Cross-border Crime

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr McCrea]

Concern for the environment was also mentioned by a Minister of the Irish Republic recently. The House should be taking this matter very seriously, because damage is being done and we cannot turn a blind eye. The concern that many of us have is that the Government could do more. I cannot understand why those involved in this activity have not been brought before the courts. That is totally unacceptable. The last time anyone was brought before the courts was 2002, even though there are those who are known to have committed this crime.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think the problem might be that HMRC has the lead duty to investigate fuel laundering? Perhaps, given that this involves serious organised crimes, the Police Service of Northern Ireland ought to have lead responsibility in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it would be more effective at bringing prosecutions.

[Dr McCrea]

I believe there are many agencies—when I am winding up I shall draw attention to this—that could work together to resolve this situation. I also accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said. We must turn our attention to the cross-border drugs and alcohol problem.

I turn now to another serious organised criminal cross-border activity: the counterfeiting of consumer goods. Although smokers have been warned of the serious health threats posed by illicit tobacco, the current price of duty-paid tobacco makes cheaper tobacco more readily available to the young and the vulnerable. For example, a notorious black market cigarette brand, Jin Ling, which is known to contain asbestos, was recently found on sale in Belfast. Smuggling black market cigarettes is extremely lucrative for organised gangs, which can make huge profits and which cost the UK £2 billion a year in lost taxes.

Last month, almost 1 tonne of raw leaf tobacco and 10,000 suspected illicit cigarettes were seized in raids by customs officers at a farm in south Armagh. HMRC said they were worth an estimated £236,000 in lost duty and taxes. In separate searches on the same day, 10,000 illegal cigarettes were recovered. A number of private and business addresses in County Down were inspected. A vehicle and the cigarettes were removed, worth an estimated £2,800 in lost duty and taxes. It is truly remarkable that no arrests have yet been made in relation to either operation. The question we have to ask is: why?

It is believed by many in the Province that the authorities are turning a blind eye, because this is a way to keep some paramilitary groupings sweet. Those groupings are able to fill the coffers of their organisations and even stand in elections against those who seek to do things in a legal and proper fashion. Although earlier this month five people from County Tyrone and County Down were arrested as part of an investigation into a suspected tobacco fraud worth £110 million, the situation highlights Northern Ireland as an attractive region for international crime gangs owing to the inertia in past months of parties failing to support the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. It is through these statistics that we are now clearly seeing the out-workings of not having the NCA in operation over the past year-and-a-half. It is no accident that these quantities of illegal substances are being smuggled across the border into Northern Ireland. These gangs know only too well that at present if the gang leaders are caught, some of their assets cannot be taken from them. For the past 18 months, we have been a soft touch for smugglers and criminal gangs. Although the NCA is now expected to be operational in Northern Ireland by May, it is largely a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Nothing surprises us about the intransigence of Sinn Fein and their hostility to the introduction of the NCA. They have a vested interest in seeking to hinder investigations into the skulduggery of their republican mates. However, others have dithered in their support for the NCA and have denied the Exchequer millions of pounds in lost revenue that could have ultimately benefited the people of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive. The difficulties of policing the area along the border are well documented. As recently as last month, a south Armagh man was injured in an explosion while taking down a poster, put up by republican criminal gangs, which claimed that a second individual was a security forces informer or “tout”. However, while it is clear that there are tensions within republicanism, there remains a prevalence of fear in the community about co-operating with the police to bring those behind such threats and attacks to justice.

In conclusion, the motion calls on the Government to ensure greater co-operation between HMRC, the National Crime Agency and the PSNI in combining their investigative prowess to eradicate the scourge of criminal activity from our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

Part of the difficulty, of course, has been that the PSNI has had to deal with a lot of these matters itself. The Chief Constable will say that he is well resourced, but he has been subject to considerable restraints, as have all police forces in the United Kingdom in recent years. That inevitably has an impact on what he can do. The fact that the NCA has not been able to operate at anything like its fullest extent in Northern Ireland has meant that there has been a deficit in policing in Northern Ireland. That is now, mercifully, being remedied so that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from the full entirety of policing to which they are entitled. That will clearly have resource implications, which I hope will be beneficial, for the PSNI.

On the question of concerns about the lack of custodial sentences, after running a consultation in summer 2013 the Northern Ireland Department of Justice implemented legislative change in December of that year allowing the referral of unduly lenient excise fraud sentences to the Court of Appeal. The consultation and the resulting measure had the Government’s full support, of course. I can report to the House that in the period 2013-14 six individuals were prosecuted for fuel fraud in Northern Ireland. I accept that that is nothing like enough, given the extent of the problem, but it gives the lie to the suggestion that there have been no prosecutions as there clearly have. However, I would share the assertion made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that there need to be more. I hope that the introduction of the NCA will play a part in that.

On the specific issue of fuel laundering—

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I will in a minute.

Hon. Members might be aware that the UK has worked closely with Ireland to identify a new fuel marker. It will come in in May and represents a significant improvement on the current fuel marker. It gives much more protection against fraud.

[Dr Murrison]

I think that we have exhausted this particular point, and I did say that I would come back to the hon. Gentleman. However, I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills).

[Nigel Mills]

While we are talking about the lack of prosecutions, the sentences that are given out are somewhat more lenient than we might hope for an offence of such seriousness. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem in that a lot of people perceive fuel laundering and illegal sales of tobacco to be victimless crimes whereas—this is certainly the case in Northern Ireland—they are serious organised crime offences that fund other serious activity and should be treated with that seriousness by the public, by all the authorities and by those who give out the sentences when people are caught?

[Dr Murrison]

I agree it is not a victimless crime, as is clear from the figures I have trotted out—there is the cost to the Treasury alone. All of us who rely on the largesse of the public services we enjoy are victims of this crime, so I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend. On the leniency of sentences, I will be interested to see what the Court of Appeal decides.

On-the-Runs Scheme

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

It is, of course, important for all crime to be properly investigated in Northern Ireland and for those guilty of offences to be brought to justice, regardless of whether or not they have an OTR letter.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

We all want to see people with a strong case against them standing trial to see whether a jury will convict them. Will the Secretary of State revisit her legal advice on her statement that these letters should not have any great effect on a trial, to make sure that, in the light of this new decision, it remains correct and there is no need for further action by this place?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am certainly happy to do that, and I discussed the matter with the Chief Constable yesterday. Just to reiterate, the Northern Ireland Office stands ready to take any further steps that might assist in removing barriers to prosecution. My current view is that the best way to guard against future problems in relation to abuse of process is a clear statement that these letters should not be relied on, and that is what I have made and issued to this House in September.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The principle of the Bill is that that becomes a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive. It is for them to make the choice and decide whether to go ahead with implementation of a reduced rate. Obviously, there is a great deal of support for bringing down the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland to the same level as in the Republic of Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s party colleague, Minister Foster, would like to see it reduced still further. Those matters are not provided for in the Bill because the Bill vests that choice with the Northern Ireland Executive once commencement has taken place.

As I was saying in response to the intervention, Northern Ireland has a unique position within our United Kingdom. The land border that it shares with a very low corporation tax environment in the Republic of Ireland puts it at a significant competitive disadvantage when competing for inward investment into the island of Ireland. Northern Ireland is also more dependent on the public sector than most other parts of the UK. Estimates vary as to the extent of this dependence, but it is generally accepted that around 30% work in the public sector, compared with about 20% in the rest of the UK. Some surveys put the dependence on the public sector at even higher levels.

Economic prosperity as measured by gross value added per capita is still some 20% below the UK average and has been so for a number of decades. Of course, Northern Ireland faces a range of difficult issues flowing from the legacy of the troubles. All these challenges need to be overcome if Northern Ireland is to compete successfully on the national and global stage for jobs and for investment. None of this is to say that Northern Ireland does not have some amazing entrepreneurs and some hugely successful businesses that are truly world-beating. Under this Government unemployment in Northern Ireland has fallen in every month for the past two years and the record of foreign direct investment is strong, not least because of the efforts of the Northern Ireland Executive.

But for all the great businesses we have in Northern Ireland, the blunt truth is that there are just not enough of them, so the Government are convinced that to boost the private sector and enable Northern Ireland to perform even more strongly in attracting inward investment, we need to go further. We need to provide stronger incentives for Northern Ireland firms to invest in growth. The Bill before the House today will give the Assembly a powerful tool to help them do this, enabling Northern Ireland to take a decisive step forward towards rebalancing its economy.

The Bill provides a further demonstration of this Government’s general commitment to devolution, which we have shown in many ways, including with the Scotland Act 2012. We are making progress on implementing the Smith commission proposals for further powers for Scotland over tax and welfare to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Draft legislative clauses were published on 22 January.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the data which suggest that almost twice as much will be raised from companies moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland than from those moving into Northern Ireland from overseas? If that is the case, does she think it fair that Members from Northern Ireland may vote on the UK-wide corporation tax rate as well as their own, when they are effectively competing with our constituents?

[Mrs Villiers]

I emphasise that the new system is designed to deal with artificial avoidance. A number of measures are in place to prevent abuse of the new system; I will come to those in a moment. In relation to voting on taxation matters, my hon. Friend will be aware that ensuring that the devolution settlement is fair to the English as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom is an important matter under consideration by the House and by the political parties. I am sure it will be extremely important that we get the right outcome to ensure that the devolution settlement is fair across the board, but it is also crucial that we have a coherent and unified tax system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). I should like to begin by saying that this measure is entirely the right thing for Northern Ireland. Those of us who serve on the Select Committee have all seen how hard it is to compete when a neighbour a short distance away can offer a much lower rate of corporation tax. I wholeheartedly support the notion that we should allow Northern Ireland to choose its own corporation tax rate, especially on trading profits. In fact, I would even support the principle that lower business taxes drive growth. Over the past five years in the UK, we have reduced our corporation tax rate from 28% to—in a couple of months’ time—20%, which is important in helping to drive growth in the whole country.

That leads me to my first concern. Part of the argument for making that reduction is that we recover money that we lose in corporation tax by attracting more investment: more companies make more money and pay more corporation tax as there are more profits. Even though corporation tax is set at a lower rate we begin to recoup some of the costs. With more employment, we would expect increases in income tax and PAYE. Greater economic activity will result in more VAT, and more property transactions will give rise to more stamp duty. Those are the key ways of recovering what is lost through lower corporation tax.

It is not entirely clear how much of those increased tax takes will go to Northern Ireland and how much will be kept by the UK as a whole. When the final deal is done and a calculation is made of by how much budgets are reduced, that net cost needs to be worked out to ensure that it is fair to Northern Ireland and fair to the rest of the UK. There will need to be a breakdown of the overall impact of behavioural change as a result of a lower tax rate in Northern Ireland, if that is what results. I assume we expect to see a rate of 12.5%, or perhaps a little lower to make it competitive.

We seem to be devolving taxes haphazardly, creating a mishmash. We ought to look forward a few years and ask, for all our taxes, “What should our tax system look like? What taxes will we devolve and to where? How can we best achieve a sustainable, sensible tax system as a result of that?” One way of doing that would be to set a federal income tax rate and a federal corporation tax rate that apply throughout the UK. Once those were set, each area could choose its own rate as well, so there could be a federal corporation tax rate of, say, 10% and Northern Ireland could choose 0% as its local rate, and England could choose a rate as well.

What we have in this Bill is a complex way of doing that for one area of the country. I accept the reason for doing that just for Northern Ireland initially, but if there is pressure from Scotland and Wales, this mishmash of a system will be hard to act on and it will be very unfair on England. How will we work out the rate that we want? With the devolution of corporation tax, I suspect that the easiest competition will be between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, because we have the same currency, much the same legal system, the same VAT system and the same income tax system. In fact, for almost any sensible business, the east midlands is a far more attractive place to do business than Northern Ireland. I would say that, because my constituency is there, but we have the right skills, the right location and all manner of advantages.

[Ian Swales]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sort of business decisions we are talking about are long-term decisions, and if the tax system appears to be moving around wildly among countries year by year, companies will not use it because they will not be able to rely on a long-term future?

[Nigel Mills]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we should look ahead and see what our tax system should look like. Nobody in the UK wants a business man with a business based in Amber Valley or Redcar to think, “I could save half my corporation tax by moving to Northern Ireland.” That may help Northern Ireland, but it will not help the mainland. It will not help UK plc to attract more inward investment. We want fair competition. I accept that competition is good and that if we get investment somewhere in the UK, that is better overall, but we want investment coming in from outside, not moving around within the UK.

As a matter of fairness, if parts of the UK are to compete on corporation tax, those parts should not vote on the rate elsewhere in the UK. If Northern Ireland wants to set its own corporation tax, let us let England, Wales and Scotland set ours. If we devolve it further, the same fairness should apply. People in my constituency should be able to say, “Yes, we are competing, but we can choose whether to compete or not.” I hope that before April 2017 some sort of mechanism is in place to ensure fairness. Devolving taxes without first settling that is dangerous in constitutional terms. I am not sure it would be tolerable for Scottish MPs, for example, to set their own income tax and then to set ours as well. I accept that that is probably more of a problem than corporation tax, but it is an example of the unfair tax system that we could end up with.

An excellent Library paper that runs through the research shows on page 13 that, looking at the behavioural response to a lower rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland, even by year 4 we would see that profit shifting from the rest of the world into Northern Ireland would have an impact of £30 million a year, but that profit shifting from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would have an impact of £60 million a year. That is twice the impact of new foreign direct investment. Tax-motivated incorporation would have a potential impact of £45 million —even more than foreign direct investment into Northern Ireland. I hope that the measures in the Bill will reduce the likelihood of the latter possibility. The easiest way of competing will be to move around within a regime rather than try to attract investment into the UK that would not have come here in the first place.

That leads me to look at how cluttered some of these proposals will make the corporation tax system. This is not a simple set of things to understand. A company that has its tax base in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have to work its way through some fairly complex situations. There were simpler options. We could have just had an allocation key that worked out one profit and then how much of it would be taxed in Northern Ireland and how much in the rest of the UK, based on employees and sales. It could have ended up a bit like the awful EU tax base that was thought up. However, within the UK, that might have worked, being easier to understand and removing some of the distortions of attempts at tax avoidance. Taxation based on sales is much harder to fix.

There are still some gaps in these proposals. It is absolutely right that we have stopped allowing finance companies to get the lower tax rate. Otherwise every large corporate would have had a finance company based in Belfast doing its finance for the rest of the UK and moving profit over there artificially. That would have been unacceptable.

How do we stop other things happening that we might not like? What about intellectual property planning? If I move all my brand names over to Northern Ireland, can I charge large royalties in the rest of the UK and artificially move profit in that way? That is not caught by the restrictions in the Bill. It is not moving jobs or creating real value; it is just moving assets around a regime and trying to get a tax advantage.

On the flipside, there are some wrinkles in how we have tackled the finance company exemption. Under the definitions in clause 17, I am not sure what happens in the case of a company trading in Northern Ireland that makes a lot of profit, ends up with some cash at the end of the year, and thinks, “Okay, I’ve got another important investment project in 18 months’ time, so perhaps I’ll lend this cash around to somewhere else in my group of companies and make a bit of interest income.” It is then engaging in a lending activity. Has that blown it out of the whole lower rate because it now has an excluded activity, or is only the interest taxed at the higher rate, and because it is a very small part of its activity, that is okay? I am not quite clear about how we tackle real, practical situations such as that.

I am not convinced that the situation for small and medium-sized companies is entirely fair. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who is no longer here, said that some construction companies in Northern Ireland end up with lots of building work on the mainland because that is where the work has been. If, during the year, such a company gets a big contract on the mainland, it then has to track whether the profit from that becomes more than a quarter of its total activity. If it is 26% by the year end, it pays 20% corporation tax on the whole of its profits, whereas if it is 24% at the year end, it pays 10% on the whole of its profits.

I accept that for the vast majority of SMEs that do not trade on the mainland and operate just in Northern Ireland, that will be a very simple situation, and one small contract will not hurt. However, I suspect that SMEs trading in both areas will be in a worse position than a large company, because a large company that had 26% of its activity on the mainland would still get the lower rate for most of its profits, but a small company will lose it for most of its profits. Perhaps there could be a way of allowing an SME to elect to be in the large company regime if that better reflects its needs. Another option would be to have two separate companies and split their activities, but that does not strike me as a very easy situation. There are some issues that may lead to unintended complexities.

We need to think through exactly which activities we do not want to qualify for the lower rate. We have a new diverted profits tax coming, whereby if someone moves an activity that ought to be somewhere else, we will try to tax it at a higher rate than our UK standard rate. Under one of the provisions, someone who is being taxed at a rate of less than 80% of the UK rate will be caught. Clearly, Northern Ireland is likely to have a tax rate of less than 80% of the main UK rate. If a Northern Ireland company has an internet trading business or a mail order business in Belfast and takes careful steps to avoid having an establishment on the UK mainland, could that company be caught by the diverted profits tax, triggering a higher rate than if it was in the UK? How can we stop people artificially putting trading activity using very few employees into Belfast, rather than doing it on the mainland, to get the lower rate? I accept that no one wants the rate to apply to activity involving no employees, but I sense that certain activities that do not require much labour might be moved, which is not what we intend.

I welcome the principle of the Bill. I have some concerns about rushing it through now without thinking about how it affects the UK as a whole—we need to do that if we are to get a tax system that is sustainable in the long term—about how cluttered we are making our corporation tax system and about whether things in the Bill’s details might make the system work in a way that we do not want, but I suggest that we think through such issues in Committee.

Stormont House Agreement

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I expect the House to receive news on legislation on corporation tax in the very, very near future. We are working on how the structure of legislation in the Assembly and Westminster on the rest of the package is precisely to be formulated. The procedures for review and monitoring are set out in paragraphs 73 to 75. In relation to inquests and the provision of information to families, it is crucial that we all work on this. The agreement has a commitment to reform. There is an acknowledgement that the current inquest system is not meeting the needs of the families effectively enough and not delivering the Government’s obligations under article 2 effectively enough. That will be a hugely important priority for the UK Government. We hope to work closely with the Department of Justice in the work that it will no doubt be doing on this.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that an agreement was reached, but will the Secretary of State set out exactly how much extra money has been given to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make the deal happen? Does she regret that, yet again, we have shown that if the parties of Northern Ireland hold out for long enough, Westminster will eventually cave in and send more money over?

[Mrs Villiers]

I can outline the financial package, but it is a fair one. It was not a blank cheque. It recognises that Northern Ireland faces specific problems that the rest of the United Kingdom does not. In outline, it involves £150 million over five years to help to fund work on the past; flexibility to use £700 million of capital borrowing to fund a voluntary exit scheme for four years; a contribution of up to £500 million over 10 years of capital funding for shared and integrated education; £350 million of borrowing for capital infrastructure projects; and the flexibility to use the receipts from asset sales and capital funding to repay the welfare shortfall payments.

Northern Ireland (All-party Talks)

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

May I agree with the Secretary of State’s earlier sentiment that the solution to every problem in Northern Ireland cannot be more money from the English taxpayer? Will she now confirm that there will be no bigger offer than the £1 billion that was talked about last week to get this deal over the line?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I have said many times, the solution to these problems cannot be a big cheque from the UK Government. That is partly because it would not solve the problems, and partly because there is no more money. We have made it clear that we are not prepared to subsidise a more expansive welfare system for Northern Ireland. We are certainly prepared to continue to discuss the funding of matters such as new institutions on the past.

Hallett Report

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously taken a close interest in this matter, and he is right to view today as drawing a line under it and reaching an end to what has been a painful episode for many people. On the evidence given to NIAC by Jonathan Powell, I think it is a matter for him whether he chooses to apologise. As I said in relation to the scheme, although I would not necessarily have done everything in the same way as the previous Government, or necessarily agreed with their overall approach to OTRs, I recognise that they were striving for a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland, and dealing with an extremely difficult situation and difficult judgments.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. At its start she mentioned that she discussed this issue with the various authorities in Northern Ireland. At the Select Committee last week I asked whether she would consider asking those authorities to make a similar statement, so that we could be sure that the courts in Northern Ireland accept that this status is for the whole of the UK, not just the Secretary of State, given that she has no power over the courts in Northern Ireland. Has she taken that on board and ruled it out?

[Mrs Villiers]

I did give that suggestion some thought and I discussed it with David Ford. I continue to be of the view that these statements were made by the UK Government—largely by the Northern Ireland Office, and by No. 10 in a couple of instances—so it is for the UK Government to clarify their status. The key factor is that this is the Government’s statement of what the letters now mean. In those circumstances I do not think it is necessary for an additional statement to be published by the Department of Justice or the devolved authorities, but, as I have told the House, they agree that this is the best way forward to do whatever we can to try to remove barriers to prosecution that might be created by the scheme.

Hallett Review

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s offer of sympathy to all the victims of terrorism. As the representative of a constituency that was, sadly, the site of many horrific murders during the troubles, he is well placed to understand the pain that has been caused to those victims. I acknowledge that his party has always made it extremely clear that no amnesty would ever be acceptable, and I entirely support that position. As I have said, Heather Hallett’s report has confirmed today that there was no “get out of jail free” card. We will act as swiftly as we can to remove barriers to prosecution but, reflecting on the report’s findings, we should be under no illusions as to the legal complexities and sensitivities involved. We certainly do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past by acting in an over-hasty manner. We will keep in close touch with the Police Service of Northern Ireland on these matters, while always respecting its operational independence.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be an opportunity to question the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on these matters. That is really a matter for him and for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. On the publication of names, I have said throughout the debate on OTRs that I did not believe that such publication would be appropriate. There are many legal and privacy concerns involved, as well as questions relating to article 2, which is why I am not proposing to publish any names relating to either RPMs or OTRs.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

In her statement, the Secretary of State said that we needed a process that is “transparent, accountable and balanced”. I hope that she would agree that this scheme was none of those. We have an open justice system and we generally know who is being arrested, charged, prosecuted and acquitted. It is not clear to me why we should not know who felt the need to seek one of those letters. If we believe in a transparent system, we should be able to find out who has received one.

[Mrs Villiers]

I understand my hon. Friend’s perspective. There are probably many reasons why people put their names forward. Something that comes across clearly in the report is that a number of the individuals concerned were not known to the PSNI at all. I will reflect on what he has said, but I continue to believe that it would not be helpful to name the individuals who were processed through the scheme. In all other respects, however, we need to be as transparent as we can about the steps we will take to remedy the serious errors identified by Heather Hallett, and we need to do all we can to learn from them.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that clarification of the possibility of appealing in that case. That certainly was the advice that I received yesterday from an eminent QC—

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I am a little confused. I thought that the reason for the lack of an appeal was that there was no realistic prospect of success, not that there was no process by which an appeal could be made. Is the position that there was no possibility of an appeal for technical reasons, or is it that the appeal had no chance of being successful?

[Mr Robertson]

My understanding from our discussions yesterday was that a stay cannot be appealed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robertson]

I do not think that anyone would disagree with what the Attorney-General has just said. The problem is that the judgment in the Downey case appears to have taken the political situation into account, and that is what concerns everyone. Royal pardons appear to have been given, but I do not know what they were given for or which crimes were being overlooked. If that was not done on a political basis, I do not know what constitutes a political basis. The point that we are trying to make is that such decisions should be made on a legal basis, not a political basis.

The one good aspect is that the judgment has blown open the whole issue and drawn attention to what has been going on. The Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill was introduced in 2005, presumably because it was felt necessary to put the scheme on to a statutory basis, to give it a public airing or some respectability. It now seems that the scheme had been running since 1999, but it was six years before the Bill was introduced. The Bill was dropped, but the scheme continued. Was the scheme legitimate for all that time? If it was, why the need for the Bill?

As the right hon. Member for Belfast North said, the 1998 legislation—some of which I also voted against, for all sorts of reasons—addressed very unpalatable issues, but at least we could debate and vote on them publicly.

[Nigel Mills]

There was a referendum on it.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend, who is a valuable member of the Select Committee, points out that a referendum was held on that legislation. That was completely in the open, so why was this scheme not made public? We will need to look at that issue.

It is claimed that the letters were just assurances that no one was being looked at by the PSNI; it was just an administrative scheme and simply a matter of informing people that they were not wanted. But we are also told that the scheme was crucial to the peace process and if it had not been done, the whole peace process would have somehow unravelled. Both those statements cannot be correct. If it was just a matter of clearing the police computer and moving things on, it cannot have been crucial to the peace process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, which I do with a level of concern. I am not a victim of the so-called troubles or a resident of Northern Ireland. I am especially cautious about interfering in the legacy of a past that is not entirely mine.

I join the various sympathies that have been expressed to the victims of the Hyde park bomb and their families and friends. This is a terrible way to end any attempt at a justice process for them. It does great damage to the reputation of justice in the UK, both on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, that we have evidence to prosecute someone, but for a rather unfortunate reason cannot have a fair trial in a public court to see whether they are guilty. The families deserved that in the Downey case.

As many Members have said, there is an issue with the whole process. Somehow, our system of justice, of which we should be proud, has gone horribly wrong. We need to ensure that we know the extent to which it has gone wrong and that no further injustices are done. The point was made earlier that the idea of the royal prerogative of mercy was to correct miscarriages of justice, not create them. I fear that this process has created some miscarriages of justice. That is the last thing we should have done.

We are all entitled to expect a fair and transparent legal and judicial process, with a trial in an open court by one’s peers where everyone knows what happened, everyone can hear the evidence and everyone can understand the verdict to which the jury comes. In a closed, invisible process, not only do we not get a trial in a public court, we do not even know who has had these letters or why, and we do not even know who has had the royal pardons. That cannot be right. We need to get to a stage where the process is transparent, and where the people of Northern Ireland and the mainland know who has had these letters and what they say. Transparent justice is the only fair situation.

On the background to the case, what strikes me as important, both in the case and in the verdict, is the intent behind the administrative process. What was the idea of issuing the letters? As was mentioned earlier, we appear to have two extreme views on that. One says that the letters were essential to making the peace process work; that Sinn Fein desperately needed them to play a full part in the process. The other extreme is that the letters were merely a factual statement of the state of inquiries that did not confer new rights on anybody, and that if there was a change of heart or new evidence was found—perhaps if a more competent file review was done and evidence was pieced together—there could still be a prosecution. With my layman’s non-lawyer logic, I would assume that the letters were largely worthless—yesterday we were not looking for a certain individual, but perhaps tomorrow we will be—and that nothing in them could be relied on. That does not appear to be the status of the letters in the very comprehensive Downey judgment.

[David Simpson]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the royal pardons and royal prerogatives. Does he agree that, apart from all the letters that were issued, the greatest insult to the victims and to the people of Northern Ireland is that royal pardons were given to people who were potentially murderers or bombers?

[Nigel Mills]

It clearly is an insult. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether it is the greatest insult. I am not a victim, I was not involved and I do not live in Northern Ireland.

I can fully understand that to achieve peace people on all sides had to hold their noses and swallow some things they really did not want to swallow. Perhaps this is something that people ought to have had to swallow. Perhaps we should have been transparent and said, “Look, there can’t be any peace without some solution on on-the-runs.” Perhaps that should have been in the Belfast agreement, and perhaps it should have been in the referendum. It was not, however, and that means that it should not have happened. It should either be there, with everyone knowing about it and accepting it, or it should not be done. The secrecy is perhaps one of the greatest insults: justice has been circumvented in secret.

What I cannot get over is why this process was entered into. Why did the process exist? Why would Sinn Fein want the process and apply for letters unless everybody involved believed that it conferred some right or new situation whereby one would no longer be prosecuted for something one would otherwise be prosecuted for? I have no reason to go on the run and I am not aware that I have done anything that would require me to go on the run—

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

The Whips may have something to say about that.

[Nigel Mills]

The Whips may have those ideas.

If I was genuinely fearful that I might be prosecuted, I might not wish to remind the authorities that I existed unless I thought that a valuable assurance would result from the process. Reminding them to have a look at my file, which may have been buried in some long forgotten cabinet, gathering dust, would be a strange thing to do if I was below the radar in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. I can only assume that the process was meant to confer a valuable right or assurance that the individual was free to come back to the United Kingdom, or to be more visible in the United Kingdom, and would not be subject to prosecution.

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

Just to reassure my hon. Friend, the letters did not confer an amnesty. They are not “get out of jail free” cards. It was always the case that there were statements of facts about a person’s status in relation to the police and prosecuting authorities at a particular time. The reason for the judgment in the John Downey case is that he was sent a letter that was factually incorrect. The letter said that he was not wanted by the police when he was. It was the fact of that mistake—the fact that the letter was incorrect and that Mr Downey acted on that letter—that was the basis of the judgment in the Downey case. It was not the fact of the letter itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Nigel Mills]

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

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

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

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

[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.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend is niggling not in a bad way, but in a great way, on this process. If, as the Northern Ireland Secretary has just said, these letters are not “get out of jail” cards or amnesties, can we have all those who have received them put before a court of law?

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One thing that needs to come out of the various inquiries is what the current legal status of the letters is in the light of the judgment and, if we are not happy with that legal status, how we can get to a legal position that we are happy with. It might be possible—I am not a lawyer; I do not know—for the Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General or the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to write to every recipient of such a letter and say, “Just to be clear, you can’t rely on these things to avoid prosecution if there’s evidence that justifies a prosecution.”

This all prompts the question: what was the point of the Historical Enquiries Team—now part of the Police Service of Northern Ireland—going back and re-investigating all those old cases if, I assume not to its knowledge, 200 or so people whom it might have been investigating as part of that process had a letter saying that past evidence would not be used to bring a prosecution? What was the point of that process?

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on the odd timing of Mr Downey’s letter? We know from the judgment that it was signed off on 20 July 2007. I would briefly remind the House that in 2007 we had a successful First Minister, Ian Paisley senior, sitting with the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. Indeed, so good was their working relationship at the time—they took up office at the beginning of May 2007—that they were unfortunately nicknamed the “Chuckle Brothers”. However, the peace process in Northern Ireland was very secure in the early spring of 2007. Sinn Fein had come on to the policing board, and the IRA had decommissioned in 2005. What was there to save in the peace process by signing off Mr Downey’s letter in July 2007?

[Nigel Mills]

I suspect the hon. Lady knows the position far better than I, so there is not much need for me to add anything to what she has said.

To return to the status of the letters, if we do not like it, we need to discover the process for, if anything, restoring the position to what we think it should be—that they do not confer any kind of amnesty. If that requires a Bill to come before this House, perhaps we should do that. Given the devolution of justice, it might require something to go through the Assembly. I suspect that that might be a political challenge under the circumstances, but it is important that one of the outcomes of the inquiries is getting the legal position to where it should be, in the interests of fair and transparent justice for all the victims, on all sides.

I do not see how we can have a process that applies to only one community and not the security services. I think that was a grave mistake in entering into this process. Clearly it would have been better to have a full debate on the amnesty. We could all have had a vote on an amnesty—if it had not gone through, everyone should have been prosecuted where there was evidence; if it had gone through, it would be put behind people. That is clearly a debate that can be had now—it was had nearly a decade ago—but we have to take the assurances of all the Northern Ireland Members who are here for this debate that that is not something that would be welcomed in Northern Ireland. There is no desire for that amnesty.

I have no great knowledge of Northern Ireland law. However, having sat through some inquiries on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland that looked at the equalities position in Northern Ireland and the power of the law to prevent one community from being favoured over another, I cannot see any way under Northern Irish law that there could be a process with any legal effect that so obviously favoured one community over the other. If I was a loyalist who feared prosecution or who perhaps was being prosecuted, I might be arguing and saying, “Wait a minute, there’s been this process for one side that ought to have applied equally. I should have had the right to apply for that letter. If I had been given that letter, I could have my prosecution stayed.” Indeed, I believe that might be the subject of a case. If I was a member of the security services who might face prosecution, I would be making that exact point as well: “Wait a minute. Why wasn’t I given the chance to write in 2000 and ask if I was being investigated and whether there was any evidence against me? If I had received my letter, I could have had my prosecution stayed.”

We have created a mess, and not just for the recipients of these letters. We might not like the position they are in now, and in every prosecution of someone from the security services or the loyalist side, I am sure the first thing their lawyer will do is try to get their prosecution stayed on the grounds that the process did not apply equally to all members of the community. We have created a mess, and the actions of the then Prime Minister and Secretary of State—which, as is clear from the judgment, deliberately created a process that was designed to achieve that—are thoroughly shameful to British justice.

This is perhaps one of the bleakest episodes that we will ever see, because it has tarnished a peace process that did not need tarnishing—a process that is working and needs to work. It was heartening that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party was clear earlier that he did not want the institutions torn down—he did not see that as a solution or something that would give a political advantage—and that the institutions need to be made to work. Whatever the outcome of the inquiries, I hope that all the parties stick by that. The best way forward is for the process to advance and the institutions to get stronger, not to try to unravel them, no matter how shameful this case was.

Haass Talks

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

As the sovereign flag of the United Kingdom, of course the Union flag must have special status in Northern Ireland. One of the challenges that Dr Haass encountered was that it seemed difficult to distinguish symbols of identity from symbols of sovereignty when it came to an expression of Irishness. It is important that consideration continues on those matters, and I wholeheartedly endorse the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that, of course, the Union flag will always have a special status as the national flag as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast agreement makes it clear that Northern Ireland will stay part of the United Kingdom unless and until its people vote otherwise.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

In the absence of a long-term solution on parading, does the Secretary of State believe that the new Parades Commission has sufficient confidence from all sides in Northern Ireland to ensure that this year’s parading season does not end in the awful scenes that we saw last year? Does she think that any action is required on her part to ensure that such scenes do not happen again?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is timely to remind the House of the vital importance of obeying Parades Commission determinations. We have had an extensive debate about reforming the adjudication system for parades, but unless and until an agreement on that is reached and implemented, the Parades Commission is the lawfully designated authority and its determinations must be obeyed.

Northern Ireland

Nigel Mills Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

While not condoning the violence over the weekend, does the Secretary of State not agree that there is a fear that the Parades Commission ruling placed the police in an impossible situation, having to police an unpoliceable order, and that with hindsight it might have been better to use the mechanism in place for exceptional circumstances to try to find a solution for the march that was acceptable to all sides?

[Mrs Villiers]

As I said in my statement, the PSNI was confident at all times that it could police whatever determination the Parades Commission made, and in those circumstances it was not appropriate and my powers to intervene were not triggered.