State to

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

[Naomi Long]

The hon. Lady touches on a point that I had intended to raise with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). At the end of an Historical Enquiries Team review of a case, it is not necessarily a closed case, but could still be an open case in which new information could lead to prosecution. Is there a risk that publishing detailed reports that imply patterns could prejudice the outcome of future prosecutions? Would that not have to be carefully managed?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I do not necessarily disagree with her, but I will proceed with the point I am making.

Senior police officers have highlighted the fact that various weapons that were used in the Loughinisland incident were probably used in other incidents. That has precipitated further analysis and fact checking to establish who or what group may have perpetrated that dastardly crime. I am sure that there are patterns of activity in other incidents throughout the 35 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lewis]

I hope that the sincere words that have been uttered in all parts of the House will be some comfort to Eddie McGrady’s family and friends at this difficult time. Indeed, perhaps we can ensure that those words are relayed to them from this House.

If I may make some progress, let me again condemn in the strongest possible terms the petrol bomb attack on the Alliance party office in east Belfast over the weekend. All Members of this House will want to express their support and concern for the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), the Alliance MLAs and their staff. A first principle of any democracy is that elected representatives should be able to speak and vote free of intimidation or the fear of violence. That is why, irrespective of political differences, we should take every opportunity to express our solidarity with the hon. Lady, who frankly has suffered intolerable attacks in recent times. It is not good enough for politicians, either in Westminster or Stormont, to remain silent in the face of such an affront to democracy. They should turn up the volume in making it clear that such intimidation and violence are entirely unacceptable and can never be justified. It is also essential that the Police Service of Northern Ireland continues to do all in its power to prevent such attacks and bring those responsible to justice.

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and, in her absence, the Secretary of State for contacting me over the weekend about the events that took place, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister for phoning today. I pay tribute to the police officers who attended the scene on the evening. Without their swift response and the actions they took, the situation could have been much more serious. As it is, the damage to the property was rather minimal. However, nothing that happens at that office will deflect me from doing the job that I was elected to do here on behalf of the people of my constituency.

[Mr Lewis]

The hon. Lady’s courage is truly inspirational. She speaks up without fear or favour. Whether Members agree with her or not, the fact that she shows that courage should be an inspiration to all of us who have the privilege of participating in the political process.

Over the past month I have had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland twice and have been fortunate enough to meet business people, civil society groups, athletic associations and representatives of inter-governmental bodies, as well as religious and political leaders. It was a privilege to attend the Ulster Unionist party conference in Belfast and the SDLP conference in Armagh. I look forward to attending the DUP conference this coming weekend and to paying a further visit before Christmas to Stormont and the UK’s city of culture, Derry/Londonderry. I have already learnt that Northern Ireland is an amazing place, home to people of tremendous courage and aspiration—a place that has been transformed over the past two decades by the peace process. Despite that remarkable progress, we know that significant challenges remain on security, the economy, building a shared future and, crucially in the context of new clauses 1 and 3, dealing with the past.

I have been particularly moved—and, I should say, troubled—by my meetings with the families of victims of violence. It is clear to me that not only their search for truth and justice, but the scale and depth of the trauma that continues to afflict so many people and communities in Northern Ireland is not sufficiently understood or recognised by outsiders. That is one major reason why the Haass talks are so crucial. As I promised during the recent DUP Opposition day debate on the past, I will make a formal submission on behalf of my party to Ambassador Haass in the next few days, and that submission will be put in the public domain.

Turning to the two new clauses I mentioned and, briefly, to other elements of the Bill, our position on political donations has been clear both when we were in government and now we are in opposition. We support greater transparency on political donations in Northern Ireland and it is a testimony to the progress made by all political parties that we are able to move towards this reality.

I share the view of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has well made the point in the past that Northern Ireland politicians, serving both at Stormont and at Westminster, made an important contribution to the peace process. However, we agree that now is the time to end the practice of double-jobbing. It is right that this provision applies both to the Assembly and to the Dáil Éireann to maintain parity. As suggested by DUP Members, there is also a valid case for reducing the number of members of the Legislative Assembly, and we believe that this should be done on equal basis across constituencies, with a continued coupling with Westminster constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Oh, I see. It is because it is discretionary. I am sorry, I had missed the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Having the discretion gives us the opportunity to do it, if I can put it that way. I think that she will understand what I am saying, but given that the Secretary of State is not here I think that it would be unwise of me to go any further down that road. I am sorry that I did not understand what she was saying the first time around.

Let me now turn to amendment 2. Clauses 14, 15 and 16 introduce minor changes to the requirements for voter registration for Northern Ireland, the requirements for obtaining an overseas vote and the requirements for absent voting. Hon. Members will be aware that European parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held on 22 May 2014. We look forward to them. It is also the Government’s intention that local elections in Northern Ireland be held on that date.

Amendment 2 is a technical amendment that changes the commencement date for clauses 14, 15 and 16 to avoid their coming into force during or immediately before the election period, which would be not only inconvenient but very difficult. It would avoid a situation in which electoral administrators in Northern Ireland were expected to make changes to registration and application processes at a time when they were busy with electoral preparations. It would also help to avoid public confusion about voter entitlements. It remains the Government’s intention to commence the provisions as soon as possible and in good time for elections to this House in 2015. As we say in government, the provisions will commence “soon” after the elections in 2014.

[Naomi Long]

I support the amendment, and I particularly welcome the fact that following our debate in the Committee of the whole House the Government have listened to the representations I made, as well as those made by the “Who Pulls the Strings” campaign in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

It is not often that those of us on the Opposition Benches see the matters that we would like a Bill to deal with being addressed. It is even rarer for those of us who sit as solitary Members to see such concerns taken on board. I am particularly pleased that a compelling argument has been made for the amendment. I must qualify that, however, with my slight disappointment that we have been unable to go further to remove the exemptions and rules in Northern Ireland to allow us to move into line with the rest of the UK. There is evidence of huge public demand for that in Northern Ireland. Like in every other part of the UK, and, I suspect, in almost every other part of the democratic world, there is suspicion and a perception in the minds of the public that politics operates for the benefit of the few not the many and that those who have money and influence can wield that to their own advantage.

To rebuild trust and confidence in the political system, it is hugely important that people have transparency about donations and can scrutinise whether donations made to political parties influence policy and decision making at a government level. That is not possible currently because even though donations are declared to the Electoral Commission, they cannot be published. I believe that the time has come for the veil of secrecy to be lifted.

The amendment is a good step in that direction in that it clarifies the position for donors. Those who donate up until the January date will know that their anonymity will be permanent. There was a question mark over that as the powers of the Secretary of State would have allowed those donations to be published retrospectively. I believe that people gave that money on the understanding that it would be handled with confidentiality and privacy, and that expectation should be met by the Government. That is very important.

The amendment also means that those who donate after January will know that those donations will eventually be published. They will not be published right away. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide at the next point of review, which is due, I think, in October 2014, whether the security situation, in her view, would allow her to publish them.

The amendment makes it very clear to anybody making a donation from January onwards that at some point in the future that donation will be open to public scrutiny. It clarifies the situation in their minds so that they know when they make the donation the risk and the public scrutiny that will be involved. They will be able to make an informed decision.

Sir Christopher Kelly gave evidence on the subject to the Committee. He was very clear that he was not convinced by the argument that security should automatically outweigh the right of the public to scrutinise donations that are made to political parties. I share his view and do not believe that security should outweigh that right. Indeed, despite everything that has been said in the House about intimidation and threats against my own party, we continue voluntarily to publish the details of those people who make donations of more than £7,500 to the Alliance party so that people are fully aware of and can scrutinise our policy decisions.

Perhaps I can take this opportunity to encourage the Minister, which I think my colleague the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) sought to do, to encourage his colleagues in the Conservative party in Northern Ireland to join us in voluntarily publishing their donors. Indeed, I urge other parties in this House in Northern Ireland to do likewise. I think that it would help to build trust and confidence in the political system, to ventilate what has become quite a toxic issue in Northern Ireland, not least in recent months, and to move forward on a clearer footing.

My disappointment is that we are not in a position at this point to make more progress on bringing us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the amendment is a good step forward. It will provide clarity for the public and reassurance that the direction of travel is towards openness and transparency. I thank the Government for taking this on board. The assurances given by the Electoral Commission that they can prepare parties and donors to be ready for the change that is about to take place by January has been helpful in enabling things to move forward. I thank the Government and fully support what they are proposing.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Before I discuss the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may pay tribute briefly to the late Eddie McGrady, who served in this House for many years. It was a pleasure to work with him. He was indeed a decent man with a sharp and ready sense of humour and I know that he will be sadly missed in Northern Ireland.

I join others in condemning the attacks on the office of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is a very valuable member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Having worked with her on that Committee for three years, I know that she will not be put off by the attacks; she will continue to show great determination, and to carry out the work that she has been doing with great distinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

I will take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State to his new post. It has been an experience getting to know him slightly better this evening. It is good that we have been able to make some progress during what I think has been, with regard to outcomes, quite a positive evening.

I also want to express my personal sympathy, and that of my party, to the SDLP and the McGrady family on the passing of Eddie McGrady. He was a gentleman, someone with integrity, and he served his whole community without fear or favour. I know how closely the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) worked with Eddie McGrady and so particularly want to pass on my personal condolences to her at what must be a very difficult time. He was very highly thought of right across the community in Northern Ireland, and that cannot be claimed of many people. He was distinguished by that and by many other things he did while a Member of this House.

There is much to commend in the Bill. However, in line with the convention that we should save the best until last, I will focus first on some of the matters about which I am still discontent. As I stated earlier, I am disappointed that donations were not addressed more fully at this stage in the Bill’s progress, with regard to both moving towards full transparency and addressing the issue that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) raised on overseas donors and the lack of transparency. The time has come for us to build on the progress we have made in Northern Ireland and show confidence in that progress, and I believe that in order to do that we must be courageous in the decisions we make as politicians. Part of that has to be about taking on responsibility for transparency and accountability and the normal standards of public life that apply everywhere else. It would be a huge step forward if progress could be made on that.

I am also disappointed that we have been unable to address as fully as I had wished the issue of dual mandates between the Assembly and Seanad Eireann and between the Assembly and the House of Lords. I have had some success this evening, so I will chance my arm and ask for some more. One of the reasons for not addressing the issue in relation to Seanad Eireann in Committee of the whole House was that there was soon to be a referendum on abolishing it. The referendum failed to abolish the Seanad, so it is an ongoing concern that people can still be Members of the Assembly and the Seanad. I ask the Government, in the light of that development, to consider revisiting the matter when the Bill moves to another place.

I want to welcome progress made in the Bill on four matters. First, I welcome the progress in addressing the anomaly of the appointment of the Justice Minister, which currently advantages my party but would advantage any party that found itself in receipt of that post. It is unfair and, we believe, unbalances the situation. That is something we have raised and worked with other parties to find a solution to, so we are pleased to see it resolved in the Bill.

I also welcome the legislative footing for the end to dual mandates. It is a matter on which a number of parties made commitments before the last Westminster elections, but only now are we slowly beginning to see some progress. I believe that the Bill’s passage through the House has concentrated minds on the issue. I believe that putting that on a legislative footing will ensure that those commitments will be met by all the parties that made them, which I welcome.

I also welcome the regularising of the Assembly’s terms to avoid future clashes with Westminster elections. I regret that that could not be done before the last Assembly elections so that the public would have known that they were electing an Assembly for a five-year term. However, I think that on balance it is better that we regularise it now, rather than having the kinds of ad hoc changes to Assembly dates that we had previously, when people were never quite sure when Assembly elections would take place. It almost appeared as though our elections in Northern Ireland were not as valuable or important as elections in other places. It is important that that has been regularised. It will allow people to focus properly on Westminster issues for Westminster elections and Assembly issues for Assembly elections.

I also welcome the move to remove permanent anonymity for donors from January. I want to put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for his support for the amendments we tabled in Committee. He ensured that mine was not a lone voice on the matter and that at least there would have been two of us to act as Tellers, even if there was no one to count. I was pleased that he was willing to do that and thank him for it.

I am pleased about those matters not just because they are ones on which I have campaigned, but because I believe they mark an improvement in the democratic process for the people of Northern Ireland and the people I represent in east Belfast. Huge progress has been made in Northern Ireland—Members have reflected on that this evening—but we still have a long way to go to achieve the normality we wish to see. Indeed, the events of recent days and weeks suggest that there are still those, both loyalist and republican, who would seek to deflect us from doing that. It is our duty as elected representatives to make politics work, to aspire to the highest standards in public life and to restore the relationship between us as elected representatives and those we represent, to engender their trust and confidence and to demonstrate that politics is the only way forward and that it is a practical and effective way to make our views known and heard. I believe that the Bill will move politics forward in Northern Ireland and improve the working of the system there. I am pleased to be able to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

These are clearly operational matters for the PSNI, but I agree that its job would have been made more difficult if it had not been able to access water cannon. I am sure that the Home Secretary and her colleagues will be interested to learn from the experience of using this equipment.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the security situation in Northern Ireland has deteriorated not just in respect of civil disorder, but in respect of an increase in paramilitary activity both from dissident and republicans and from loyalists. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that everything she can do to ensure that those who are responsible for those attacks, murders and attempted murders, including in my own constituency, are brought to justice and that the police have the resources to deal with them?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Government and I are fully supportive of all the efforts being made by the PSNI and its partners to bring to justice those responsible for dissident republican violence, those responsible for criminality and those responsible for the disgraceful punishment shootings that have taken place. I am particularly concerned about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency and the continuing protests and intimidation to which she and her staff are being subjected. The threats that she, along with other elected representatives in Northern Ireland, has received over recent months are utterly disgraceful, and I urge anyone with knowledge about who is responsible for this kind of criminal behaviour to bring it to the attention of the PSNI as soon as possible.

Bill of Rights (Northern Ireland)

Naomi Long Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased, Mr Chope, to have secured this short debate today to raise with the Secretary of State the issue of the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. It is a busy day in Parliament from a Northern Ireland perspective—the Committee on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is meeting and the Secretary of State is due to make a statement in the House on the appalling and disgraceful scenes of rioting and serious disturbance that have affected many parts of Belfast, including my own constituency of Belfast East, in the past few days. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has been able to attend the debate, and that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), has been able to join us for at least part of the discussion. I do not intend to detain the Secretary of State for too long on this issue.

The Bill of Rights is an important matter and the timing of this debate is appropriate. We stand here 15 years on from the Good Friday agreement which, notwithstanding the continued instability that we have witnessed over recent weeks and months, has laid the foundations for the significant transformation that has been delivered in Northern Ireland.

No agreement is perfect, and that includes the Good Friday agreement. I do not believe that every dot and comma of it must be protected for all time against change and evolution of Northern Ireland politics and society. However, its principles are hugely important and provide an agreed foundation on which we can build for the future. Indeed, my own party has argued for significant changes to the Strand 1 structures that govern the operations of the Assembly. Those changes would create a more normalised form of governance with a properly funded and resourced Opposition to hold the Executive to account, and with weighted majority voting replacing the current petition of concern arrangements, which are increasingly being misused. Such reforms are within the spirit of the agreement and are not a challenge to its key principles.

However, the Good Friday agreement was a carefully balanced package of measures that were endorsed by referendums in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so it is important that all parts of it are implemented. It is therefore of concern that so little tangible progress has been made over the past 15 years on the matter of the commitment within the agreement to develop a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which would address the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland after 20 years of the troubles.

In response to previous written and oral questions on the Bill of Rights, the Minister of State has indicated that this is a matter on which Northern Ireland parties must first reach consensus before the Government will act to legislate. Although I acknowledge that consensus is important and that it is currently absent, I do not believe that that is grounds for inaction on the Government’s part. It is the duty of Government as a co-guarantor of the agreement and as a signatory to it to engage proactively with all stakeholders, including political parties, to seek consensus on this and other outstanding issues. There is a particular responsibility around leadership on such issues when they are reserved matters.

Although the primary purpose of seeking this debate is to discuss not the content of any Bill of Rights, but the process by which the Bill can be advanced, it is important to put on record my own party’s broad views on the Bill of Rights. Alliance recognises that human rights are inherent and universal. There is scope for different jurisdictions to recognise different rights in domestic law, provided of course that no inappropriate inequalities are created in doing so. Rights and a framework for the delivery and protection of rights are important to protect individuals and minorities against the state and against others. However, any dialogue around rights cannot be separated from responsibilities. Those claiming rights cannot do so without some consideration for the maintenance of the framework of a democratic society based on the rule of law that provides for the exercise of rights. That is particularly important to emphasise in the context of the past few days when tensions between competing rights have spilled over into lawlessness in a way that is both destructive and reckless.

In broad terms, Alliance believes that any Northern Ireland Bill of Rights must be realistic and capable of being enforced through our own courts, consistent with European and international standards, and flexible enough to take account of changing circumstances in an evolving Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it must avoid entrenching any particular view of identity, such as the notion of two separate communities in Northern Ireland, which could reinforce sectarian divisions. Equally, it should avoid giving group rights precedence over the rights of the individual in a manner that would do likewise.

My reason for raising the issue at this time is in part also linked to the progress being made by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) wrote to all party leaders about the Bill on 5 September 2011, seeking views on a number of measures that he hoped to include within the Bill. In the seventh paragraph of his letter, he raised the issue of the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights in which he offered two options for taking the matter forward. He said:

“There remains disagreement about possible further rights protections in Northern Ireland. I have agreed with the Lord Chancellor that any specific supplementary rights for Northern Ireland should be implemented in a separate section of any legislation that would give effect to a UK Bill of Rights. However, our forthcoming Bill may provide opportunities to handle this issue differently by, for example, giving the Assembly power to take forward work, or even legislate, in this area.”

At that time, the Alliance party view would have been that a UK-wide Bill of Rights could have provided a suitable vehicle for progressing the Northern Ireland Bill. Although Northern Ireland is a distinct society in many respects, it does not and should not exist in a self-contained bubble. It is part of a wider UK, all-Ireland and European and international context. In a globalised and interdependent world, individuals are interacting much more across frontiers, and human rights protections must recognise and respond to those challenges.

It was originally envisaged that any Northern Ireland Bill of Rights would be created in the context of a common platform across the UK provided by the European convention on human rights, but no wider UK Bill of Rights. However, Alliance recognised at that point that any process to formulate a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland would have to relate to any potential UK Bill of Rights. That could still have entailed a separate chapter for the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights or a chapter within a larger document, provided that the subtleties of the situation in Northern Ireland were respected. However, it would be fair to say that the UK Bill of Rights has been kicked into some very long grass at this point and that we are unlikely to see it delivered in the medium term.

It is also the case that the opportunity to legislate for the Bill of Rights as part of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has also all but expired as the Bill is now making speedy progress through the House of Commons and the Bill of Rights issue was not included within it or within the consultation that preceded it. Will the Secretary of State say how she intends to make progress with respect to the Bill of Rights in the absence of either of the identified options to do so?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for making such a valuable contribution to Westminster Hall. She will be aware that the recommendations contained in the Bill of Rights forum and those made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission seem to suggest that abortion will be more freely available, and that there is a need to increase the age of criminal responsibility. The hon. Lady will know that the Democratic Unionist party, of which I am a member, the Ulster Unionists, the Orange Order and the Roman Catholic Church have objections to almost all of, or parts of, the recommendations put forward. How does she see the Bill of Rights going forward when so many people are against it? Does she not feel that we can go forward only when there is a consensus to agree with it across the whole of the community?

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He reinforces what I said earlier about there being no consensus on the issue. However, I want to address some of what he said. There are two narratives around the Bill of Rights. One is an expansive Bill of Rights, which includes a lot of detail, such as socio-economic rights to which he refers, and there are others who believe that that is not the role of the Bill of Rights. They believe that it should enshrine broader principles around which the country should protect people’s rights as individuals. I would tend towards that more broad definition rather than the more detailed definition that would include socio-economic rights. Abortion, the age of consent and various other issues are best dealt with through the normal democratic and legislative process and not through a Bill of Rights. That is my view and the view of my party. However, a Bill of Rights approach can inform how the debate on those issues takes place, but it is not the job of the Bill of Rights to supersede the work that Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly do when legislating on matters of socio-economic importance. That is part of the democratic imperative that must be maintained regardless of whether or not there is a Bill of Rights.

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Bill of Rights has caused controversy. The forum for the Bill of Rights sat from December 2006 until March 2008 and produced what is probably one of the most non-consensual reports that has ever been produced in Northern Ireland, which in itself is quite an achievement. In addition, the Human Rights Commission’s advice to the Secretary of State, which was delivered back in 2008, also drew fierce opposition from some quarters. Clearly, there is still much work to be done. I am not suggesting that we are at a point where a Bill of Rights is ready to be drafted and put to Members for agreement. However, the fact that there is work to be done should be an impetus to doing that work.

In conclusion, as with many other difficult issues, consensus is currently absent, whether it be on parades, on flags and emblems, on building a shared future, or on dealing with the past and its legacy. The Executive have convened talks, which will happen during the summer and in the autumn, to address those issues and to seek sufficient consensus to make progress on all of them, in an attempt to give renewed energy to the discussions and to end the inertia that has characterised the process of late. I believe that is welcome. I also believe that Dr Richard Haass agreeing to chair those talks impartially will add its own momentum to them. However, it is very clear from research conducted by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consortium that a significant majority of people in Northern Ireland favour a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland being implemented in line with the provisions in the Good Friday agreement, and that that includes a significant majority of ordinary members of each political party in Northern Ireland, including the hon. Gentleman’s own party, within which I think the support for a Bill of Rights among ordinary members ran to about 80%.

Notwithstanding the political and ideological impediments to reaching sufficient consensus, I hope that today the Secretary of State will at least commit to a process that would help to breathe fresh life into this issue and make good on a promise made 15 years ago, which is still important to so many people in Northern Ireland today.

Northern Ireland

Naomi Long Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I am inclined to agree that without the ability to deploy water cannon, there could have been more injuries to police officers. I am certainly happy to share with the Home Secretary the experience in Northern Ireland of deploying water cannon, if she would like me to do that.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I join the Secretary of State in condemning those engaged in violence, whether in seeking to breach a determination or in attacking lawful parades, thereby providing a further challenge to the rule of law and causing further damage to Northern Ireland’s reputation. I also extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

My primary concern is both for my constituents living in the areas affected—on the Newtonards road and in the Short Strand—whose lives are put at risk, who are terrified in their homes and whose neighbourhoods are left like war zones in the aftermath of these riots, and for the police who must protect the public and uphold the law in difficult circumstances. Does the Secretary of State agree that until such time as an agreement on an alternative to the Parades Commission is agreed by all parties in Northern Ireland, that body remains the lawful authority in these matters and that its rulings must be upheld—no ifs, no buts—if law and order is not to be undermined more generally?

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Parades Commission is the lawfully constituted authority; its determinations must be obeyed and the rule of law must be respected. Visiting her constituency, I saw the devastating impact that disorder had during the flags protest, and I know that the continuation of violence over recent days is deeply depressing for her constituents, not least for the businesses whose trade is disrupted.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Naomi Long Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I beg to move amendment 7, page 2, line 25, leave out ‘October’ and insert ‘January’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 8, page 2, line 37, leave out ‘October’ and insert ‘January’.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert—

‘(2A) In section 71E of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (duty not to disclose contents of donation reports) after subsection (3) insert—

(3A) Such information may be disclosed where a donation received by a Northern Ireland recipient on or after 1 October 2014 exceeds £7,500.

(3B) Such information may be disclosed where the total donations received by a Northern Ireland recipient from a relevant person in a year exceeds £7,500, save that no information on donations received before 1 October 2014 may be published.”.’.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 43, at end insert—

‘(2A) Section 71B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is repealed.’.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

[Naomi Long]

My amendments 7 and 8 aim to ensure that all donations made to Northern Ireland political parties from January 2014 will eventually be subject to publication. That would not interfere with the Secretary of State’s right to make a decision to extend the period of secrecy and non-publication that currently applies to donations made to political parties. That would remain in the Secretary of State’s gift even if amendments 7 and 8 were accepted. However, they would make it clear to the general public that anything donated after January 2014 will eventually be made public, once the Secretary of State deems the security situation to be appropriate.

I believe that there is a lack of transparency in Northern Ireland politics, which causes significant public concern. That is reflected by the views of the Electoral Commission, which has commissioned a series of surveys on the matter. They show that a significant proportion of the public believe that this is a matter of concern to them. They want to know how their political parties are funded, and whether that funding has an impact on what the parties say and do in office. It is hugely important that we should move towards transparency as we try to normalise the situation in Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to confirm that the Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland, which is held in high esteem there, supports her amendments and does not believe that the deadline of 1 January 2014 gives sufficient notice either to political parties or to donors?

[Naomi Long]

The hon. Lady is correct to say that the Electoral Commission for Northern Ireland supports the amendments and believes that they would be practical in providing adequate support and advice to donors and political parties to make them fully aware of the change by January 2014. No substantive reasons have been given for this move not being able to proceed by 2014. Given all the issues surrounding transparency, and the public concern about the opaque nature of political funding in Northern Ireland, it is important to take this opportunity to make it clear that we want maximum transparency for the public there. We want the kind of transparency that the rest of the United Kingdom already enjoys, but which, for security reasons, we have been unable to enjoy until now.

For me, this is a matter not only of amendments 7 and 8, which I have tabled. I also want to refer to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 2 differs from those amendments, in that it seeks to set in stone the lifting of the veil of secrecy on party political donations in Northern Ireland by October 2014. It would not entirely remove the Government’s ability to extend the period further in an emergency. The Bill could, for example, include an order-making power to ensure that the Government could come back to the House in an emergency and reinstate the existing provisions, but they would need to have a substantive reason for doing so and they would have to bring their argument to the House and gain its support.

I put on record at Second Reading, and I want to do so again today, that this is not about being cavalier or dismissive about the security situation in Northern Ireland. Nor is it about dismissing the potential threat to those who donate to political parties. It is about accepting that that should not automatically, as of right, outweigh the public’s right to scrutinise donations to political parties. If we lift the bar and allow donations over £7,500 to be published, in line with the rest of the United Kingdom, people will factor in that decision when deciding whether to make such donations. Given that all the political parties have said that they get very few donations of that size, the proposal would not impede the normal democratic fundraising capacity of the Northern Ireland parties.

It is also important to confidence and trust that the public should believe that their elected representatives are not available for sale. The only way to convince people of that is to maximise transparency around these issues. No political party can defend itself against that charge while the secrecy continues to exist, because the information will not be in the public domain and available for scrutiny. My own party reveals such information voluntarily, and we encourage other parties to do so, but I believe that as of October 2014, we should be moving towards a more normalised situation for donations. The onus should be on donors to decide whether they wish to donate, knowing that their donation will be made public.

I shall listen carefully to what my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party say about amendment 6. My understanding is that their intention is to remove entirely the possibility of donations to the Northern Ireland political parties from the Republic of Ireland. I cannot support that, and I want to explain why. Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances are reflected not only in our constitutional arrangements but in the fact that some parties operate on a Northern Ireland-only basis, some on a UK-wide basis and others on an all-Ireland basis. Taking that into account, I believe that it would be unfair completely to close the door to donations from the Republic of Ireland. A situation could be created in which parties that operate on an all-UK basis could receive donations from Dundee, Devon and Derby, while those that operate on a Northern Ireland-only basis would be unable to receive donations from Donegal or Dublin. I think that would be unfair.

I have a degree of sympathy, however, with the concerns expressed by the Democratic Unionist party on Second Reading about the potential for overseas donors to put money through the Republic of Ireland, essentially circumventing the rules on foreign donations. Indeed, I supported the Select Committee recommendation in paragraph 44 where we set out our concerns about that. Although we stopped short of recommending that all donations from the Republic of Ireland be stopped, we did recommend that the Secretary of State should seek to include provisions in the Bill that would close that particular loophole. I would be happy to support measures to do that, but I do not feel that it would be just or right to support measures that would simply put a bar on any donations from the Irish Republic, even if those people are resident and are donating to a party that operates on a Northern Ireland basis. That would not be fair or just.

I encourage all Members to consider amendments 7 and 8. Some might not agree with amendment 2, but I do not believe that the hands of the Secretary of State are in any way tied with respect to security judgments. I believe that amendments 7 and 8 will ensure clarity for donors, who will know that any money above £7,500 donated from January onwards will be subject to publication at whatever point in the future the Secretary of State decides that it is safe to declare the information. Clarity will be provided for members of the public who will know that we are moving in the direction of full transparency, in the same way as any other region of the UK. This draws the line under what has been a very tortured issue for a very long time. I hope that when the opportunity arises, Members will vote in favour of increasing transparency on these matters.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I rise to speak to amendment 2, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) and myself. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady’s speech, and I am grateful to her for supporting the amendment that I proposed—one that is obviously consistent with the recommendations of the Select Committee on the matter of transparency for larger political donations. This recommendation was not disputed in the Committee and there was no vote or dissenting voice, as can be seen in the report. Looking back over the evidence given to the Committee by every Northern Ireland political party, it becomes clear that there is little evidence that the parties are receiving many donations above this specified amount, so it is not as if we are talking about a large number of people potentially at a security risk.

A fair number of the parties favoured transparency, and the hon. Member for Belfast East has pointed out that her party already publishes its donations, while the Green party and Sinn Fein said they were in favour in the evidence given to us. It is not quite so easy, however, to find on Sinn Fein’s website all of its donations. Some of us have tried and have asked, but the information does not quite seem to be there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

Even if we judge that the risk now is high, the point is that there will never be a point at which we can say there is no risk. This provision is about transitioning and saying that the donor must now take some responsibility for judging whether to take that risk, and that that risk should not always outweigh the public interest.

[Nigel Mills]

Absolutely, and if this amendment were passed, a donor would still have 14 months in which to make any donations they wanted to make and have them not made public. I suspect that would get the political parties through the 2015 general election, and that if they planned things carefully, they could get enough funds to get through the 2016 Assembly elections, so there would be no detriment to party funding until perhaps the 2020 elections in terms of the need for very large donations. That would give everyone a large amount of time to adjust to these new transparency rules.

I therefore ask the Minister to set out why the Government are apparently reluctant to go down this route even for the largest donations. I note that in their response to the Select Committee they said they would carefully consider any restrictions on transparency after October 2014. It would be useful to understand what their criteria are for making that decision. I accept, however, that the Minister cannot, and should not, tell us the specific intelligence he has about security threats.

Northern Ireland Members obviously understand Northern Ireland politics better than I do, but it is my understanding that the details of anyone who nominates a candidate or who stands for a council are published. If we have not had any evidence that there is a real security threat to people participating in those aspects of Northern Ireland democracy, why do we have this threat in respect of donations? It is worth asking how credible it is to have those two opposing situations, whereby it is safe to nominate or stand but it is not safe to donate money. I am not sure whether there is a very convincing argument for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady asks for clarification; I think the position is pretty clear. The position of those who would see themselves as Irish, or who hold an Irish passport and live in the United Kingdom, would not be affected at all. The exception allowed for in the 2000 Act as amended allows people who do not reside in the United Kingdom, but who do reside and have a residence qualification in the Irish Republic, to donate to Northern Ireland parties. We are saying that that is a back door route; the donations may be from individuals, companies and organisations in the Irish Republic, but that money can come from wherever—there is no regulation whatsoever. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

[Naomi Long]

I concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about international donations, but does he not agree that closing down all donations from the Irish Republic for parties that operate on an all-Ireland basis would not be fair, when parties that operate on a Northern Ireland or UK-wide basis can still get donations from the whole of the UK? Is it not more important that the Minister of State goes away and looks at how we can deal with the international issue in collaboration with the Irish Government, who manage their rules?

[Mr Dodds]

I have asked the Minister to take the matter away and consider it, but the fundamental point is that we are talking about the United Kingdom. When it comes to laws on donations, the electoral system for this House, and the way in which Members of the House are treated, right across the board, I believe that we are a Parliament of the United Kingdom, and Members of the House should all be equal, regardless of where we come from.

As far as the political set-up in Northern Ireland is concerned, there is absolutely nothing to stop political parties getting donations from any part of the United Kingdom, although I have to say that it is not common for Northern Ireland parties—the hon. Lady can bear this out—to be inundated with donations from other parts of the United Kingdom. I think that parties on this side of the water have that market well and truly cornered, whatever the source of the donations. We certainly do not get donations from the unions in Northern Ireland, either.

This is a point of principle for us, I suppose. The hon. Lady may not agree with it, and she has a perfectly valid perspective, but our view is that we are part of the United Kingdom, and we should all abide equally by the rules of the United Kingdom. The fundamental point is that the situation is not only wrong in principle but wide open to abuse; a coach and horses could be driven through the provisions, in ways that run contrary to the reasons for introducing the measures in the 2000 Act. They were brought in to pander to Sinn Fein in particular. Whatever the reasons may have been for that, years ago, those reasons have long since ceased to apply, and everybody should be on a level playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

The system has to be made compelling in that way, because we have had enough of all the pseudo-transparency, where parties say, “Oh, our money comes this way and that way, and we publish things on the website.” However, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, when we go looking for the things that are supposedly published on the website, they are not there. I therefore totally oppose amendment 6.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

I acknowledge that the Bill moves us forward. That is welcome and I welcomed it on Second Reading. Will the Minister clarify exactly how my amendments 7 and 8 would pose any threat to security, given that all they would provide is that from January any donations made would be subject to publication once the Secretary of State deemed it was safe to publish?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

That is a good intervention. I read what I said the following day, as all good Ministers should—as all good Members should, to be honest—and I was speaking metaphorically. I was not speaking about an actual physical individual, because of course that would be a crazy situation. We would never, as hon. Members have said, get into a position where there was no threat to anybody. Let me clarify: I was speaking in general terms, rather than individually.

Let me touch on the threat. My job is not only to ensure, along with the Electoral Commission, that the electoral system in Northern Ireland runs properly but to ensure the national security of Northern Ireland. There might be concerns about individual businesses, and I think that this applies to businesses that give donations to any political party in the UK—we have talked about the Co-op—and they suffer any consequences, but that is completely separate from the intimidation and personal threats I see daily.

The shadow Secretary of State asked whether it should be on the face of the Bill that the PSNI should be a consultant. This subject is much more wide ranging than the PSNI; we could do that, but we do not need to. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, it is more wide ranging and involves the other security services that are helping us and that helped us so brilliantly during the G8.

Amendment 6 stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I am told that I should not say this, but I have some sympathy with the argument, in that we need to move forward. I will not accept the amendment—he probably understands that—but if we are talking about normalisation, I accept that there need to be discussions between the Government in the south, us, and all the political parties on how we can get to a slightly better position. I very much take on board the point that the Good Friday agreement set out that there is a different situation in Northern Ireland when it comes to donations and political parties. Of course, there is a cross-Ireland political party that has had Members elected to this House, but it is not represented in the Chamber today.

I am committed to ongoing discussions, and to seeing how we can move the issue forward. I cannot accept amendment 6, but as that commitment is, I think, roughly what the right hon. Gentleman asked me to give, hopefully he is happy with that. I ask hon. Members to withdraw amendments 7, 8, 2 and 6, and commend clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.

[Naomi Long]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. When we discuss this issue, it is natural that we focus heavily on the threat to donors from terrorism. I do not dismiss that, and I do not dismiss the point that the threat level is severe. However, no compelling evidence was presented to the Select Committee during our inquiry to show that the threat specifically targeted donors. People remain willing to sign councillors’ nomination papers—people who do not want to lift their head above the parapet and be elected representatives, but who are willing to have that information published.

The Chairman of the Select Committee highlighted clearly that a boycott could happen in any part of the United Kingdom, and that that is not a compelling reason for the current arrangements, so we need to be cautious about conflating those two things. However, although we naturally focus heavily on the security threat, we must also focus heavily on the wider threat to the political process that the lack of transparency is becoming in Northern Ireland. The suspicion that politics operates for the benefit of those with the means to buy influence is utterly corrosive to the democratic process. It taints all of us as politicians, and it puts the institutions under threat, as the public disengage from politics as a result of that perception.

Confidence in Northern Ireland politics is at a low ebb, and only through increased transparency, and increased speed of delivery of transparency, can we meaningfully address that. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, and while I understand and accept many of his points, I cannot accept that a coherent argument has been made to say that amendments 7 and 8 would pose any threat to the security of any individual.

[Mike Penning]

I know that the Select Committee took evidence, but a lot of the evidence that could perhaps have convinced the hon. Lady could not be given to the Select Committee. She cannot see the evidence that we see daily. Nobody in this House is more determined that there should be democracy than I am, but to push something forward without that knowledge is dangerous.

[Naomi Long]

The evidence that I am seeking is not evidence of the security threat. The evidence that I am referring to is evidence that amendments 7 and 8 would in any way compromise anyone’s security. The amendments leave it to the Secretary of State to decide when that information should be made public—she currently has that power—but make it clear that anyone making a donation after January 2014 will eventually have that fact made public when the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are confident that it is safe to do so, in the light of all the information that they see and we ordinary Members of Parliament do not. There is no compelling argument against amendments 7 and 8; they are supported by the Electoral Commission, and I would like to press them to a vote.

[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.

[Mr Dodds]

To be absolutely clear, what the hon. Lady is talking about is bringing forward the date from October to January. That would not have any effect on any donations up to now or any donations before January next year, so in relation to the wider issues and the context in which we are speaking about this, the measure would take effect only from next year. Is that right?

[Naomi Long]

That is absolutely correct. I made it clear on Second Reading that I would be in favour of any measure that retrospectively exposed donors to publication. I believe that would be unjust while there is a legal question about whether they had the expectation that donations made in the prescribed period would not be made public. At a very personal level, they understood that to be the case. If we are to have honour and integrity in politics, that should extend to people’s understanding of agreements that have been made, so I would not favour retrospective exposure. Only donations made after January would be affected and that would come about only after the Secretary of State had ruled that it was safe to do so. I therefore wish to press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

MPs to be disqualified for membership of Assembly

[Naomi Long]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 4, line 5, after ‘Commons’, insert ‘or House of Lords’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Philip Hollobone)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, page 4, line 7, after ‘Commons’, insert ‘or House of Lords’.

Amendment 12, page 4, line 11, at end insert—

‘(2) A person who becomes a Member of the House of Lords is not disqualified under section 1(1)(za) at any time during the period of 8 days beginning with the day the person becomes a Member of the House of Lords.’.

Amendment 13, page 4, line 30, leave out from ‘members)’ to end of line 31 and insert ‘leave out “either House of Parliament.”.’.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 36, after ‘Ireland)’, insert ‘or Seanad Éireann (the Senate of Ireland).’.

Amendment 20, page 4, line 36, at end insert ‘or Seanad Éireann (Senate of Ireland).

(dc) is a member of the House of Lords.’.

Amendment 15, page 4, line 38, after ‘Éireann’, insert ‘or Seanad Éireann’.

Amendment 3, page 4, line 41, at end add—

‘(3) In section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualification of holders of certain offices and places) before paragraph (a) insert—

“(za) is a member of the European Parliament;”.

(4) After section 1B of that Act (as inserted by section 4(2)) insert—

“1C Members of the European Parliament

A person returned at an election as a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly is not disqualified under section 1(1)(za) at any time in the period of 8 days beginning with the day the person is so returned.”.’.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 16, in clause 5, page 6, line 13, leave out from ‘MPs’ to end and insert

‘, members of the House of Lords or members of the Oireachtas).’.

Amendment 17,  page 6, line 28, leave out from ‘MPs’ to end and insert

‘, members of the House of Lords or members of the Oireachtas); and’.

[Naomi Long]

I intend to keep my remarks on this group of amendments brief. I welcome the fact that the Government have acted on their promise to ensure that double-jobbing between MLAs and MPs will now be brought to an end. I also recognise that, as a result of discussions in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Government have moved to include within that provision Members of Dail Eireann so that TDs, too, will not be able to hold a seat in the Assembly. I think that it is right that they have done so and welcome that move. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Philip Hollobone)]

Order. I am trying to enjoy what the hon. Lady is saying, but unfortunately there is a lot of chatter coming from behind the Speaker’s Chair. I am sure that hon. Members would like to hear more clearly the very important points she is making.

[Naomi Long]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone.

As I was saying, I welcome the fact that the Government are dealing with and resolving the issue of MP-MLA double-jobbing. That is a huge improvement. As a result of the Select Committee’s discussions, the Government have also moved to resolve the issue of TDs, who could also sit as MLAs, and to equalise the situation. That is also important and I welcome it at the outset.

The Government did this for good reason, which is the challenge of being in two legislatures at the same time—

[Mike Penning]

On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I am afraid that even from this position on the Treasury Bench I cannot hear a word that is going on, mostly because of conversations at the other end of the Chamber.

[The Temporary Chairman (Mr Philip Hollobone)]

That is indeed a point of order, for a change. May I ask hon. Members who are not staying to listen to the debate to leave or to remain quietly?

[Naomi Long]

Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is unfortunate that the noise blotted out all the praise that I was heaping on the Government, because I am just about to stop and start to highlight areas where they have not been quite so generous. However, I do appreciate that these issues are being addressed. I very much support that, as did the Select Committee.

These provisions are being proposed for a very good reason. Serving in two legislatures involves the physical challenge of being in two places at once. The conflict in sitting times between the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly means that Members who wished to be here today for this business would have to be absent from the Assembly, where they could be questioning Ministers and holding them to account. There is significant evidence that that creates a democratic deficit either there or here.

The problem is not restricted purely to Members who sit in the House of Commons. I recognise that the House of Lords is not structured in the same way as the Commons. Its Members do not have an electoral mandate and therefore do not have the same demands on their time with regard to constituency business. However, as a revising Chamber with a primary focus on legislation and scrutiny, it is hugely important that its Members are free to dedicate themselves to that task without the interference of a constituency burden and the other legislature that they would have to deal with when they are at the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Does she accept that, as I propose in amendment 3, this must apply even more to the European Parliament, which is even further away and has some kind of elected legitimacy, at least while we are in still in the European Union and it is relevant to us? I cannot see how someone can serve in Brussels and in Belfast at the same time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment shortly. I understand that European Parliament legislation precludes people from serving in the Assembly at the same time as in the European Parliament. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) would be able to advise whether that is the case. If not, I would welcome the issue being resolved in the Bill and would support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment if it achieved that.

It is not only about distance but about simply having the time to commit to doing the job that one is supposed to be doing. The House of Lords plays an important role in acting as a revising Chamber for this House. Someone who is a peer and also an MLA will not be able to commit themselves fully to either body, and that is unfortunate. The situation is exacerbated by the direct conflict between the sitting times of the Assembly and the House of Lords, particularly on Mondays and Tuesdays but also extending into the rest of the week, when people would be on committee business in the Assembly. The Assembly committees are extremely powerful instruments, and it is therefore important that Members play a full and active role in them.

I also recognise that remuneration for the work of a peer is different, which reflects the fact that many peers have careers outside Parliament that may on occasion conflict with the sittings of the House of Lords. I made it clear on Second Reading that I was content for this matter to be resolved in the context of wider reform of the House of Lords, and it was initially indicated that that would be the case when we discussed this during and after the Bill’s consultation period. However, given that House of Lords reform has not progressed and looks unlikely to do so in, let us say, the short term, it is important that the Government revisit the possibility of taking action in this Bill in order to ensure that Members of the House of the Lords and those who are elevated to it do not continue to sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If membership of this House disqualifies people from serving in the Assembly, I believe that the same should be true of membership of other Parliaments.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[Mr Donaldson]

I can say, hand on heart, that I believe they can. When I was a Member of the Assembly and of the UK Parliament, my attendance record on Committees in the Assembly was far superior to those of single-mandate Members of the Assembly. When I chaired the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, I had a 100% attendance record—I was the best attendee on the Committee. We have to weigh these things up and strike a balance.

[Naomi Long]

I certainly do not dispute the fact that the right hon. Gentleman’s Assembly Committee attendance record was good, but we should look at the disparity between the average voting records of those in this House who do not have a dual mandate and those who do. According to “The Public Whip”, the average voting record of those of us who do not hold a dual mandate is 413 to 414, compared with 259 to 260 for those who do have a dual mandate. The Assembly might not suffer, but the attendance of those Members in this House seems to do so. I am not suggesting that that is the only metric we should take into account, but it is an important one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

Surely part of the rationale for the structure of the House of Lords is the fact that it can serve as a revising Chamber, and scrutinise legislation in a robust way, because its Members are not being lobbied by constituents as we in the House of Commons are when we are dealing with legislation. Could not an electoral mandate expose Members of the House of Lords to that kind of lobbying, and prevent them from acting as we expect a Lord to act?

[Ms Ritchie]

That was a useful intervention, because it illustrated the role of Members of the House of Lords. While they have clear legislative responsibilities, they also do very in-depth work. We can cast our minds back to the work done in respect of the Welfare Reform Bill, and its ping-pong nature, with the Bill going back and forth between us. Lords come from many varied backgrounds, but they do their work. The Lords may not be elected, but they do have legislative responsibilities, which naturally would clash with the responsibilities of an elected Chamber such as the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is the very problem that this measure is meant to address. I would not hold my breath about this House finally taking on the much-needed reform of the House of Lords, but if, and hopefully when, it does, would it be desirable that people can run for election and hold office, namely by having a dual mandate between the Assembly and an elected House of Lords?

It is important that this issue is sorted out now within the terms of the current Bill. I note that that position is supported by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. In so doing, we come to this issue with the premise of one Member, one Chamber. Having had the experience of serving in other Chambers, and knowing the extent and breadth and depth of work and investigative intelligence that is required of Members in all those Chambers, particularly in terms of legislation, we not only support our own amendment—amendment 20—but we also support those of the hon. Member for Belfast East.

[Mr Dodds]

On clause 3 and the ending of the dual mandate between Members of this House and Members of the Assembly, our party made it clear some time ago that we would be bringing this matter to the point that by 2015, as was recommended, dual mandates would be ended. We are working towards that, and it needs to be made very clear in this Committee tonight that this Bill does not end dual mandates; the parties in Northern Ireland are ending dual mandates, and they are doing so for the reasons that have been advanced, which are that we have now moved forward to a position where politics is much more stable, and the Assembly and the Executive are up and running. We are therefore in a very different position from the one we were in only a short time ago, when dual mandates were not only preferable, but essential, for the reasons laid out very clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and because of the leading political figures in this House who were playing the important—the crucial—role of bringing about peace, stability and devolution in Northern Ireland. That would not have worked if there had not been that dual mandate at that time; that is absolutely the case.

There is a tendency sometimes to look at situations from the perspective of today, rather than looking at the context of the time. I want to pay tribute to all Members who held dual mandates at that time. I want to do so not because I was one of those Members who held a dual mandate, but because they put themselves and their families under enormous stress and strain in terms of the work load, but still carried out an immensely powerful job, as was recognised through the votes of the people, who consistently voted for them. Therefore it is only right and proper to pay tribute to those politicians who did that in very difficult circumstances, and who had their pay cut, we must remember—it was not as if they were doing it for two salaries. It was done for the reasons set out, and also because, to return to an earlier discussion, there were very real threats against politicians, and not too many people were prepared to come forward and put their head above the parapet. Every Member in our party, and Members of other parties as well, including the SDLP and the Alliance, suffered very severe threats at that time, and actual attacks on their person, their offices and on people close to them. That was the reality of the situation we lived in.

[Naomi Long]

That point was also made by the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues on Second Reading, and it is important to put on the record that nobody is suggesting that people who served during that period did not have a justification for doing so. Those who seek fast reform make the point that that period is now at an end.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Donaldson]

Will the hon. Lady accept from me that there is at least one Member of the House of Lords who would claim to come from a nationalist background and whose spouse, I believe, happens to be a member of the same party as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)?

[Naomi Long]

I understand the point that is being made. However, it is not my job as a member of the Alliance party to pigeonhole Members of the House of Lords and to count Unionists and nationalists, given that I do not want elections to be conducted by such distinctions.

[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—

[The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark)]

Order. I remind all hon. Members that this is a summing up at the end of a debate. We are not commencing the debate again and it is not a second speech, so I ask the hon. Lady to take that on board.

[Naomi Long]

Indeed. I was on my last sentence when I took the intervention.

I believe that the exclusion of Members of the House of Lords, the Seanad and the European Parliament from sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly is an important point. Having listened to what the Minister said, I do not accept that there is a strong argument for maintaining the current position and I seek to press amendment 10.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

Yes, I agree with that. The decision was taken for Scotland and Wales when we debated the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, while the position in Northern Ireland was left open to allow for further consultation and discussion with the political parties there. That discussion was held. It was carried out in a very full way—indeed, in many respects there was more consultation and discussion about this issue than many others. A view was reached that is supported by a clear majority among the parties represented in the Assembly, and it is also a cross-community view. Of course, not every party agrees with it, but that is a significant development.

[Naomi Long]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s proposal as it stands not only ensures that the next set of elections will not happen concurrently, but reduces the opportunity for that to happen in future, with the result that there will be less ad hoc-ery—for want of a better term—in setting election dates? The Government’s proposal will ensure that they no longer coincide, which is to be welcomed.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady anticipates the exact point I was going to conclude with. Clause 7 takes care of the problem for 2015, but by permanently fixing the Assembly term at five years—again, as in Wales and Scotland—it also takes care of any future problems with overlaps between Assembly and Westminster elections.

For those reasons—and also because the clause ensures that Northern Ireland is absolutely four-square in line with the other devolved legislatures, in Scotland and Wales, as part of this great United Kingdom—I am more than delighted to support the Government on clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Lady is right to say that there has been no threat or attempt to change the Justice Minister under the current arrangement, that the Northern Ireland Office has listened, and that by and large the parties in Northern Ireland have agreed with this provision. However, in the light of what was said by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), may I ask whether she agrees with me that no attempt is being made to change the current special arrangements relating to the role and functions of the Minister vis-à-vis the Executive?

[Naomi Long]

That is entirely consistent with what the Government are proposing. The issue relates simply to the Minister’s appointment and security of tenure. Concerns were raised by my own party and indeed by other parties, and the Government, having listened to other parties in the Executive, took those concerns on board and formulated proposals which addressed them. That was helpful.

I have to say that my view of how an Executive should be formed in future differs from that of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and his party. We have been open and honest about the fact that we would much prefer the reforms of the Assembly to include a move away from d’Hondt and towards the election of all Ministers by means of a cross-community vote, because we believe that that would enhance collectiveness in the Executive. There would have to be agreement among the Northern Ireland parties for that to happen. I should add that I do not consider d’Hondt to be a normal way of appointing Ministers; I consider it to be a mechanism resulting from the Good Friday agreement which was required to manage an abnormal political situation. I hope that, when we seek to reform the Assembly more widely, that will be on the table for discussion along with everything else. However, I support what the Government are attempting to do, and oppose the attempt to change it.

[Stephen Pound]

I welcome what has just been said by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). I hope that the Committee will forgive me for observing that the entire debate, which began so many hours ago, has been conducted in a positive, mature, sensible and serious manner, which I think is to the credit of all Members.

Let me also say on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, as a matter of formality but also as a matter of personal desire, that we entirely understand why the Secretary of State has been detained elsewhere. We understand how difficult things are at present, as we approach Friday, and we understand very well that the right hon. Lady’s first duty must be to ensure peace and good order in Northern Ireland. The Opposition make no criticisms whatsoever. In fact, we feel that the Minister of State has made a very good fist of it, as he often does.

It is a great pleasure for us to hear the frequent encomiums to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). We must never forget the part that he played in bringing us to where we are at present. I think it important to recognise the contribution made by many people, not just those who are in the Chamber tonight.

If there is one theme that could be said to have run consistently through the entire debate, it is the contrast between what we would like to do and what we think we can achieve. In the various statutory instruments discussions we have had, I have invoked St Augustine, and apparently I misquoted him when I said it was the great doctor of the Church who said “Make me pure, but not quite yet.” I received a letter in English from Canon Bernard Scholes telling me I had completely misunderstood the Augustinian theory on that, so I shall look to certain colleagues on this, probably the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), to whom I always defer in matters of theological exactitude.