Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

I am sure the Minister will have heard the point that my hon. Friend makes.

[Mr Robathan]

I will correct this if I am wrong—it was before my time—but my understanding is that as a result of the consultation with the parties in the Assembly, which I believe took some time, the intention was to reduce the size of the Assembly by one Member per constituency. The problem with the Bill as drafted, until amended, is that it would allow the parties in the Assembly, if they so wished, to reduce the number by as many as they wished—perhaps down to one—because there is no limit. That is their lordships’ point, which we took on board in saying that the number would be determined by that which had been consulted on.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the Minister for that clarification.

We certainly take on board the reasoning behind the amendment. What strikes me, though, is the Government’s concern about the Assembly passing legislation on a substantial reduction that could disproportionately affect the smaller parties. One of the things that was raised in the previous debate and is worth raising in this debate is that the Government did not express any corresponding concern when proposals were brought before this House on reducing the number of constituencies for the United Kingdom Parliament. We well remember the debates in this House, which ultimately came to nothing, about reducing the number of seats. Many of us from Northern Ireland constituencies pointed out that the net effect in Northern Ireland would be a reduction of two parliamentary seats. In fact, it would have provided for a rolling review whereby the number of seats in Northern Ireland—and indeed in other parts of the UK—could have been adjusted upwards and downwards virtually from election to election. That would have had not only a very destabilising effect on the political process generally, but a direct, knock-on, consequential effect on the number of Assembly constituencies and Members. The concerns expressed across the House—certainly by all the Northern Ireland parties—did not seem to have the same resonance with Government.

I accept the sincerity with which the Minister has brought this matter forward. We should bear it in mind, however, that the number of Assembly Members would have been directly affected as a result of the proposed changes that eventually came to nothing but were certainly intended by the Government. That would have had a major impact on the Assembly and its workings—on the stability and outworkings of the agreements, and so on. When we are discussing the size and powers of the Assembly, and all the rest of it, sometimes things are done that have, or could have, very direct impacts.

We have no particular number in mind for the size of the Assembly, but we do believe that it is time to get on with it. Now that we have this enabling power, assuming that the Bill is passed with the amendment in place, we hope that the parties that have been reluctant to reduce the size of government, and thereby the burden of government and the extent of the over-governance in Northern Ireland, will take seriously the views of the people out there. I hear that people on all sides believe there needs to be a reduction in the numbers in the Assembly and in Government Departments. There is an idea that interfering with or changing in any way anything to do with the institutions that were set up by the agreement would somehow undermine the process, but that is not sustainable or tenable. People are looking for more efficient government and for Government to save money in a time of austerity, and we should take their concerns on board. I hope that people will now take this enabling power and use it to reduce the size of the Assembly.

We once heard the then leader of the Social and Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), say that some of the ugly architecture of the agreement needed to be done away with. Some people still hold the view that nothing about the institutions can change at all. However, we are now in 2014, many years on from the Belfast agreement and a considerable way on from the St Andrews agreement, and it is time that politicians responded to people’s views and concerns and took a lead in reducing the burden of government on households and on taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I will respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been made.

First, I hope that it will reassure the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) to hear that I, too, have argued endlessly for a reduction in the number of Members in this House, just as a turkey might wish for Christmas. I have always said that there are too many Members of the House of Commons. Personally, I would reduce the number to 500, although that is not my party’s current policy.

I welcome the views of the right hon. Member for Belfast East on progress—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is also sitting in the Chamber and I can see one or two differences between the two of them. The right hon. Member for Belfast North spoke about the need for change in the political structure in Northern Ireland. All the parties in Northern Ireland realise that there needs to be change.

I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East about opposition. What is important is that the people of Northern Ireland want to see the Government in Northern Ireland held to account. We understand why the set-up came about in the Belfast agreement and we support that reason. However, I do not think that anyone believes that the current First Minister and Deputy First Minister structure will last for ever, because very few things do.

I was asked whether there was consultation with the Assembly parties. There was consultation with the parties before the Bill was amended. The clause was consulted on. The assumption in the consultation was that there would be a reduction of one Member in each constituency. That was inserted as a safeguard to ensure that a greater reduction was not steamrollered through. The smaller parties felt, rightly or wrongly, that they might be disadvantaged if there were a reduction of two Members per constituency. I think that this is a matter for the Assembly. However, the consultation was about a reduction of one Member per constituency and that was agreed to. That is why we brought forward Lords amendment 2.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North mentioned the reduction in the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom for the Westminster Parliament. I have put my cards on the table and said where I stand. I have been roundly pilloried for that from time to time by my constituents. However, because a different electoral system is employed for the Northern Ireland Assembly, such a reduction would not have the impact that he suggests. If there were a reduction in the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland, there would still be the same number of Assembly Members per constituency. There would be an overall reduction, but the same number of Members per constituency. The smaller parties would be protected because they would have the same number proportionally per constituency.

[Mr Dodds]

I am interested to hear what the Minister says. I am at a loss to understand how he can make that assertion, because he does not know, and nobody knows, what the Boundary Commission would come up with. We do not know where the two seats would be lost or what the configuration of the new 16-seat arrangement in Northern Ireland would be. Depending on where those seats were lost and where the boundaries were drawn, there could be a disproportionate effect on my party or on smaller parties, or there could be an impact on the nationalist-Unionist balance. He cannot assert what he has just said with any confidence because he does not know, and none of us knows, what the Boundary Commission recommendations would be in such a circumstance.

[Mr Robathan]

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that applies to any boundary of any constituency. My point is that the proportional representation system would allow smaller parties to have their say. Of course, there might be some unhappy situations. If I were able to stray beyond the remit of this debate, I would point out that there is a disproportionate number of Labour seats in the House of Commons, given the number of votes. However, I would not dream of mentioning that at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dodds]

Given that the functions and proceedings of the civil service commissioners are already devolved, what reason does the Minister have for making the civil service commissioners themselves subject to the extra procedure?

[Mr Robathan]

The issue is whether to devolve the civil service commissioners to Northern Ireland. The civil service itself is already the responsibility of Northern Ireland, whereas the commissioners are currently under the control of the UK Government.

[Mr Dodds]

I am talking about the proceedings and functions of the civil service commissioners—not the civil service—which are already devolved. I am asking why there is an extra procedure in terms of the civil service commissioners, their appointment and so on.

[Mr Robathan]

Currently, I understand, the civil service commissioners for Northern Ireland answer to the UK Government, but by devolving this issue, they will answer to the Northern Ireland Executive. I believe that to be the case, but just in case I am wrong—[Interruption.] Yes, the proceedings and functions are currently reserved, whereas the appointment is excepted. We intend to change that, so that appointment will also be reserved. I think that is a sensible way forward, and I thought it was supported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

The point about the Lords amendments is that there will be no change to the current status of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We initially intended it to be devolved to the Assembly and the Executive, but any change will take place after further consultation. I am afraid the answer to the hon. Lady’s question will come during further consultation rather than now.

Devolution of the responsibilities of civil service commissioners and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will, of course, be subject to consultation, and the Lords amendments intend to ensure that devolution is approached with proper consideration and scrutiny. I hope that the House will agree that that is the right approach.

Lords amendments 7 and 8 are technical amendments concerning the commencement of clause 24. Members will be aware that clause 24 amends an order-making power already passed in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to allow us to take forward, by order, the changes to the new biometric framework in the reserved and excepted fields. The Northern Ireland Department of Justice could not legislate for that because the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 received Royal Assent too late, on 25 April 2013. The amendments will allow us to bring the position of Northern Ireland regarding the retention, use and destruction of biometric data in the interests of national security, or for the purposes of terrorist investigation, into line with that of Great Britain.

As the Bill is currently drafted, clause 24 would come into force on the day the legislation is passed. However, the order-making power in paragraph 8 of schedule 1 to the Protection of Freedoms Act is not yet in force. The amendment to commencement is intended to avoid a situation where the amendment to the order-making power in clause 24 comes into force before the power itself. That would have no practical effect and is technically undesirable. The change is entirely technical and has not been prompted by any debate or concerns in the other place. I hope that the House will agree to it.

[Mr Dodds]

Again, I would be interested to know the extent and outcome of consultation with the Executive parties about the issues covered by the amendments, other than the technical points relating to clause 24, which are of no particular concern and accepted by virtually everyone. Lords amendments 4, 5 and 6 deal with civil service commissioners and human rights commissioners. These are enabling powers that would transfer civil service commissioners to the reserved category. As the Minister said, the functions and proceedings of civil service commissioners are currently reserved.

The issue of reporting to Parliament was debated in the other place. I have no difficulty with as much parliamentary debate, scrutiny and accountability as there can be on these matters, or with bringing forward a report, as proposed by the amendments. I have no concerns about that and would certainly not oppose it. However, the purpose of the report to Parliament is, first, about the effect that the transfer would have on the independence of the commissioners, secondly about the principle that appointments should be based on merit after fair and open competition, and finally about the impartiality of the Northern Ireland civil service. One concern was that as things stood, without the Lords amendments, if Parliament wanted to pass responsibility for that matter to the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would do so by Order in Council, since such matters are reserved. That would not allow for amendments, and would be simply accepted or rejected in its entirety.

It would, of course, allow for any concerns about the independence of commissioners, appointments on merit, or issues of impartiality to be debated, but if there were concerns about those matters then no doubt Members of this House and of the other place would vote accordingly. If there are concerns about any of those things, I presume that the Government would not have an Order in Council. One wonders what the purpose of the measure really is.

There will be a debate and a report. Presumably everyone will say, “Well, we’re all content and happy,” and we will proceed to the Order in Council. However, if people say that they are not happy, or if the report states that things are not good, the Order in Council will not be introduced. To me, the whole thing seems effectively like window dressing, and I wonder about its purpose, other than to allow an extra debate, which I am perfectly content to have.

[Mr Robathan]

The amendment—[Interruption.] I think the Cheltenham festival is on, which is of great interest to the Irish—and to me, as it happens.

The amendment takes account of the concerns that were expressed in the other House. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the clause rather than the amendment. The amendment is designed to provide further time before anything is devolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Dodds]

The Minister seems to be getting a little tetchy, if I may say so. Members of the House are carrying out their parliamentary duty to scrutinise the Bill. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said, amendments were introduced on Third Reading in the other place, not on Report, so this is the first chance we have had to debate them. It is perfectly proper to examine the amendments, even though we will not divide the House on them. This is the first opportunity we have had to debate these matters.

May I pick the Minister up on his reference to Members in the other place raising the issues, to ensure that there will be a debate? Is the Minister saying that there will also be a debate in this House on the report?

[Mr Robathan]

The report will certainly come before the House. If there is a need for a debate, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that there is one, as I understand it—

[Mr Dodds]

It is not for me—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to call for a debate, we will have one. This is a matter for consultation—

[Mr Dodds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

Hold on. The reason the amendments were introduced on Third Reading is the perceived unhappiness in the other place about the existing clause. The amendment allows for further consultation, and the amendments have been welcomed. They are not designed to harm the parliamentary process in any way; quite the opposite, they are designed to allow further consultation.

[Mr Dodds]

rose—

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Mr Robathan]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful for the fact that the Minister has now placed on me the responsibility and burden for initiating debates, Government business and so on. I hope that he will involve me more often. I am surprised, but I welcome it and will follow him up on it—I am happy to discuss it with him in more detail. He is simply saying that we may have a debate and all the rest of it, but what is the purpose of a report being drawn up, and it being of such importance, if it is not to be debated? Why will the Minister not give a firm commitment that we will have a debate on the report?

[Mr Robathan]

I will respond after the second intervention.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks.

In conclusion, new clause 2 is a misconceived proposal, but I commend amendment 3. It is a technical amendment saying that if we are giving the power to the Northern Ireland Assembly to reduce the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly—as we are proposing to do in this Bill, because that is right and proper, and that should be a matter for the Assembly—the Assembly should also have the power to consider the number of people required for a petition of concern to be valid. For it to remain at 30 would be completely wrong, as that number was regarded as proportionate for 108 MLAs. If the Assembly were reduced to 90 MLAs or fewer, as would be my preference, it would clearly be right, proper and sensible to reduce the number required to sign a petition of concern. Amendment 3 is a technical and sensible amendment, and I hope the Government will take it on board.

[Mr Robathan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It adds:

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

These are relatively minor changes, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will be able to support them. There has been support on both sides of the House for the provisions in clause 1, which will protect permanently the identities of those who have made donations to Northern Ireland political parties in the past.

In the past, donors gave money in the understanding that their identities would not be revealed, and it would be unfair to change that position without their consent retrospectively. However, there has been some debate about the date on which the guarantee of anonymity should end. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is in her place, proposed amendments that would reduce the length of time for which donors would continue to benefit from these provisions. It is important that all donors are fully aware that the rules have changed at the point at which they make a donation.

The Bill as drafted refers to 1 October next year because the Government believed that that would ensure the clearest framework for political parties. It is a date that is already familiar to parties and their financial supporters as the date on which the prescribed period will end if the Bill does not come into force. All donors are already on notice that permanent anonymity will come to an end at that point. However, it has never been the Government’s policy to stand in the way of changes that might help to increase transparency, provided that the change to an earlier date can be implemented.

In view of the support for the change from all Northern Ireland parties represented in the House, whose donors are those affected, and from the Electoral Commission, which regulates party finance, the Government are willing to support a change to an earlier date.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the Minister confirm that if the amendment is passed tonight and the Bill receives Royal Assent all donations up to 1 January will be permanently excluded from being revealed? Is that the Government’s understanding of the position?

[Mr Robathan]

That was my understanding. I have just taken advice from those in the Box and they agree, so I think we are pretty sure that that is the case.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Lord Robathan and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

Unfortunately, as the Members on either side of the hon. Lady—the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the shadow Secretary of State—will understand, I cannot speak for the Ministry of Justice. It would be beyond my remit. May I also say that she spoke for longer than I have yet achieved? Don’t worry, I’m working on it.

New clause 13 relates to armed forces advocates. Advocates are an excellent idea, and in UK Government Departments and the devolved Administrations they face in two directions. They ensure that their own Department’s policies take account of the special needs of the armed forces community, and they communicate their Department’s perspective to my officials and external stakeholders.

I turn briefly to new clause 14, on the ombudsmen. I pay tribute to the parliamentary and local government ombudsmen for their work. I do not think any of us doubt the important role that they can play in helping members of the armed forces community, and they have welcomed the familiarisation events that my officials have organised. However, the new clause is unclear about what exactly the ombudsmen are intended to do, and we are not minded to accept it. The Government will continue to work with public bodies and local authorities to implement our commitments, and we will encourage them to help to remove the disadvantage faced by service people and afford them special treatment where appropriate. The ombudsmen have a vital role to play, but it is not the one described in the new clause.

Finally—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Yes, finally, I come to the Opposition’s new clause 17. Once again, the concept outlined in it is perfectly reasonable. I want, just as much as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire does, a world in which those who make policy take into account the needs of members of the armed forces community as a matter of routine. The best way of ensuring that we avoid problems of disadvantage is to prevent them from happening in the first place. The issue is how to achieve that. We must consider whether the right course of action is to create a legal duty to have regard to certain matters, or to adopt a more practical approach. In the Government’s view, placing a general duty on all public bodies and Ministers in the preparation of all policy would be unhelpful and unfocused. It would lead to more of a box-ticking culture and a cottage industry of assessments. As I have said throughout the debates on the Bill, we are interested in results and want the armed forces community to be looked after better, but that does not involve box-ticking.

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

I agree with the Minister that results and outcomes are the most important thing, but with reference to the earlier discussion on devolution, how will he ensure that all servicemen and women and ex-servicemen and women are treated equally in all parts of the United Kingdom? There may be some resistance at devolved level, particularly in Northern Ireland where vetoes are in operation.

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I know that he takes the matter very seriously. We did not put forward the devolution settlement, of course—that was done by the previous Government—but we are working with all three devolved Administrations to try to ensure that there is no disadvantage to any ex-service person. However, I absolutely take on board his point and the particular circumstances that he mentions.

Rather than the system set out in new clause 17, I would prefer one in which I and my ministerial colleagues across Government continue to work with public bodies to ensure as far as possible that they take account of the armed forces covenant in their preparation of policy. Much progress has already been made, and the imposition of a new statutory duty would not be of benefit.

The Government look to the annual report to be a powerful, flexible tool to focus Parliament’s attention on the key issues of the time. I fear that the Opposition’s proposed amendments would make that task more difficult and impose a package of unnecessary processes. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I have only another 300 pages to go, but I shall leave it at that, and allow the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Having listened to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I have to say that I thought his indignation was completely synthetic. What is important is how the money is spent, not how statistics are gathered, and I will put on record what we feel.

The Ministry of Defence has no plans to reinstate the publication of annual estimates of regional defence spending or the employment effects of that expenditure. The Department decided to stop the compilation and publication of those statistics three years ago. Although the statistics were valuable in giving national and regional employment context to defence spending, the data did not directly support MOD policy making and operations. Furthermore, the compilation of the series depended on external sources that had not been updated for some years. The MOD had been struggling to maintain the quality of the statistics even to a basic level. To reinstate their compilation would cost the Department about £500,000 in the next four years.

The purpose of the defence budget is to maintain the armed forces so that they can contribute to our nation’s security—a nation that includes, I am glad to say, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Every pound that the MOD spends must contribute to the security of the United Kingdom, and it gets doled out not on a regional basis but on a defence-needs basis.

[Mr Dodds]

I stand as a member of a Unionist party in Northern Ireland that is proud to be part of the United Kingdom, but this is not about being part of the UK. It is about the information that is available to Members of Parliament and the public. Surely the Minister should recognise that distinction.

[Mr Robathan]

Information on employment is quite readily available with a little bit of hard work, but I am afraid that we must consider the cost of compiling inaccurate statistics. The previous Government took their view, and we support it. Decisions on where personnel are based and which contracts are let to which firms are based solely on what is best for the armed forces and the defence of the realm. It is the duty of Government to ensure that the defence budget is spent wisely, maximising the resources available on the front line and ensuring that every pound counts.