Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

Ultimately, we believe that the issues involved should be decided by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Mr Wallace]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.

The first two amendments will limit the changes that can be made through an Order in Council regarding certain areas such as sanctions, the benefit cap, entitlement to child benefits, and housing benefit. Amendment 3

“requires that the Northern Ireland Assembly approves a draft of any Order in Council made under this bill before it is made, and that sufficient time is given for due consideration.”

The purpose of the new clause is to place a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the first 12 months of any orders made under the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to lay the report before the House of Commons, send it to the Speaker of the Assembly, and appear before an Assembly committee.

It is important to emphasise at the outset that the Bill in its present form has received the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was delivered last week by an overwhelming majority of 70 votes to 22. We intend to resist amendments on that basis. I am sure that Members will join me in not wishing to undermine the consent that the devolved Administration have given the Bill by subsequently amending it.

In relation to amendments 1 and 2, it should be borne in mind that the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, which will follow the Bill, was also explicitly included in the Assembly motion that was debated and voted on last week. The agreement that was reached last week makes it clear that the Government will legislate to enable welfare reform to be implemented along the lines of the Assembly’s 2012 Welfare Reform Bill, which failed to pass in May. For that reason, the welfare reform order is based largely on this Bill.

Furthermore, the changes proposed by these amendments go beyond what was included in the Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill. They do not therefore have the consent of the Assembly. If we were to accept them, Westminster would be legislating, in effect, without the Assembly’s consent. I advise the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that his concerns are best taken forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly retains legislative competence over welfare and therefore there is a degree of flexibility in how the Northern Ireland welfare system operates. I am sure that the SDLP will continue to argue forcefully for its position in the Assembly, but given that the motion passed already referred explicitly to the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 and the fact that changes proposed by this amendment can be made by the Assembly, the amendment is simply not needed.

Turning to the third amendment, it is worth remembering that it took almost three years for the Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill to pass through its various legislative stages in the Assembly, until it finally fell in May of this year. There is an expectation on the part of those parties that have signed up to the fresh start that welfare reform will be implemented as quickly as possible. That is why the Assembly granted its legislative consent to this approach to address welfare reform the day following the agreement. Therefore, it is unnecessary to lay this order before the Assembly for seven days. To do so would only unduly delay further the implementation of welfare reform. It would no doubt leave the majority of MLAs scratching their heads and asking, “Why are we being asked to give our approval to an order that we have already approved?”

I will consider clause 1 in more detail. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to make provision for social security, child maintenance and arrangements for employment in Northern Ireland by Order in Council. This clause provides the vehicle for the Government to deliver welfare reform in Northern Ireland. It allows for an Order in Council made under this power to put in place a framework that will be supplemented by detailed policy to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development. The clause provides that an Order in Council may make provision for further delegated legislation to be made by either the Secretary of State or the relevant Northern Ireland Department, allowing for detailed implementation to be carried out either in Westminster or in Stormont.

The clause allows for considerable flexibility in the drafting of the Order in Council, as this is a power that may be used on more than one occasion for slightly differing purposes, to implement possible future welfare reforms that need to be made before December 2016, for example. Finally, the clause provides that an Order in Council made under these provisions is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Turning to new clause 1, I agree that it is important that the impact of welfare reform is fully understood in Northern Ireland. That is why I am pleased to see that the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development is committed to reviewing the operation of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order that will follow this Bill. This is surely preferable to placing a commitment on the Secretary of State to report on the operation of an Order in Council made under clause 1(2) of this Bill. The Department for Social Development is better placed to understand Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and to assess the impact of welfare reform there.

It is also worth remembering that we are legislating as part of the agreement reached last week. I am concerned that placing an obligation on the Secretary of State to report overlooks this fact, and gives the impression that welfare in Northern Ireland is no longer devolved. We are not taking back welfare. The Department for Social Development remains responsible for implementing the welfare reforms.

I ask the hon. Member for Foyle to withdraw the amendments, and I beg to move that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister implied that the amendment would affect just one Order in Council—the one that is in draft at the moment—but of course it would apply to various Orders in Council. He identified the problem that, having passed a legislative consent motion, the Assembly would wonder why the matter had come back to it.

We are used in this House to dealing with different stages of legislation and dealing with different decisions. There is no reason why there should not be more scrutiny.

On the Minister’s argument about the legislative consent question—that these amendments would breach the legislative consent motion because that motion does not address amendments—I make the point that legislative consent motions can be retrospective. After all, the legislative consent motion in the Assembly last week was about retrospectively endorsing the welfare clauses of the 2015 Welfare Reform and Work Bill as originally introduced, even though one of the parties that voted for that in the Assembly had voted against those provisions in this House. So I do not believe that those arguments stand up.

Similarly, we believe that there is value in the production of a report, not just for now but to provide clarity in the future. The consequences of this legislation could otherwise end up being argued about for many years. Arguments could arise, for example, about the downstream effects of direct rule decisions and of devolved decisions. We still have an interest in the reporting implications of new clause 1, so we would like to retain the option to return to the new clause later. To facilitate that, and to allow discussion of the other clauses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Section 1: supplementary provision

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

[Mr Wallace]

Clause 2 provides that Orders in Council made under the power in the Bill are to be treated as Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That will help to ensure that any order forms a sustainable part of the Northern Ireland legal framework. For technical reasons, an exception is made for the purpose of section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 3

Extent, commencement, sunset and short title

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 2,  line 35, leave out “31 December 2016” and insert “1 June 2016”.

This amendment seeks to bring forward the end date for the Secretary of State’s decision making powers to take account of the fact that there will be a new assembly and a new devolved department from May 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

I rise to support amendment 4. As my hon. Friend said, this Assembly mandate is scheduled to conclude at the end of March 2016, with elections scheduled for Thursday 5 May. For that reason, we believe it would be more prudent and more effective if the sunset clause were brought forward to 1 June 2016. That would enable a new Assembly mandate and a new Department of communities to be in place, so officials with a Minister would be equipped to deal with these issues. There could then be no ambiguity about what the responsibilities of the Secretary of State were and what those of the Minister for communities were in terms of this legislation.

[Mr Wallace]

Let me just respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the sunset clause. I can confirm that it refers to the powers being taken in the Bill, not the measures passed under the Secretary of State or via those powers. The December 2016 date was chosen because the aim is to get this welfare reform through, get the Assembly back up and running, and get Stormont back to running on full engines. The idea that we should risk that by picking a date that will not give us enough time not only to pass the legislation, but to implement it is crazy. Missing the deadline by a couple of months or weeks would put at risk all the hard work that has been done over the past few months and years. December 2016 is viewed as the best timetable for achieving the implementation of both the 2012 Act and the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

Clause 3 provides that the Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is to allow for any subsequent and consequent amendments that may be required to legislation that has a UK-wide extent. The Bill has practical application only in Northern Ireland, as it is concerned only with welfare in Northern Ireland. The measure also allows the Act to come into force on the day that it is passed to ensure that the subsequent Order in Council can be quickly laid in Parliament. The most substantial element of the clause is the sunset provision, which sets out that no Order in Council can be made after 31 December 2016. I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw his amendment and that clause 3 stands part of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

I indicated in response to the debate on the previous set of amendments that, if we were to have any kind of sample Division in relation to these amendments, our main interest would be in putting new clause 1 to a vote. I note what the Minister has said. I do not accept his arguments, and make the point that the sensible time for the Assembly to take the powers is when it is a few weeks into a new mandate. I hope, with all the optimism and confidence that has been expressed, that the Assembly will be in good and sufficient order when it takes its new mandate, with its new departmental structures and with its new arrangements for bringing forward a programme for government. It would seem to be a more sensible timetable, but we will not take the time of the House now by pressing for a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Duty to report

(1) In respect of an Order in Council under section 1(1) or any order or regulations under section 1(2) the Secretary of State will, within twelve months, publish a report of its operation which must include—

(a) comparative data and information on numbers of claimants and, where relevant, dependants and the relative value of benefits, allowances, payments or credits so as to reflect any difference in provision before and after the operation of the order or regulation;

(b) assessment of any impact in respect of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and

(c) reflection of observations from independent welfare advice service providers.

(2) In publishing any report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—

(a) lay the report before the House of Commons;

(b) send the report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and

(c) be available to appear before a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly to address, or answer on, the report.” .—(Mark Durkan.)

This amendment confers a responsibility on the Secretary of State to report on the first twelve months of operations and impacts on any orders made under this Act. It would ensure the Secretary of State had to lay the report before the House of Commons, send the report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and appear before a Northern Ireland Assembly committee.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

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

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

Welfare is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland. Over time, the agreed principle has been that welfare policy, spending and administration in Northern Ireland maintain broad parity with that in place in the rest of Great Britain. The parity principle has served Northern Ireland well. It means that benefit claimants have been able to avail themselves of the same rates of benefits as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The UK Government have been clear that they will not fund a more generous welfare system in Northern Ireland than that in place elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Over the past three years, the Northern Ireland Assembly has been unable to implement welfare reform legislation that mirrors that of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which is in place in the rest of the UK. The Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill was introduced in October 2012, but was stalled at Committee stage in February the following year. Following a petition of concern, the Bill fell at its final stage in May this year.

The Secretary of State has outlined the implications of this failure to maintain parity, and the various steps that have been taken to bring us to where we are today, with Westminster having to legislate for welfare reform in Northern Ireland. As welfare is transferred, clause 1 provides the Government with a power to legislate for welfare in Northern Ireland via an Order in Council.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister expand on the petition of concern? Is it an abuse of the parliamentary process, and is it anti-democratic?

[Mr Wallace]

Clearly, the use of petitions of concern is a matter for the Northern Ireland parties and for the Northern Ireland Assembly. All I ask is that parties in Northern Ireland recognise that the petition of concern is related to community concerns, and should not be used for things such as caravan legislation, or other such matters.

Taking this power enables the Government to implement Northern Ireland-specific flexibilities in the welfare system. When the 2012 welfare reform measures were first introduced, Northern Ireland’s Department for Social Development negotiated certain administrative flexibilities with the Department for Work and Pensions. They included, for example, a slightly different sanctions regime and the ability for welfare payments to be made to claimants on a fortnightly rather than a monthly basis.

In addition, as part of commitments made under last year’s Stormont House agreement, the Northern Ireland parties agreed a range of so-called top-up measures, which were designed to compensate claimants who were losing out as a result of the welfare reforms. The Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill—the one that fell in May—was amended to reflect the various administrative flexibilities and top-up measures.

In providing a broad power, the Bill allows the Government to implement these Northern Ireland-specific flexibilities and top-ups. That reinforces the fact that the Government’s intent is not to impose Great Britain’s welfare system on to Northern Ireland. Instead, we are proposing to use the power provided by this Bill to legislate for the Northern Ireland-tailored welfare system agreed by the Northern Ireland parties.

The Order in Council that will follow this Bill, if passed, will make that clear. The order is based largely on the Assembly’s Welfare Reform Bill that fell at its final stage in May. It therefore includes the reforms made in Great Britain by the Welfare Reform Act 2012; the various flexibilities agreed between the Northern Ireland Department for Social Development and the Department for Work and Pensions; the amendments agreed during the passage of the Assembly Welfare Reform Bill; and provisions that allow for Northern Ireland Executive-funded top-ups.

The second reason for opting for a broad power in this Bill is that it enables the Government to implement other potential welfare reforms, such as those contained in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently being considered by the Lords.

The Northern Ireland Executive have just endured almost four years of political instability owing to their inability to implement the last major set of welfare reforms. It is important that the fresh start envisaged by the Northern Ireland parties is given time and space to grow and strengthen. If the Assembly considers the 2015 welfare reforms too soon, it could jeopardise this new-found consensus in Northern Ireland. It is therefore necessary for the Government to legislate for implementation of these measures.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The Minister is being very pragmatic in explaining the history behind this and why the Government are behaving as they are. Does he believe that it is desirable in the medium term that the welfare arrangements for Northern Ireland should mirror those of the rest of the United Kingdom, or does he think that this Bill will hold sway in the long term?

[Mr Wallace]

It is of course desirable that the welfare package and policy that this Government have come up with over the past four or five years is implemented across the United Kingdom. It is a good and well-needed reform. We also accept that, within the parameters of the devolved settlement, some devolved institutions have the ability to top up or be flexible in order to be able to deliver. In the long term, it will be interesting to see which delivers the best results for the people of those countries and whether our welfare reforms without flexibilities produce a better outcome than those that are adopted elsewhere.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Minister state very clearly that there has been no change to parity? These are flexibilities that Northern Ireland has achieved. There are about a dozen very positive flexibilities and about 105,000 hard-working, low-paid families in Northern Ireland who will benefit as a result of the huge effort that has been put into resolving this issue.

[Mr Wallace]

It is absolutely the case that those flexibilities may turn out to suit the people of Northern Ireland, but it is also the case that the flexibilities and top-ups will be funded by Northern Ireland from the block grant. The UK Government will not fund on top of the existing UK roll-out, as has been clearly set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is important to get the message across that the funding to push forward with those flexibilities is coming out of the Northern Ireland block grant.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Minister clarify another point? When the Minister for Social Development introduced this in the Assembly at the end of last week, he put it on the record that the Executive will be able to reclaim some of the financial penalties that the Treasury has already taken from the block grant. Is that the case?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Certainly, in the negotiations, some of the penalties due for not implementing the welfare legislation will be returned to Northern Ireland. I am happy to write to him setting out the envisaged amount and the exact timing of when it would start to be rebated.

It is important to stress three important considerations at this point. First, the Bill does not affect the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. In other words, if the Assembly can agree to do so, it can continue to pass welfare legislation. The Bill therefore creates a situation in which welfare is both devolved—meaning the Assembly can legislate for it—and effectively reserved, meaning the Government can legislate for it as well. That situation may be unusual, but it is not without precedent, certainly when it comes to Northern Ireland. For example, there is similar concurrent legislative competence over regulations governing the flying of flags in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, the legislative approach outlined in this Bill has arisen at the request of the Northern Ireland parties. The Assembly last week granted its consent, by an overwhelming majority of 70 votes to 22, to this Bill. Consent was also granted to the Order in Council that will follow this Bill, and the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster. Thirdly, I can assure the House that the UK Government have no intention or desire to legislate on an ongoing basis for welfare in Northern Ireland. Welfare is properly devolved to Northern Ireland and will remain so. That is why clause 3 time-limits the power so that an order cannot be made after 31 December 2016.

As already noted, an Order in Council will follow this Bill. The order will make provision for welfare reform in Northern Ireland equivalent to the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and as I have pointed out, will provide for the various Northern Ireland-specific flexibilities and top-ups. First, legislating in this way, by an Order in Council, is the normal convention for secondary legislation with a devolution aspect. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commented, it is essential that welfare reform is implemented in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Given that speed is crucial, the only way to have the necessary legislation in place in the desired timescale is to delegate the detail of the welfare provisions to secondary legislation. Members should, however, be comforted by the realisation that the content of the Order in Council largely mirrors that of the 2012 Act, debated at length and in great detail in this House. There will be an opportunity to debate the order next week. I trust Members will reserve any detailed questions regarding welfare reform for that debate.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Given the complexity of an Order in Council in any circumstances and of the Bill that is being taken through the House at breakneck speed this evening, will the Minister please express some element of regret that neither the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee nor the Work and Pensions Committee had an opportunity to scrutinise them and report to the Northern Ireland Office before the Bill came to the House?

[Mr Wallace]

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

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

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

[Mr Wallace]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

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

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

[Mr Wallace]

We are not taking away the power; we are taking the power in parallel. The power remains in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and should Ministers there wish to do so at any time in the future, they could bring forward welfare legislation. We are not removing the power, we are sharing it in a parallel process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. It has certainly been a powerful debate with many powerful contributions. I totalled up the amount of time spent on Members’ speeches, and the average length was 23 minutes. There have been many Second Reading debates in which Members have had only three or four minutes to speak, whether on an important subject such as this or about other matters. That shows that, despite the concerns about the legislative timetable, Members from Northern Ireland have been able to get their points across in the most powerful ways. Of course, we should not be surprised about that. I have never felt that oratory is dead in Northern Ireland. One cannot be trained in oratory; one is born with it. It is a gift that falls on all the Northern Ireland politicians I have met, or nearly all, from whichever side of the divide or the debate they come. Many Members from elsewhere in the United Kingdom have enjoyed their contributions today.

It is important to answer many of the points raised during the debate. I start, of course, with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I thank him for his support throughout this whole process. He has shown real leadership throughout, as before the election did his predecessor, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis). I know that it was not always easy for Labour Members to talk about the welfare reforms that we were proposing, but nevertheless they showed real leadership. One of the reasons we are here today is that Labour has supported the Government throughout this process.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to spell out the timetable for the order. The order envisaged in the Welfare Act 2012 will be introduced imminently once this Bill is passed, as I hope it will be. The Order in Council covering the Welfare Reform and Work Bill would be introduced if and when that Bill is successfully enacted. Obviously, we could not do anything before then.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Evason group. We hope that all its recommendations would be subject to the Assembly’s approval and that it would be in the power of Ministers in the Executive to take them forward should they choose to do so.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the December 2016 timetable. That was the timetable that all parties envisaged would allow us to put in place the welfare reforms that were required and to take account of any changes between then and now. It is important that there is time for those to bed in when enacted.

Finally, on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about economic prosperity for Northern Ireland, the economic pact is alive and well; it has not been rescinded or changed. There is still the potential for a city deal, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said. That is in the gift of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

[Vernon Coaker]

I asked one other question that is quite important—namely, which of the clauses in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill will relate to the orders that are to come after the passing of this enabling legislation?

[Mr Wallace]

I was getting on to that, and indeed I have the answer. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill is about more than just welfare. For example, it has clauses on full employment reporting obligations and apprenticeship reporting obligations that would not be considered to be welfare measures, while on the other hand it has a benefit cap that would be so considered. If he looks at the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will see that some parts directly impact on welfare, as welfare measures, while others, such as the reporting mechanisms, do not. I will be happy to write to him in detail subsequently.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made a strong contribution. I always feel and understand his heartfelt compassion for his constituents who are on benefits and welfare. I pay tribute to him for his leadership of the SDLP and the good grace with which he has taken the recent change of leadership. I look forward to continuing to help and support him in trying to make sure that his constituents get into work and off benefits. We are really determined to make sure that the economic pact delivers for Northern Ireland, alongside the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) made known his view that the UUP was locked out of the process and the concerns it raised were not addressed. Every single one of the UUP’s concerns, including a sustainable budget, legacy issues, paramilitary monitoring and organised crime, is addressed in this deal. They were addressed previously in the Stormont House deal and they are addressed in the new deal that we have before us tonight. The deal also comes with a significant amount of money: £185 million of new money will be made available to tackle paramilitarism and organised crime in Northern Ireland.

I add my tribute to that given by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) to his party leader. On devolution, the departing First Minister has navigated a very difficult course. I was in the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s, so I know that devolution is not straightforward, and devolution in a multi-party system is even harder. It is a real tribute to him that he has managed to bring Northern Ireland to this point and secured a new start with this deal. I hope that whoever follows him—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman’s powerful speech was a leadership bid—will continue in the same vein. As the shadow Secretary of State has said, this is about leadership. It is also about taking risks with one’s own electorate, not just those on the opposite side.

I say to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) that it was not our wish, either, that the Bill be taken through in this way. We do not want Westminster to have to pull back some of the powers to pass welfare legislation. If we were in a different place at a different time, the Stormont Assembly would have agreed it, but unfortunately Northern Ireland needs consensus and the SDLP is just one of the parties involved. Although I admire its determination for consistency on welfare reform, the fact of the matter is that we could not let the situation continue.

We asked the Assembly to pass a legislative consent motion, and it is important that I put on the record its wording:

“That this Assembly consents to the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill 2015 being taken forward by the Westminster Parliament; approves the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster; the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015; and the Executive’s proposals to enhance payments flowing from the agreement announced on 17 November 2015.”

Who are we to override that legislative consent motion? We believe in devolution, and a legislative consent motion from the devolved Parliament is asking this House to resolve the lack of consensus on welfare, to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

I say to the hon. Member for Belfast South that the biggest barrier to lifting people out of poverty in Northern Ireland is a dysfunctional Northern Ireland Assembly. Devolution, when it works, will deliver a better deal for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is important that we get over the current barrier by passing time-limited measures in this House, so that we can move forward together.

[Tom Elliott]

I appreciate the Minister’s helpful summary, but does he accept the assertion made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that the deal is being approved by this House only because the Northern Ireland Assembly is dysfunctional and unworkable?

[Mr Wallace]

I do not think that the Northern Ireland Assembly is dysfunctional. It deals with people’s problems and issues every day. The Ministers I have met since my appointment make daily decisions that can result in improvements. On welfare, however, after four years of the tortuous freezing of government, something had to be done. If the Northern Ireland Assembly grasps the deal that the parties have achieved, the future will be all to play for. The ability to deliver and to improve the lives of people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is better than the situation for many of my constituents. A lot of Members who are not from Northern Ireland will be slightly envious of the flexibility, funding and generous package on offer to the people of Northern Ireland. We do that with good will, because we want Northern Ireland to move away from its troubles and give the best chances to its people.

[Ms Ritchie]

Perhaps the Minister could take a little liberty and spell out some of the mitigation measures relating to in-work credits that the Chancellor might outline on Wednesday as part of the comprehensive spending review.

[Mr Wallace]

As much as I might like to say that the Chancellor rings me up to consult me on such major issues from time to time, I, like the hon. Lady, will have to wait and see.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind comments about me and the Secretary of State. I want to place on the record that without the Secretary of State’s determination and patience this deal may never have happened. Patience is a quality that many politicians do not possess, but she certainly does. [Interruption.] I am always for a good career move, but it is true.

It is tempting to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim down the path of his speech about Unionism and the sovereign Parliament, but I shall resist doing so. Suffice it to say that I will help him to lobby the Mayor of London for more buses from Wrightbus in his constituency, and I will do everything I can to help him and Ministers in the Executive to facilitate jobs to mitigate the losses at Michelin. Ministers from the British Government are all here to help job prospects in Northern Ireland, and I will continue to do so.

I say to the hon. Member for Foyle that we had to move forward on the issue of tax credits and welfare reform in Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, the fact is that there was no consensus, and in the end it was important to resolve this issue. Northern Ireland could not continue to lose the money every day and every week because it could not implement the welfare changes that people deserve.

[Lady Hermon]

The Minister has talked about the issues that have attracted consensus and those that have not. He will know that the Stormont House agreement did reach consensus about dealing with the legacy of the past. So much so in fact, that in late October the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was circulated with draft clauses on dealing with the past. What on earth has happened to them? Have they been scuppered by the deal on welfare reform?

[Mr Wallace]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I am merely stating the reality: the Assembly has the power not only to pass welfare reform, but to deal with the legacy. A lot of what this is about is the lack of consensus in the Assembly. This issue is not about where power resides, but where purpose and determination reside in some of the parties. We hope, as does nearly everyone in Northern Ireland, that the legacy issue is dealt with. We will give support throughout the process for that to be done, and we urge the parties to do it.

Lastly, I hear what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) says on the UUP’s concerns about the paramilitaries and the past. I, too, share such concerns. That is why we have got £185 million more to invest in pursuing and monitoring paramilitaries or ex-paramilitaries, as they may or may not be. It is really important to continue to keep a lid on the security situation and persuade people away from the path of violence to make sure that the only things about which we disagree in future are things such as welfare reform and the main social policy issues. I do not want to have to deal with paramilitaries in my back garden any more than he does. That is why we should all welcome the fact that the fresh start will bring £185 million to the table to continue to support the police—the PSNI—and the security services in monitoring paramilitary activity.

We should remember what the Bill is not about. It is not intended to diminish Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement. It is not a power grab by the UK Government. As I have said, we would much rather not have had to intervene at all, but the Bill is necessary finally to resolve the welfare reform impasse. That is what the Bill is about. It is intended to secure a fresh start, to provide political stability and to secure a basis for the Executive’s budget. I urge the House to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Parachute Regiment: Arrest

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): Further to the question to the Prime Minister from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), may I ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the arrest of a former member of the Parachute Regiment who was on duty in Londonderry on 30 January 1972?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As part of an ongoing investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland into the events surrounding Bloody Sunday in Londonderry in 1972, a former soldier was arrested for questioning on 10 November. He was subsequently released on bail. Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities, who act independently of Government. The Government cannot therefore comment on an individual case.

This Government are committed to the rule of law. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, it is right that it should be investigated. We remain unstinting in our admiration and support for the men and women of the police and armed forces, whose sacrifice ensured that terrorism would never succeed in Northern Ireland and that Northern Ireland’s future would only ever be determined by democracy and consent. Whether the current investigations will lead to a criminal prosecution is a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement on Lord Saville’s report, more than 250,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, which was the longest continuous operation in British military history and one in which I was proud to play a part. The overwhelming majority of those who served carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and integrity. The Government will never forget the debt of gratitude we owe them.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Thank you for allowing me to pose this question, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his service in Northern Ireland.

When the Prime Minister made his memorable statement to the House in 2010 following the publication of the Saville report into the events of 30 January 1972—known elsewhere as Bloody Sunday—I and others hoped that a line would be drawn under that tragedy. We now find, however, that 43 years after the event and some three years after the PSNI started its further investigations, a soldier from the Parachute Regiment, known as Soldier J, who was in his early 20s at the time and is now in his late 60s, faces possible prosecution for murder. There is also a prospect of further arrests.

For two reasons, I submit that this is wrong. First, what national interest will be served in bringing these cases to court? The Saville inquiry found that there was no premeditation to murder in the minds of those young soldiers. One of those who was killed had four nail bombs in his pocket, and a witness said that Martin McGuinness was on the other side, probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun. Those soldiers of the Crown were not hired killers. They were seeking to do their duty to their country in a filthy civil war in which the enemy were dressed in civilian clothes and indistinguishable from the local population.

Secondly, as the Secretary of State said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on 1 May 2014,

“the royal prerogative of mercy…was granted in Northern Ireland 365 times between 1979 and 2002”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2014; Vol. 579, c. 762W.]

The Saville report cost £195 million and took 12 years to compile, but our servicemen, then based in Aldershot, some of whom remain my constituents, had to make snap decisions, the consequences of which have hung over them for the whole of their adult lives.

What happened that day was a tragedy, particularly for the families of those who lost their lives. However, they are not the only bereaved. What about the families of the 1,441 British soldiers who died in Northern Ireland in the service of their country? There was no Saville inquiry into how they were killed, often brutally. There was no Saville inquiry into the murder of six civilian cleaning ladies and one Roman Catholic padre in Aldershot the following month. I submit that it is immoral for the state to seek nearly half a century after the event to put these men on trial, while others who deployed their bombs and bullets in the shadows are now in government or have received royal pardons—an act of government, not of the courts. I urge the Minister to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy with immediate effect.

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He has been a doughty and outspoken champion of not only the Parachute Regiment and his constituents, but Britain’s armed forces. This is not easy for me either; I know what it is like to make those decisions under pressure. But we should not forget that the British Army is not above the law, and nor should it be. That is the difference between us and the terrorist; it is what makes ours a professional Army around the world, admired by many, and sets it apart from some of those more tin-pot armed forces elsewhere in the world.

The House will have heard what my hon. Friend said about the use of the royal prerogative of mercy. What I will say to that is: I cannot comment on these individual cases, as they are obviously a matter for an ongoing police inquiry. It is long way from following a line of inquiry to charging and conviction in a court. I am sure the House will reflect on his call, but the Government cannot comment on this current case, and the police must be allowed to do their job and uphold the rule of law—the rule of law that I went as a soldier to uphold in my time in Northern Ireland.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is only right and proper at this time to pay tribute to our armed forces, who are at this very moment engaged in defending our freedoms and are in harm’s way. They operate to the very highest standards, and we should always remember the difficult circumstances in which they serve and have served. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that it is always difficult to criticise our armed forces if they fall below these high standards, but we cannot and must not fail to do so if evidence of wrongdoing should exist?

The Saville inquiry of 2010 was clear, and this is what the Prime Minister said:

“there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 739.]

He also apologised on behalf of the British Government. The whole report made very uncomfortable reading for all of us, and of course we must never forget the victims and families of those who were killed, both on Bloody Sunday and throughout Northern Ireland on so many other occasions. Can the Minister confirm, so we are all clear, that evidence given at the Saville inquiry is precluded from being used in any court proceedings against a particular individual? Can he confirm therefore that the arrest of Soldier J was based on evidence gathered by the PSNI since January 2014, which is when it announced a new investigation? The PSNI has said that there will be no further arrests until the results of a judicial review brought by other affected soldiers is concluded. When does he expect that will be? Will he also tell us what work the Northern Ireland Office has undertaken pending the outcome of that review?

Yesterday, we heard the welcome announcement of agreement on many important issues at Stormont, which came after weeks of exhaustive discussions. It was, however, not possible within that agreement for the parties to agree on how legacy issues and the past should be dealt with. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government intend to take to continue to pursue such an agreement? Does the case of Soldier J, and potentially others that we are discussing here today, not emphasise once again the need for a comprehensive process to deal with these issues and outstanding cases, however difficult this may be? The whole House will agree that the independence of the police and the judiciary is central to any democracy, but a process has to be sought and agreed, however difficult.

Northern Ireland is coming out of conflict. Huge progress has been made. The Northern Ireland of today is hugely different from that of yesterday. All of us who have visited it on a regular basis have seen that for ourselves. We have seen the desire to build for the future, and the hopes that everyone has for the new generation. When the Minister answers my questions about this difficult issue, will he also agree that the continuing and emerging issues from the past have to be dealt with as they cannot be denied? Let us also not forget how far we have come. All parties, all communities and the people of Northern Ireland deserve huge credit for that.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the important issue of testimony, it was established during the Saville inquiry that the testimony of anyone giving evidence to that inquiry could not be used either as a basis for conviction or indeed to incriminate themselves. That was done so that we could find out as much as possible about what happened on that fateful day. That principle still stands, and the protection of a person’s evidence is still an issue. However, it does not preclude other evidence that is gathered later. I cannot comment on the current police investigation. It would be wrong for me to interfere with the PSNI, or indeed inquire too deeply, as it must be left to follow the course of its investigation.

On the issue of legacy, I wish to place on the record my admiration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government who, over 150 meetings in the past nine-and-a-half weeks—75 bilateral meetings and more than 35 round table meetings—resolved the current impasse in Northern Ireland. They have decided that the best future is to move forward and not back. It is regrettable that that legacy has been left out of the final agreement in so far as legislation is concerned. However, the agreement signed yesterday continues to commit the parties to produce solutions to deal with the legacy; the victims of the Northern Ireland troubles will demand that. We, as the United Kingdom Government, have committed to provide the funding for that legacy inquiry to take place, and I hope that sooner rather than later, we get to a point where the policy we are examining in the Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill can be enacted so that, in the end, we can achieve not only justice for victims, but closure from the troubles.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Minister—and indeed the Prime Minister a few minutes ago—was right to draw the House’s attention to the separation of powers. In order for people in Northern Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom, to keep their faith in the peace process, is it not important that whoever is suspected of committing any crimes is fully investigated regardless of what roles they may be playing in Government now?

[Mr Wallace]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and it is why, not so long ago when a prominent member of Sinn Féin and former members of the provisional IRA were arrested, I said quite clearly at the Dispatch Box that we support the PSNI in pursuing the evidence that is presented to it to bring them to justice whether they are senior members of a political party or members of a terrorist organisation, but that is not to equate them with individuals who were in the British armed forces and who were doing their job to defend people who could not defend themselves.

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

We echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and we endorse what he has said. Is it not the case that we still have people in Northern Ireland who are prepared to go out and murder former members of the security forces? Is it really appropriate that, when a man offers to go to a police station for interview, three police cars arrive at his home to arrest him in full public view, given his background? If we are to do this, we need to find a more sensitive way. We should not be placing men and women who have served this country well, and their families, at risk and in danger simply, as appears to be the case, to appease some other people?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to express concern at the manner in which anyone is arrested, but, as I have said, I cannot comment on this individual case. If he has issues with how and in what manner that person was arrested, may I suggest that he takes it up with the Chief Constable?

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I entirely endorse the comments of the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State about how the current circumstances in Northern Ireland could never have come about without the extraordinary bravery and discipline of all those in our security forces who allowed the peace process to take root. To pick up the shadow Secretary of State’s question, the Saville report is the most extraordinary compilation of detail. Will the Minister confirm that all the evidence given by soldiers who were questioned is absolutely untouchable and cannot be used on legal grounds to incriminate them, and that their anonymity is also legally protected?

[Mr Wallace]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. It is absolutely the case that the testimony given by a former soldier cannot be used against that former soldier in any future case. He or she is protected from incriminating him or herself, whoever gave that evidence. As for my right hon. Friend’s other point, I think the best thing is for me to get a proper, clear answer and to write to him on that matter.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As the MP for the constituency in which the events of Bloody Sunday took place, I know that I have to take care not to go so far in rebutting some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that it adds to any impression of political pressure or motive behind the current investigation, or indeed any arrest. Will the Minister confirm that one of the things that all the parties have agreed, in all the discussions on the legacy, is that amnesty is no basis for dealing with the past, and that the House should therefore avoid getting involved when there are particular investigations or arrests?

Will the Minister also qualify his last answer by saying that protection does not extend to perjury, that Lord Saville warned several witnesses and that the prosecuting authorities took the position that they would pursue perjury—which would happen in this jurisdiction, because that is where any possible perjury took place—only after what they called the substantive crime of possible murder was dealt with? Therefore, if people are looking to say that the investigation of possible murder should somehow be parked or abandoned, will he consult with colleagues to see whether the issues around perjury should be reconsidered by the prosecuting authorities?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the protection does not extend to the area of perjury of witnesses giving testimony at a public inquiry, and that would be the same for any witness on that day. On amnesty, I can confirm to him that, throughout the whole legacy discussions of the Stormont House Bill, as it was going to be, amnesty was never part of the process—not with the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval or, indeed, with the Historical Investigations Unit. That was not something that either Government or parties wanted to commit to.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I pay tribute to George Hamilton and the Police Service of Northern Ireland? They are bound to follow the evidence, and we should support them in so doing, but does my hon. Friend accept that in following the evidence they are likely to follow the actions of members of the armed forces first and foremost, as the Provisional IRA, inconveniently, was not in the habit of laying down written evidence? The legacy investigation branch is therefore bound to give at least the impression of focusing on former members of the British armed forces. Does my hon. Friend understand that that serves the historical revisionist agenda of Sinn Féin, and will he comment on whether that is likely to be helpful or unhelpful to the peace process?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend knows all too well, having stood here at the Dispatch Box doing this job previously, that what serves the peace process is the reckoning of the past, closure for victims—but also justice for victims—the pursuit of former terrorists, if they have not been convicted, and the pursuit of anyone else. That is what serves peace. Recognising the huge sacrifices made by members of the security forces and the civilian population of Northern Ireland is what actually brought us to the negotiating table. It is what defeated the terrorists, and that is why we need to make sure that, when we move forward, we do so in a spirit that is measured and recognises where justice needs to be done, but also that we do not indulge people who would like to revise the past, as if it were some big conspiracy against people.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

We often hear from the Prime Minister about the importance of having enshrined the military covenant in law in this country, and he is quite right to boast of that: it is a wonderful thing to have done. In that context, will the Minister guarantee that the Ministry of Defence will pay for all the legal costs—for legal advice and top legal representation—of any former soldiers who served in Northern Ireland who are charged in connection with any inquiry, such as Bloody Sunday, or any inquest, such as those announced for Ballymurphy?

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The MOD recognises that we have a duty of care to all current and former members of the armed forces. As an essential part of that, we will pay for independent legal advice, so that they are able to defend themselves when they face legal proceedings or matters related to their former service, so the answer is yes.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the need to uphold the law. I entirely understand why any decisions about prosecutions must be independent and why he cannot comment on this particular case. However, without prejudging in any way any particular case, does he understand that we also need to uphold justice and that it would offend the natural sense of justice of many in this country that how the Army behaved on a certain day 40 years ago is being reopened, while so many on the IRA side who killed have been granted amnesty? Does he agree that, if we are to draw a line under past events for the sake of peace, it should be drawn on both sides?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I would just like to correct him: paramilitaries and terrorists who have not been convicted and were not part of the Good Friday agreement have not been granted any blanket amnesty. They are still subject to the full force of the law, and there are no doubt individuals who are still being looked for or cases being prepared. In that case, I am afraid there is no blanket amnesty, but my right hon. Friend is right that we should not let individual cases colour the very strong and successful work that our armed forces did. We went to Northern Ireland to protect those who could not defend themselves. That is a record we should be proud of, but that record can be besmirched—it has always been the same since the war, or any other time—if members of the armed forces think they are above the law. It is what makes us different from the terrorists we challenge.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

There may be no blanket amnesty, but is it not the case that former terrorists have been granted immunity from prosecution? Does the Minister agree that no fair-minded person will understand why the same right is not extended to British soldiers?

[Mr Wallace]

I think I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. It is not my understanding that anyone has been granted amnesty from prosecution, and we should not confuse some of the recent events with that meaning—a blanket amnesty. No one has an amnesty available to call on to protect them from facing up to what they did, but he is right: I face, nearly every week, people sitting opposite me who I know killed my soldiers, but I can do that because I think it is about the future and about making peace to move forward for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

My constituent, himself a Northern Ireland veteran, has written to me expressing dismay about the arrest of this 66-year-old ex-soldier. Chillingly, he writes:

“You should be aware that there is a large and rapidly growing undercurrent of anger and resentment of these actions within the current military and more importantly amongst the many tens of thousands of veterans who like me, spent long months and years being stoned, bombed, fired upon, injured, intimidated and vilified”.

I understand the parameters within which the Minister is operating, but can he ensure that an explanation is brought forward rapidly and that matters are brought to a swift conclusion, to allay the anger reflected in that correspondence?

[Mr Wallace]

I am tempted to say to my right hon. Friend that I might have drafted part of that letter. I was stoned, vilified and abused over many years on those tours.

The anger is real. I feel the anger of many of my former colleagues and of my right hon. Friend’s constituent about making sure that this is not used as some political campaign. We in the Government are determined to make sure that it is about the rule of law—that the police have to gather the evidence, if there is any, and that it has to follow its course. We are a long way from that. We are in a position where I cannot comment on the current case, although we are currently talking about people being questioned—under caution and, obviously, arrested—but it is a long way to make the jump to this being some form of campaign against the British Army. What I will say is that we are listening to what people are saying. The Government know that this is about moving forward, and therefore we shall do everything in our power to make sure that, as the MOD is doing currently, we recognise and support our soldiers who face prosecution or, indeed, investigation, to make sure they are given the representation they deserve.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I am glad that the urgent question was granted. We recognise and support the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, but there is real anger among veterans. Will the Minister take steps to end the current inequality that allows for those in the armed services to be pursued with greater vigour and effort than the terrorists, and ensure that we move towards a level playing field in the future?

[Mr Wallace]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an inequality in the process. I do not believe that some people are being pursued by the police and the Chief Constable with more verve than others. They will go where the evidence takes them and they will follow them. This is a process that I hope will help many soldiers and former Royal Ulster Constabulary members to clear their names. Having such a process is as important as not having a process that could allow people to make false allegations against them.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I entirely concur with the Minister’s point that no one is above the law, but the perception among many Members in this Chamber, and among people in the country, is that our British soldiers are hounded while those who murder and kill become politicians and are still allowed—I have personally faced them—to walk free. Will the Minister confirm that the identities of Soldier J and anybody else from before 1973, which I think is where the rule comes in, will be kept secret?

[Mr Wallace]

We must all challenge the perception that they are hounded. As I have said, 250,000 people served during those 25 years. No one is hounding them. The police must be allowed to follow a course of inquiry in order to help either to clear names or to achieve justice where there has been a breach of the law. That is very important. We have to distinguish: we are the people who follow the rule of law and it is the terrorist who does not. In answer to my hon. Friend’s second question, as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I shall write to him about that detail.

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

Five years ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and tried to bring closure to the £200 million Saville report, and people across the House and in many sections of society expressed the view that the matter was at an end. I predicted in this place at that time that that would not be the end of the matter and, unfortunately, so it has proved. Does the Minister accept that he needs to meet the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to ensure that, irrespective of whether people were in or out of uniform, if they had machine guns or probably had sub-machine-guns, like Martin McGuinness, they should be subject to the law and questioned equally, in order to be brought before the courts?

[Mr Wallace]

The Chief Constable is absolutely adamant that, in all criminal inquiries, he will treat people the same. He will investigate and he will follow the course of action. It was not that long ago that we were hearing cries about Sinn Féin politicians being arrested and taken in for questioning. I have confidence that the Chief Constable, who is respected by Members on both sides of the House, will follow his professional training, pursue people based on evidence and treat them fairly in that process. I cannot get involved in investigations. I cannot go to see the Chief Constable to interfere. If I did and the result was the same and there was no evidence in a particular case, it would never be allowed to be gotten away with. People would accuse me of having interfered in a case and someone would be prevented from clearing their name.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I took a patrol out on the streets of Belfast a few moments after we had discovered that our battalion band had been blown up while entertaining Londoners in Regent’s Park. I will never forget the restraint shown by riflemen and other ranks under my command as they faced the taunts of the IRA and its supporters. That is just one example of thousands of similar occasions when the armed forces showed unbelievable restraint in the face of unbelievable provocation. My colleagues at that time, and many veterans like them, want to say, “What about Bloody Warrenpoint? What about Bloody Regent’s Park? What about Bloody Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday? These things were happening every day of the week.” The Minister is entirely right to say that this has to be dealt with properly, but does he agree that society wants a line to be drawn under it?

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and I do not disagree with him. Like him, I have had personal experience of that restraint. We should not forget the tremendous pressure that soldiers and police were put under every day, including provocation. I remember soldiers being attacked and people parking their cars in front of ambulances so that they could not come to their rescue. There was inhumane treatment, murder and victimisation by parts of a society that we were there to try to protect. Like my hon. Friend, I have real passion for what our soldiers achieved. The United Kingdom Government recognise and support that. He will also recognise that those soldiers who showed restraint are the ones who make ours the best Army in the world. Their professionalism meant that they managed to carry on and try to achieve a better result for the people of Northern Ireland, who they were there to protect, and that restraint means that those people who have a chance to clear their name should be allowed to do so. It is those soldiers who follow the rule of law who are only ever let down by those very, very few soldiers who break the law.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I concur and agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). The diligence and zeal shown by the authorities in questioning and detaining Parachute Regiment soldiers cause concern when compared with the treatment of on-the-runs, who have committed horrible, brutal, evil crimes and are free today, some in elevated positions across the Province and in other parts of Ireland. Does the Minister appreciate the anger that many feel towards the double standards evidenced by what is happening today?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is right and I understand his point. Indeed, I was on the Back Benches during the whole on-the-run process. I cannot comment much further on the on-the-runs, other than to say that it is my understanding, unless I am corrected, that the on-the-runs are not subject to any amnesty, and that means that they are not free from prosecution. I hope that the prosecuting authorities will hear what we say today and make sure that they continue, where they can, prosecutions of any of those individuals who have committed crimes against our armed forces and the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), I have been contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about the appearance of double standards and of some kind of amnesty for terrorists. In the week that the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly heard from the Chief Constable of the PSNI that his officers are still going about their business while dissident republicans aim to kill them as they work to protect their community, will the Minister assure us that there is no question of any amnesty for those who attack and maim our armed forces?

[Mr Wallace]

Not only can I assure my hon. Friend that there is no amnesty, but in the latest Northern Ireland agreement, which was reached yesterday, there is £160 million more money to fund our police forces and security services in Northern Ireland to pursue people who commit crimes, or who have done so in the past, against the innocent people of Northern Ireland. Yesterday’s agreement also included measures to monitor the paramilitary activity of former paramilitaries or organisations that should be inactive. We are determined not only to deal with the past, but to invest and give our police the support to make sure we bring to justice those terrorists who have been on the run and who have not yet been brought to justice, as well as those dissident republicans who are out there right now targeting colleagues and police officers who are going about their business in Northern Ireland every day.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

The Minister has said that he does not think there is any inequality. How, then, does he explain that more than 20 PSNI officers are investigating Bloody Sunday soldiers, but not one police officer is investigating the 11 murders in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday in 1987?

[Mr Wallace]

I do not know the inner workings through which the Chief Constable and his senior officers decide to investigate each individual case, and nor should I. Suffice it to say that the Chief Constable is determined, as I understand it, to bring to justice any individual who has broken the law in the past. There are plenty of former and current terrorists who need to be brought to justice, and PSNI officers and Security Service officers are out there every day trying to catch the terrorist. It is not, in my view, all focused on former soldiers.

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

We have always been opposed to terrorism and to on-the-runs. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) who steadfastly opposed that in the House some years ago. We also believed in accountability and sensitivity for all victims, irrespective of where they came from. Will the Minister redouble the efforts to ensure that the legacy of the past is fully pursued and that we obtain a final resolution that takes on board national security considerations, so that truth is made available for all?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady is right. The SDLP has a fine and long track record not only of pursuing justice but of using democratic methods to pursue its political agenda. We should not forget that throughout the troubles the SDLP took quite a lot of intimidation. Like the hon. Lady, I regret that the legacy did not make it through the agreement. Like her, I am determined to make sure that we deal with those issues from the past. That is why funding is still available to do that. Next week I will press Northern Ireland parties on what we will do to move on from the agreement, to ensure that we move forward on the investigations and the legacy issue so that families get more information and closure and that justice is served.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on his professional response to upholding the rule of law, which, given his background, must be very hard for him. His response is exactly what we expect from our service people, and we do expect more from them. That is why it is right and proper, if the rule of law is being followed, that the people concerned get the chance to clear their name if that is possible. We have to remember that 13 people were left dead on the streets of Derry 43 years ago, and that must be sorted out. If people did not act properly, it is right and proper that they are brought to book.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I reiterate that what sets us apart is the rule of law and soldiers who show restraint and professionalism. That is how we get public and community support. If we are trying to deal with a terrorist threat and counter-terrorism, we need the population on our side. I know more than anyone that when populations felt that we were above the law or that we did not treat them as if they were part of society, the soldiers’ job was harder and more dangerous because no one helped us or gave us information, and our lives were put at greater risk.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that you called my hon. Friend. He is right—we need to put all this behind us. However, I cannot interfere in a police investigation or any of the processes. To do so would jeopardise the course of justice and may jeopardise someone’s ability to clear their name.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister says that the Army is not above the rule of law, and that there is no blanket amnesty for those whom they were seeking to prevent from killing the people of Northern Ireland. However, the perception of the casual observer is that either because of political position or because of scandalous certificates handed out by the Labour Government, or by an action of the PSNI, there is a group of killers in Northern Ireland who are immune from prosecution. That stirs up animosity and puts police officers in fear while they are dealing with the current bunch of republican terrorists, that at some time in the future their families will also whinge for inquiries and those same police officers will stand in the dock. Can the Minister not see that some mechanism, such as that used in the past against IRA killers, must be used to ensure that Army personnel are not pursued in this way?

[Mr Wallace]

I can see the hon. Gentleman’s last point but I will not equate IRA killers with British forces. They are not the same, and I will not encourage an alternative mechanism that somehow equates them. My view and the Government’s view is that the police, and our forces, must follow the rule of law. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about perception, we must all do more to correct that perception. I shall do more to correct that perception, and next week when I meet the police and the security services, I shall certainly press on them again the need to pursue those people who are still at large and those terrorist crimes that have not been solved and for which people have not been brought to justice.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The double standards in this affair are palpable for all to see. We have hundreds of on-the-run letters signed off, clearing people of mass murder, and some of several mass murders. A dozen of them were signed off by the Minister’s colleague. Is it not a disgrace that people such as Rita O’Hare are freely available to meet with Prime Ministers and Presidents, yet the Minister tells us that there is no double standard? There is a double standard and it must be addressed. These soldiers cannot be held in the way that they are being held.

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman reiterates the point that there is an unfair playing field and a double standard, but I do not believe that there is a double standard. I do believe that the police and the PSNI, in their professional manner, are pursuing the evidence that is presented to them. A line of questioning is a long way from conviction and court cases. Who knows where it will take us? But if politicians interfere with that course of justice, we will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. We will just extend those problems, and people will continue to refer back by saying that all along this was a big fix and it was not really about making sure that justice is done. Everyone in Northern Ireland deserves justice. Everyone who served in Northern Ireland deserves justice. I want to know who killed my soldiers and I will continue to ask those questions, but I will not find out who killed my soldiers if we do not move Northern Ireland forward and give the police the money to do their job, and allow them to pursue people and achieve convictions where they are deserved.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the latitude you have shown in calling me.

I am alarmed by the Minister’s apparent indication this afternoon that the pursuit of prosecutions is a good opportunity for ex-servicemen to clear their names. Surely, as a former serviceman, he can understand the anguish, the pain and the stress of people who stood by me, my family, my colleagues and my countrymen through all those hard days. He should reflect on whether the pursuit of such prosecutions is a worthy or noble way for people to clear their name.

[Mr Wallace]

I did not actually say “the pursuit of prosecutions”; I said that the pursuing of a line of inquiry is important to allow people to clear their name. It is also important because when, or if, the PSNI says on a number of occasions that there is no evidence to answer, the public will have full confidence that the police have done all they can to establish whether that is the case. If the police—or the Director of Public Prosecutions or anyone else—rule out charging someone, the public have to believe that that is because there is no evidence. They cannot do it on the basis that a politician, a Minister or anyone else interfered with the process, because that would be a subjective matter, and it would undermine justice, not strengthen it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

1. What estimate she has made of the number of people killed by the IRA.

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

The authoritative chronicle of troubles deaths, “Lost Lives”, estimates the number of people killed by the IRA between 1966 and 2006 at 1,768.

[Mr Turner]

May I remember Garda Anthony Golden and Kevin McGuigan, both murdered in recent weeks by the IRA, and, of course, my former hon. Friend Ian Gow, who was murdered 25 years ago this week?

We are now told that the IRA has ceased operations. Regardless of whether the IRA exists, does my hon. Friend agree that there is no place in a democratic society for those who undertake criminal or terrorist activities?

[Mr Wallace]

There has never been a place in United Kingdom politics for terrorism, and nor is there a place in UK politics for people who refuse to condemn terrorism.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The IRA terrorist campaign led to the deaths of 3,750 people. The IRA has stated that it has not gone away, its guns have not gone away, and over the last three months its murderous ways have not gone away, either. Will the Minister confirm the commitment by the Government of the Irish Republic to reduce IRA activity and to catch IRA members involved in murders and criminal activity in that jurisdiction in the past and today?

[Mr Wallace]

I again place on the record my condolences and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the family of Garda Golden, who was brutally murdered last week. I was in Dublin only a few weeks ago, and it is absolutely the Irish Government’s intention to pursue men of violence and terrorists on their side of the border and to assist the UK Government on our side of the border.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

What comfort can the Minister give the House that the police have sufficient resources to fully investigate these most serious of crimes?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has secured extra funding for the Police Service of Northern Ireland over the last few years, and the Chief Constable is confident that should evidence present itself murders will be pursued to the correct outcome, such as bringing people to justice.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I think the House would like to hear from the Minister what pressure the Government are putting on the Libyan authorities to secure compensation for all those hurt and maimed and for the families of people murdered by Libyan-sponsored IRA violence. It is the morally right thing to do. Will he confirm that the Government will seek compensation as soon as there is a Libyan regime to negotiate with?

[Mr Wallace]

The Prime Minister has indicated that he is keen to seek further compensation for victims, but of course it is hard to negotiate with a Libyan Government that are not functioning or in existence. I know that a Select Committee of the House is looking at the arrangements made between Tony Blair’s Government and the then Libyan Government.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive’s financial position is sustainable.

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

It is for the Executive to deliver a balanced Budget and sustainable finances. The Stormont House agreement provides a package of measures to help them achieve this. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, it is not extra money that will sort out this crisis; the local parties need to resolve welfare reform disagreements, deal with budgetary pressures and deliver public sector reform.

[Simon Hoare]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in principle it is not acceptable for any of the devolved Administrations simply to breach spending limits agreed with Her Majesty’s Government?

[Mr Wallace]

It is not acceptable for any devolved institution, or indeed any Whitehall Department, to breach spending limits agreed with the Treasury. For that reason, I urge the Northern Ireland parties to resolve their differences, implement the Stormont House agreement and take advantage of the economic package we put together last December to ensure that Northern Ireland goes from strength to strength.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Many areas of Northern Ireland have a particular problem with unemployment, partly as a result of the troubles and their aftermath. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Chancellor that there is a strong case to be made for welfare reform to be far slower in Northern Ireland than elsewhere and that additional support for job creation should be provided?

[Mr Wallace]

That case has been made. That is why in the Stormont House agreement we allow flexibilities within Stormont to take measures appropriate to ensure that the troubles are recognised and their impact on the people of Northern Ireland mitigated. However, that is a matter for the Stormont House Government. The powers are there; it is time they got on with it.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that any Government that cannot set a budget cannot really govern properly? Are not the parties that are preventing the setting of the budget risking the collapse of the whole institutions?

[Mr Wallace]

I agree with my hon. Friend that unless this impasse is solved, public services will start to be hit as the money runs out. Let us not forget that the people of Northern Ireland deserve that this solution be put in place. We are already seeing the impact on the health service in Northern Ireland—and no doubt on other services, too. There is very little time left before the people of Northern Ireland realise that a non-functioning Stormont will take Northern Ireland backwards, not forwards.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

Have the parties that rejected the Stormont House proposals from last December put forward any credible proposals to resolve the financial issues?

[Mr Wallace]

May I refer the hon. Gentleman to his party leader, who has been in the talks over the last few weeks? He may be able to refresh his memory about what proposals have been put forward. The talks are ongoing; they are intense and we hope collectively to come to a resolution.

[Harry Harpham (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the political situation in Northern Ireland since the murder of Kevin McGuigan Sr in August 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to strengthen and rebalance the Northern Ireland economy.

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

The Government’s long-term economic plan has laid the foundation for a stronger Northern Ireland economy. Economic activity continues to grow: there are 33,000 more people in employment today than in 2010, and the growth in jobs is being driven by the private sector.

[Fiona Bruce]

Ulster University’s economic policy centre has found that there has been more than one new start-up a day in the knowledge economy sector in the past year. Does this not go to show that the public and private sectors can rebalance together with very effective results?

[Mr Wallace]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and what she says is right. Given the right stimulation, it is certainly possible for Northern Ireland’s private sector to grow strongly. That is why I was delighted to see that foreign direct investment in Northern Ireland has created 4,700 jobs—the number is comparably higher than that for the rest of the UK.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that in order to strengthen the economy in Northern Ireland it is imperative that the talks taking place in Belfast are successful, with welfare reform implemented, so that we can get our corporation tax and other financial incentives. If they are not, companies will start to get nervous about investing in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Wallace]

I could not agree more, and the prize is great. By completing the Stormont House agreement and unlocking the economic pact, Northern Ireland can deliver an enterprise zone and a city deal for its people. Those two things, added to the UK Government’s economic policy, will deliver continued economic growth for Northern Ireland.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The success in growing the Northern Ireland economy is much to be welcomed, but public expenditure per head of population is still significantly more in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the UK. Will one of the indicators of the improvement in the economy be the narrowing of that public expenditure gap, so that it comes towards the national average?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend is right: we are on the right path and going in the right direction. The number of private sector jobs is growing, unemployment is falling and Northern Ireland, by being part of the UK, taking advantage of the recognition it gets because of the troubles, can go from strength to the strength and make sure it strives to succeed on a world stage, as well as a United Kingdom stage.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

There is good news as well in Northern Ireland, and one area we are very proud of is the highly skilled small and medium-sized enterprise sector—the beating heart of the Northern Irish economy. What specifically is being done to address the concerns expressed by the SME sector about the impact of the Chancellor’s so-called living wage on small businesses in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Wallace]

I am quite surprised—I thought the Labour party’s policy was to support a living wage, but in this 24-hour period perhaps it does not support a living wage. Conservative Members believe that highly skilled people and people doing a hard day’s work deserve to be paid the living wage, which is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has brought it forward to make sure that work pays.

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

As part of the discussions at Stormont and in view of the need to develop our economy on a geographical basis, will the Minister spell out what further proposals the Government have in mind for the development of enterprise zones?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady recognises the importance of enterprise zones, which have been successful all over England and Wales. That is why the Stormont Executive were given that ability in the economic package that accompanied the Stormont House agreement, and why it is even more important that we resolve the issues and allow Stormont to be back and functioning so that it can deliver an economic zone and a city deal.

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

6. What discussions she has had with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland.

Stormont

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the two contributions so far, which I found thoughtful and interesting. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) for bringing this debate before us today, but all of us here and those who sit in Stormont are in danger of losing the confidence of the population of these islands through a seeming inability to find a resolution and get government back on its feet. If we take it that all parties are acting in good faith, we are left wondering why no one can find the common ground where all sides need to stand.

Very few politicians furth of Scotland have a good understanding of Scottish politics, so I am going to imagine that most politicians this side of the Irish sea will have a similar difficulty in fully understanding the politics of Northern Ireland. I hope that any shortcomings I have will be forgiven.

The continued impasse surpasses understanding. It surely should not be beyond the wit of politicians to find a way to work together even when they do not agree.

It is easy to understand that there is a different dynamic in Belfast, thanks to the unique governance arrangements and the need to ensure power sharing. It is easy, too, to understand that there are issues in politics in Northern Ireland that we do not have in our constituencies—or at least not to anything like the same extent—and that we do not have the same political history to contend with.

That said, I cannot bring myself to believe that any voter would cross a ballot paper in the hope that their elected representative would enter into a disagreement and find ways to continue it. I do not believe that either side of the great divide was carried to power on a wave of hope that they would create a situation that prevented anything from happening. If nothing else, the history of devolution in Northern Ireland has shown that the strongest wills on both sides of the fence can sit together and plan a common future, can work together and find accommodations to suit, and can make changes that do not require anyone’s capitulation, humiliating climbdown or pyrrhic victory.

I can well understand the position of wanting nothing to do with implementing the welfare cuts that are being forced on the poorest in our society, but I cannot understand the thinking that says that shutting down government is the better option. Equally, is not the continued existence or otherwise of the IRA or any other organisation that might appallingly choose violence as a route to social change a matter for the police and the security services rather than a point of argument for politicians? The people who elect us are entitled to expect better.

The Stormont House agreement, which appeared at first to be an excellent piece of collective decision-making has become something of a millstone and a point of contention, which is very unfortunate. The agreement could be the basis for forward movement if all sides were prepared to act in good faith and allow others the opportunity to do the same.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the work done by the Secretary of State in getting the agreement made. I acknowledge the work that she continues to do to try to get a resolution. It is not often that someone from my party will praise a Tory Minister and I will admit it sticks a bit in my craw, but the praise is very much deserved on this occasion and I hope her representative will pass it on to her. I hope he will also pass on my plea to her to keep the shadow of direct legislation, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), from this debate and to keep trying to get a resolution. Her deadline is, I think, at the end of this month—fewer than three weeks away. I hope she will be prepared to extend that deadline if it looks like there is a chance of striking a deal.

Getting Stormont back on its feet is the priority, but making sure that the parties working there come to an agreement on the basis of trust and respect might be the harder job. The political parties of Northern Ireland must, I believe, be prepared to accept that the other side of the argument might actually be acting in good faith and that although the Stormont House agreement might not be the best they could get, it is what is on the table just now. Posturing instead of acting could be damaging.

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

In the spirit of what the hon. Lady has said, if for whatever reason the financial settlement made it impossible for Stormont to continue functioning, would she support the Government legislating on welfare if it were the only option?

[Deidre Brock]

I do not feel that I am qualified to answer that, if the Minister will forgive me. I certainly feel that we must take every opportunity not to interfere in the discussions, and that any form of direct rule should not at present be looked at. I still feel that there is scope within the discussions to take that idea forward and ultimately to reach some agreement.

Posturing instead of acting could do damage that might take too many years to repair—and refusing to compromise could do the same. I believe that the people deserve no less than a compromise.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Before I start, may I add my and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s condolences to the family of Garda Office Anthony Golden? Whatever side of the Northern Ireland border one lives, we all support the PSNI and the Garda in the work they do every day, putting themselves at risk trying to keep people safe. The loss of Officer Golden’s life is truly a tragedy brought about by people who still stick to the path of violence. May I also make a brief apology for my right hon. Friend not being here? She is, of course, in Northern Ireland involved in the talks process.

This all started last December, when, after an 11-week period, the Stormont House agreement was brought about. It was designed to make a more prosperous, stable and secure Northern Ireland and to ensure that all the problems that had arisen since the Belfast agreement were put behind us, and we underpinned it with a generous settlement of £2 billion. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) that there is no more money. We funded the deal and put together the £2 billion package last year, and there is no open chequebook. The option is clear: to implement in full the Stormont House agreement. It is regrettable, therefore, that this year Sinn Féin decided to break the agreement. Had it not, I think that Stormont House would still be operating and on the path to producing a more prosperous and better Northern Ireland.

For the sake of people in Northern Ireland, however, we cannot allow a non-functioning Stormont to continue, which is why my right hon. Friend convened the talks—to try to work through the impasse. The Government and many other parties have stuck to their part of the Stormont House agreement. We have paved the way for corporation tax legislation at Stormont to allow flexibility and reduced levels to be put in place to encourage the desperately needed businesses to grow, and we are on the cusp of introducing legislation to deal with the legacy of the past. I can assure the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) that nothing in the proposed legislation will prevent her from finding out the truth of what happened to her constituent or justice from being served on the perpetrators, if they are identified.

We have also rolled out and started the process of that £2 billion package: the voluntary exit scheme for civil servants, the £150 million to deal with the legacies of the past and the £350 million towards the economic pact, but unfortunately welfare reform seems to be the sticking point. The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) could not have put it better. Whatever one’s position on welfare and my Government’s welfare policy, it needed to be implemented. I say to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that it was something that the parties signed up to in December last year. It is simply part of the politics we have to face and implement. Yes, we have allowed flexibilities—flexibilities that the constituents of the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) in Lancashire and I do not have. We have allowed flexibilities for Northern Ireland with its generous block grant to make accommodation for the troubles and their impact. It is important to see this through.

We cannot overlook the brutal murders that took place this year, culminating in the murder of Mr McGuigan in the Short Strand. Let me make it absolutely clear that there is no place in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom for the paramilitaries or the existence of paramilitary organisations. This Government will fully support the investigation of the PSNI no matter where it leads. We will not interfere with it; we will only support what the Chief Constable of the PSNI does with his operational freedom to pursue justice. That is no more and no less than we should expect.

I support the Justice Minister in the devolved institution, Mr Ford, on his work with the organised crime task force. He is making progress. Only a few weekends ago, we had a successful search, arrest and charging of an individual linked to republican terrorism in west Belfast. I say to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) that we are making progress in bringing people to justice. With explosives taken off the street, they will not be available to cause harm to, and murder, people as they go about their business. The aim of all this is to bring violence and the men of violence to an end.

As for the contributions, I think that the hon. Member for South Antrim should not have apologised for bringing this debate. We should have more debates on Northern Ireland: it would give me more practice, but I am also delighted that Members of all parties have so fully engaged in the debate.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) focused on action, and I totally agree that we must take action to ensure that Stormont continues. My first time in politics was in the Scottish Parliament. I saw what a working Scottish Parliament can do for the people of Scotland. I would say that a working Stormont is the best path to peace and also the best path to prosperity. We should not let obstacles bring that institution down. If that means tough decisions being taken here, we might have to do that. I hope that the Scottish National party would not rule that out unconditionally.

To my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, I repeat that there is no more money. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) made a valid point, however, and I welcome his support for the full implementation of the Stormont House agreement. The point is to see this agreement through—the agreement signed and sealed in December last year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) talked about his experiences of Northern Ireland and the chaos and murder that were brought to the mainland of the United Kingdom. We should not forget that the IRA blew up people going about their business shopping, including children and families in this country, in Northern Ireland and all around Europe. We should not forget that when we ask people to condemn the actions taken in the past.

I think the hon. Member for Bury South demonstrated why he deserved to be the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. His speech spoke very much about him being a mature politician who delivered what the UK Government should be delivering for Northern Ireland—a bipartisan approach, neutral to the extent of not favouring one party or the other, but focusing on the issue of consent and trying to move forward to the future rather than dwelling on the past.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked how long have we got. The money is running out; there is no magic money tree. We have gone as long as people will want to tolerate withdrawal of their services, as hospitals go into crisis and education is not able to function in Northern Ireland. We have as long as it takes, but my view is that the people of Northern Ireland will not tolerate it much longer—and neither should the parties of Northern Ireland.

The prize is great; the prize is in front of us. Northern Ireland is an exciting, confident place—better than when I was there in the ’90s. If we can resolve this Stormont House impasse, I think Northern Ireland will go from strength to strength—like its football team and the Irish rugby team.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the political situation in Stormont.

Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-Jury Trial Provisions) Order 2015

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2015.

I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee, Ms Vaz. I also welcome new colleagues to what might be their first statutory instrument Committee—I can sense the excitement in the room. For those who have not experienced such Committees before, we hope that they prove informative, but that instruments are nevertheless not opposed by Government Members.

Under the draft order, trials without a jury may take place in Northern Ireland for a further two years from 1 August 2015. The existing provisions expire on 31 July. This is the fourth such extension of the provisions, I hope to leave Members in no doubt as to the continued necessity for such provisions over the next two years. Hon. Members are aware of the clear and present danger in Northern Ireland from active terrorists, who make use of a range of lethal explosive devices and weaponry to undermine Northern Ireland’s progress towards peace and stability. I assure Members that the Government will move to end the exceptional system of non-jury trials as soon as it is no longer necessary, but that should happen only when the security situation allows. Regrettably, the situation today is much the same as it was in 2013. It would be remiss of the Government were we to dispose of the provisions now simply because we have had them long enough.

In the last two years, attacks by dissident republicans have put many innocent lives in danger. Police, prison officers and military targets are the principal targets of dissident attacks. The explosion of a device in Lurgan at the weekend was the latest attempt to murder police officers who are serving the community in Northern Ireland. It was the eighth national security attack in Northern Ireland, underlining the potential lethality and persistence of the threat we face. Terrorist recklessness and disregard for human life can put ordinary members of the public in danger too. In the first half of 2015, for example, a postal improvised explosive device was sent to the Police Service of Northern Ireland headquarters, but it could clearly have also caused harm to postal workers.

The presence of armed terrorists in Northern Ireland means that violence and intimidation remain of concern to the wider community. Over the last year, there has been a rise in paramilitary-style attacks by both republican and loyalist groupings, as a means of exerting fear and control in their communities. Threats to the police and public bodies demonstrate continued attempts to intimidate individuals and communities in Northern Ireland, with 56 arrests and seven charges relating to terrorism so far this year. Many more attacks have been thwarted and disrupted, which is evidence that the efforts of the PSNI and its partners are working. However, as Lord Carlile comments in his most recent report, “National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland”:

“This is a very dangerous, unpredictable terrorist threat…The number of ongoing investigations remains high”.

He says that

“there is no sign of reduced ambition in the minds of terrorists and limited evidence of a lack of capacity on their part.”

Non-jury trial provisions are a vital element of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. That element allows those suspected of such attacks to be brought before the courts without the risk of juror intimidation and perverse acquittals. Under the provisions, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland may issue a certificate that allows a non-jury trial to be held. A certificate can be issued by the DPP in relation to any trial on indictment of a defendant, and anyone tried with that defendant, if it meets a defined test that falls within one of four conditions: first, that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a member of a proscribed organisation or has at any time been a member of an organisation when it was a proscribed organisation, and the activities of such an organisation are connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; secondly, that the offence was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation or that a proscribed organisation was involved with or assisted in the carrying out of the offence; thirdly, that an attempt was made to prejudice the investigation or prosecution by or on behalf of a proscribed organisation or that a proscribed organisation was otherwise involved with or assisted in that attempt; or, finally, that the offence was committed to any extent—directly or indirectly—as a result of, in connection with, or in response to, religious or political hostility.

A case that falls within one of the four conditions will not automatically be tried without a jury, because the DPP must also be satisfied that there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if a jury trial were to be held. There is a clear distinction between this system and the pre-2007 Diplock court arrangements. The Diplock system saw a presumption that all scheduled offences would be tried by a judge alone; today, there is a clear presumption that jury trial will take place in all cases.

Given the security situation, we must recognise that Northern Ireland is still in a unique situation. The non-jury trial provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 continue to provide a unique solution to a very small number of cases. Jury trials in Northern Ireland would not be safe from disruption by those involved in paramilitary activity, many of whom make their presence known, be it in the close-knit communities in Northern Ireland or in the public galleries of the courtrooms.

So far in 2015, the DPP has issued just nine certificates for non-jury trials. During 2014, 18 certificates were issued and one was refused. The DPP acts with independence, exercising his or her discretion in deciding whether to issue a certificate. Hon. Members will also be interested to know that in 2014, only 1.7% of all Crown court cases in Northern Ireland were conducted without a jury. The figure so far for 2015 is 0.7%. Although those figures are low, they reflect an ongoing need for the non-jury trial provisions. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

With regard to sub judice, and taking full respect of that, I do not have the full details of the Home Secretary’s action today, if that is what it is; all I can say is that, with respect to the secret courts, in general, these are civil court proceedings. This is where individuals come to the Government to seek damages, whether that is for Guantanamo Bay or whatever. That is why the coalition Government brought in the secret courts hearing to allow elements of damages—these are civil cases, not criminal cases. The issue of people effectively pushing Governments to produce intelligence in open courts meant that these proceedings have to be in secret, but that does not relate to the measures in this order. These measures only apply to criminal court proceedings and relate to when the DPP and the Crown prosecute people for offences, rather than when people try to claim damages in the civil courts. The legislation is entirely different. To inform both him and me better, I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Blaydon with whatever I can about the generality of what is going on, if what he says is the case.

The order relates to the criminal courts system and cases where the DPP views there to be a risk of jury intimidation and therefore decides that it is best to hold—it is only in a very few cases—trial without jury. The best way of informing that is with recent figures, which show that in 2013-14 there were 167 offences of intimidation and threat to harm witnesses and jurors, and 37 offences that were then detected by police. That rose in 2014-15 to 171 offences of intimidation and threat to harm witnesses and 44 offences that were then detected by police. That shows the threat to be real and ongoing in certain situations, and we have a duty to ensure that in the short term we do what we can to protect the administration of justice.

I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the PSNI. Last month, there was an attack on the PSNI that constituted a double attempted murder at Eglinton. The most recent attack was on Saturday. The PSNI does an amazing job, often facing the highest levels of provocation. Those of us who were there on Monday of last week witnessed some of the riots. When I used to be in riots in the ’90s in Northern Ireland, we did not have to restrain ourselves in the way that police officers do today. They stand and hold the line while being pelted with some of the most horrendous missiles—acid bombs and petrol bombs—and abuse. They stand and take that hour after hour. We should not miss the opportunity to pay tribute to the PSNI, which tries to maintain a difficult balance between two communities while at the same time going out there and doing its job when there is still a small minority of dedicated dissident republicans—and loyalists, to some extent—who are threatening their lives. The PSNI does that job to the best of its ability.

[Stephen Pound]

I seek to assist the Minister: for the avoidance of doubt or confusion, will he remind the Committee that his involvement in rioting in the ’70s was not from the perspective of a participant, but as someone wearing the uniform of the Crown?

[Mr Wallace]

I may be follicly challenged, but in the early ’70s I was about three years old. I was part of the security forces in Northern Ireland, in north and west Belfast, in the early ’90s, when I was a little older. The job they do today is amazing, and they do their best to keep policing normal and proportionate.

Unfortunately, we must renew trials without jury because of the small minority of people who use intimidation of their own communities and sectarian bigotry to make their case, and who continue to refuse to follow the peace process, to which 99.99% of the people of Northern Ireland have signed up. That is why the order is regretful but necessary.

When the hon. Member for Ealing North asked about the increase in the figures, I think he answered his own question to some extent, in that we are talking about such small numbers. The successful detection of one terrorist attack could mean five or six more people on trial this year, and if any of the four conditions I listed earlier is met, we would see an increase. This year, there has been a decline—the figure is much lower than the previous one. The difficulty is that the figures relate to very small numbers. Should there be an increase in terrorist activity, that will no doubt be linked to any future increase; should terrorist activity decrease but the PSNI and security services increase detection, we will also see an increase. The figures show either the success of PSNI detection or, unfortunately, the continuing threat because of increased activity.

I am grateful that Her Majesty’s Opposition support our proposals. The measure is short-term and not intended to be open-ended. It is different from the Diplock court system. It is about the DPP—there is no interference from politicians—satisfying themselves that the conditions have been met. The judges do not have to agree and, if people do not want it to happen, there is also a right of appeal through judicial review. If colleagues have any other questions, they should not hesitate to write to me and I shall reply. With that, I thank the Opposition for their support and commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) order 2015

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2015.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Nuttall, and I welcome members to the very first statutory instrument Committee of the new Parliament. My new colleagues in the room will no doubt understand the excitement for some of their older colleagues that statutory instrument Committees can bring to the parliamentary process.

The draft order makes provision to adopt for the purpose of Northern Ireland Assembly elections the same polling districts and stations that are already in place for parliamentary elections. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are elected using parliamentary constituencies, but at previous Parliament or Assembly elections the polling districts or wards used were those drawn up for local government elections. Following the reorganisation of district councils in Northern Ireland in 2012, the local electoral boundaries were changed. That resulted in local polling district boundaries that no longer sit discretely within the parliamentary constituencies.

The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has made it clear that it is not possible for him to hold an election in which the wards straddle two constituencies. In advance of the general election, therefore, the previous Government introduced legislation that removed the formal link that provided for local government polling districts to be used at parliamentary elections.

Under the new provisions introduced for the general election, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland now has a duty to designate the polling districts to be used for parliamentary elections, and the chief electoral officer a duty to designate polling stations within those districts. The polling districts that the Secretary of State has designated for the purposes of the parliamentary elections are the ones that were in place before the reorganisation of local government boundaries in Northern Ireland. The effect is to retain for Westminster elections the same polling districts as previously used for the 2010 general election and the most recent Assembly election.

The same change is now needed for Assembly elections. The purpose of the draft order is to close the legislative gap that has existed for Assembly elections since 2013 by applying the parliamentary polling districts and polling places used for parliamentary elections to the Assembly elections. The measure will have the effect of maintaining the status quo and retaining the polling districts that voters are familiar with.

The draft order provides that the polling places used for the Assembly election will be those listed in the polling station scheme drawn up by the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. He will have a duty to amend the scheme in relation to Assembly elections if he considers that the parliamentary scheme does not adequately provide for voters at an Assembly election. Electors and interested parties will, as a result of the order, have recourse to the Electoral Commission to appeal the scheme if they are not content.

I hope that the Committee agrees that making provision to re-establish the link between parliamentary and Assembly polling districts and polling places is a necessary and logical step to take in advance of the Assembly elections and that it is reassured that the changes are fully supported by the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I reiterate the welcome to you, Mr Nuttall, and see that you are finally joining the ranks of the establishment. It is a great pleasure to see you sitting there in dignity.

I welcome the honourable and gallant Minister to his place. I am sure that he will grow to love the brief and to love Northern Ireland as much as so many of us here do. He is welcome to the role and I assure him that on all non-controversial matters, such as the draft order, Her Majesty’s Opposition will work entirely in a bipartisan way for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. We may have differences and disagreements, but I hope that we can work together for the greater good.

I welcome the hon. Member for Castle Point to her new position of great Whip-like authority. It is a pleasure to see her here. With your permission, Mr Nuttall, I would like to welcome some of the newer Members: the hon. Members for Charnwood and for Lewes, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—what a pleasure it is to say “my hon. Friend” there. I also welcome the hon. Members for Eastleigh, for South Antrim and for Bury St Edmunds, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.

The order is not controversial, and Her Majesty’s Opposition support it. We understand entirely that it is consequential on the changes in the electoral structures—that it was inevitable. I have just one or two minor questions, and I will understand entirely if the Minister prefers to give a written response later, but knowing his acuity, I think that he probably has the answers at his fingertips.

One question is about the review. As hon. Members know, this whole process was reviewed late last year and the assessment of that review was published in January 2015. I would be interested to know the Government’s assessment of the review—whether they feel any consequential amendments may be appropriate and whether the January 2015 review of polling places has thrown up anything that may concern us later. Hon. Members who were here the last time that we debated this issue will remember that we had a considerable discussion about nomenclature. I think that we have moved on from that, but I would be interested to know whether we should consider any issue following publication of the review in January 2015.

The second question is about a review process—an appeal process. Inevitably—it is a fact of life—even something as mundane and anodyne as a polling place or the redesignation of a polling place may prove to be difficult, depending on the exact location and on the environment and atmosphere around it. Is there an appeal process whereby political parties or aggrieved individuals can appeal to the chief electoral officer about the location? If so, has that process been used; does the Minister anticipate that it may be used; or does he feel that such a process would be otiose and is unnecessary?

Those are two minor questions, and as I said, I am perfectly prepared to take a written response later, as I do not wish to detain the Committee. For the record, I welcome the Minister and say that Her Majesty’s Opposition have no objection to this essential, sensible and serious legislation, which we support.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and I, too, welcome those members of the Committee who are new, especially the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I fear that if his predecessor had been here, the Committee might not have been so short.

This is, of course, a housekeeping measure. It is important that we lay the ground right for the planned Assembly elections next year and therefore doing this now, with other measures due in September or October, is the right thing to do to ensure that everything is in place for the planned elections in March.

Let me move on to the two specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North. On the latter point, about a review process, I understand that anyone unhappy with designations is of course allowed to appeal to the Electoral Commission against those designations and then it can deal with those issues.

[Stephen Pound]

Have any such appeals been made?

[Mr Wallace]

Not as far as I am aware. There was one disputed polling station at the last election in the area of Dungannon, and I understand that the case is currently under review. It was about the movement of a polling station from a primary school to another centre in Dungannon. There were allegations of intimidation, which is of course a real issue in certain parts of Northern Ireland.

On the hon. Gentleman’s other point, I will write to him if there is any further information about the review that was carried out. I do not yet have the full details, but I think that it is important that there are places to go. There is the Electoral Commission to appeal to if people are unhappy, but it has indicated that everyone is happy with the change proposed today. We are simply tidying up and administering the housekeeping that is important to ensuring that the elections take place.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What steps the Government is taking to tackle low pay in Northern Ireland.

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that, from October, the national minimum wage will increase by 3% to £6.70 per hour, the largest real-terms increase since 2006. The Government are also committed to increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, and to ensuring that anyone who works at least 30 hours a week on the minimum wage pays no tax at all.

[Jo Stevens]

The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action has said that introducing the living wage would benefit 173,000 low-paid workers, giving them an average pay rise of £1,300 a year. What are the Government doing to help workers in Northern Ireland, which has the lowest private sector pay rates in the United Kingdom?

[Mr Wallace]

One of the best ways to help the low paid is to allow them to keep as much as possible of the money that they earn. The hon. Lady will be delighted to learn that, according to the most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, average gross weekly earnings in Northern Ireland have increased by 10.2% over the past year. That is a whacking, massively great increase compared with the United Kingdom average of 1.7%. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to recognise that our long-term economic plan is working for the low paid in Northern Ireland.

[John Woodcock]

I welcome the Minister—my neighbour—to his post, and hope that he will be successful in it.

One in five children in Northern Ireland lives in poverty. The Government are not really considering going back on their legal commitment to tackle child poverty, are they?

[Mr Wallace]

Like every previous Government, this Government have tried—and, in many instances, continued successfully—to deal with child poverty. Let me reiterate that one of the best ways of doing that is to make sure that works pays, and that people keep the money that they earn. To ensure that that happens, we have increased the personal tax allowance by 63% since 2010, from £6,475 to £10,600.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy is reducing taxes and regulation, so that the private sector can invest and create new jobs and opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland?

[Mr Wallace]

That absolutely is the key, and our long-term economic plan will deliver a rebalancing of the economy and new jobs. I am delighted to say that 40,000 more people are employed in Northern Ireland than was the case in May 2010. Giving people jobs is the fastest way out of poverty, and ensuring that the Northern Ireland economy converges with and improves alongside that of the rest of the United Kingdom is our No. 1 priority.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

15. Some 89,000 working families in Northern Ireland receive an average of £4,000 a year from the child element of tax credit. How will the Minister help them to restore the money that they will lose when the Prime Minister implements his welfare cuts?

[Mr Wallace]

The best way to help those people is to ensure that there is an economy that allows them to work, rather than forcing them to rely on the benefits system. It is interesting to note that ours is the party that wants to give people a hand up, while the hon. Gentleman’s party seems to want to give them a handout.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I must not pre-empt job news which will be heard later today in Derry, and which will obviously be welcome in a city and region with high unemployment and a lower wage profile. Given that lower wage profile, however, are Northern Ireland Ministers discussing with their Treasury colleagues the possible implications of the changes that are afoot in relation to tax credits, not least the implications for cross-border workers?

[Mr Wallace]

We are, of course, always talking to the Treasury to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard and its special needs recognised. We are also working hard with the Northern Ireland parties to ensure that, should the Stormont House agreement be fully implemented, we can achieve the most competitive possible corporation tax in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to allow further inward investment.

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

5. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implementation of greater fiscal flexibility for Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

6. What discussions she has had with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive on security of police officers.

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

The safety of police officers, and others who work tirelessly and with great courage to tackle the terrorist threat, is paramount. The Government are in regular contact with Executive Ministers, and the Secretary of State and I regularly meet the Chief Constable, the security services and the Minister of Justice to ensure that every effort is made to tackle the threat from violent dissidents.

[Jim Shannon]

The safety of police officers is critical. Recently, the Policing Board purchased Vauxhall Vectra cars, which are completely unsuitable for policing in west Belfast, Londonderry or south Armagh. Police officers—who have an average height of 5 feet 10 inches—with body armour and weapons cannot get into those cars in time if attacked, and nor can the Vauxhall Vectra be armoured. What discussions will the Minister have with the Policing Board to ensure that this issue is looked at again?

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As someone who previously had to squeeze into armoured cars on the Falls Road, I know, and have full sympathy with, what it is like trying to get into such cars at speed. Procurement decisions are a matter for the Chief Constable, but I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point and am happy to raise his concerns directly with the Chief Constable when I next see him.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am very curious to establish what criteria the Secretary of State uses to judge appeals by retired police officers who have had their personal protection weapons withdrawn. They feel increasingly vulnerable to attacks by dissident republicans.

[Mr Wallace]

Obviously we do not comment too much on intelligence matters, but from intelligence and information that we receive on individuals we take into account the threat to them. We regularly review applications, and when a threat increases, or a threat against an individual is demonstrated, we seek to do what we can to protect them.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I pay tribute to the outgoing Minister, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has many friends in this House and made many friends in Northern Ireland? He is remembered with affection and respect. I welcome the new Minister, the fifth I have shadowed, to the Dispatch Box, and note that among them have been one Royal Navy surgeon and three former Army officers, all of whom wore their uniform with great distinction—much more than I did, although admittedly the opportunity for gallantry is limited for London Transport bus conductors.

Last year there were 550 twelfth of July parades and the vast majority went off peacefully. Does the Minister not agree that further reductions in the PSNI budget threaten the stability of the peace process, and will he make a statement?

[Mr Wallace]

Policing budgets are a matter for Stormont and the Northern Ireland Executive, and we are keen to see the current impasse move on so that they can make those decisions. To anyone in the parading environment, the Government’s message is that violence does not pay. It helps neither side resolve the issues, and we urge them as much as possible to work together to resolve the often long-held disputes over parading.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of the political situation in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree on both those points. I know that many victims of terrorism would have been deeply hurt by the OTR issue, which is why I apologise to them on behalf of the Government. Future reports and investigations on such matters should put victims at their centre, as should any broader solution looking at the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

In the past, security forces have used informers to help defeat terrorists. Does my right hon. Friend agree that issuing royal pardons to on-the-runs is a world apart from using royal pardons as a way of encouraging and using informers? Will she give an undertaking that the Government will not do anything to put at risk the use of informers in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is not generally Government practice to comment on sensitive operational matters such as those, but I acknowledge that the use of informers is an important means of combating crime and terrorism.

Murder of PC Ronan Kerr

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s supportive comments. She rightly paid tribute to the Kerr family. I again quote Mrs Kerr, who yesterday said:

“I urge all Catholic members not to be deterred”.

I do not believe that they will be.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

The thing that sets the Provisional IRA apart from the dissident republicans is that in the early 1990s the Provisional IRA recognised that above what it wanted was what the public and community wanted, and that the community did not want violence as a way of solving the troubles. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell us whether the whole Catholic community is fully behind the family of Constable Kerr, and will he consider redoubling his efforts to ensure that more Catholics join the PSNI?

[Mr Paterson]

My hon. Friend gives me an excellent opportunity to confirm that to my knowledge there is overwhelming support for the legitimate institutions and for the legitimate, peaceful parties—I cite as an example the minute’s silence at the Gaelic Athletics Association game yesterday in Tyrone, which is a very strong republican area. There is absolutely no place for political violence in Northern Ireland.