Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Stephen Pound

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the threat that the IRGC poses to not only the region but countries such as ours. The Quds force is currently proscribed. Further proscription considerations are a matter for the Home Office. However, what is really important is that, where the IRGC poses a threat, like-minded countries around the world challenge that threat and ensure that it is dealt with.[Official Report, 24 October 2019, Vol. 666, c. 6MC.]

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Trafalgar day has been mentioned, and later today, when “Up Spirits” is piped, we will all drink a tot to the immortal memory. I hope that the Minister will place on record his recognition and understanding that the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel currently on active service represent the very finest tradition of our services. Let us put that on the record.

[Mr Wallace]

I am, of course, delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the amazing quality that they bring to our armed forces. I am a landlubber, as a former soldier, so I can only marvel at what I have come across so far in this job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Stephen Pound

Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The first thing we should recognise is that Northern Ireland business does not agree with the hon. Gentleman and believes that it should remain in the European Union. If people voted to leave the European Union, from 24 June Northern Ireland businesses would unfortunately have to deal with instability for the next two years, which would damage their market.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It will not have escaped your gimlet-eyed gaze, Mr Speaker, that those of us on Opposition Front Bench are united on the subject, but for months we have had uncertainty about what will happen to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic in the tragic event of Brexit. Two Sundays ago Lord Lawson popped up on the “The Andrew Marr Show” to say we would have a border. Leaving aside the irony of that coming from a French resident whose policy was to shadow the Deutschmark, may we have some clarity on what will happen to the border? Are there any revelations that the Minister would care to share with us?

[Mr Speaker]

Far too long.

Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Debate between Ben Wallace and Stephen Pound

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound]

That is precisely what I was about to say. The point I was making is that we may succeed. Quite often we succeed, but sometimes it is against the odds. The search for that additional independence continues. The hon. Lady is, as ever, completely right in this matter.

When the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) introduced amendment 1, he was right to mention some of atrocities—not just the recent atrocities, but the murders of Paul Quinn and Robert McCartney. I spent a great deal of time with Paul Quinn’s parents, and it is important that we never forget that horrific murder. Even though it was some years ago, the memory is still raw.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) focused the debate by talking about the veto safeguard that exists in the current system. It is immensely important that we realise the significance of that. If we are trying to find a mechanism for a nomination process, the proposed process is about as close as we are going to get. I will listen with interest to what the Government say, but we also need to pay attention to amendment 7, which was tabled by the SDLP. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out, rightly, that the predecessor to the current Secretary of State had some of these issues pointed out to him at the time. It would have been better if we had considered them then, instead of now.

Just as these amendments illustrate one of the problems of finding people to appoint who are beyond criticism, they also illustrate one of the great strengths of Northern Ireland politics. Even when politicians are elected from a particular community, and may even be from a particular community, there has never been, in my hearing, any suggestion that they have failed to represent every aspect of their community. That is noteworthy, and we say it far too rarely on the Floor of the House. That aspect of life in Northern Ireland gives me great hope for the future.

The Opposition support the Government on this issue, which is an unusual position for me to be in. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I would like to hear more about these issues, and particularly about the points made in amendment 7, but for the time being, we think that the clause is about as good as we are going to get.

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank hon. Members for their contributions and for the suggestions that they have made in the amendments.

As we have discussed, the first five clauses of this short Bill concern the independent reporting commission. This new body is one of a raft of measures set out in November’s “Fresh Start” agreement to tackle the ongoing impact of paramilitary activity. The commission, which is to be established through an international agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government, will have an overriding objective to promote progress towards ending paramilitary activity.

Although the IRC has different functions from the Independent Monitoring Commission, it builds on the precedent set by that commission, which was in operation between 2004 and 2011, monitoring activity by paramilitary groups and overseeing implementation of security normalisation measures.

I will now speak about the clauses and related amendments. Clause 1 makes reference to the functions of the new independent reporting commission, as set out in the “Fresh Start” agreement. Those will be: to report annually on progress towards ending paramilitary activity; to report on the implementation of the measures of the Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government to tackle paramilitary activity, including overseeing implementation of the Executive’s strategy to end paramilitarism; and to consult a wide range of stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, local councils, communities and civic society organisations.

The reports of the commission will inform the Executive’s programme for government through to 2021. The commission will be independent of the sponsoring Governments and will have significant discretion in fulfilling its functions. That independence will help to ensure the credibility of its reports and its success in engaging with the necessary range of stakeholders. The Secretary of State may provide the commission with such resources and funding as she considers appropriate.

Finally, in line with the “Fresh Start” agreement, the commission will be made up of four members—one nominated by the UK Government, one by the Irish Government and two by the Executive. Clause 1(4) confers on the First and Deputy First Ministers the power to jointly nominate the Executive members.

Two amendments have been tabled to that subsection. In amendment 1, the hon. Members for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott) propose that the power to nominate two members be conferred on the Northern Ireland Policing Board instead of the First and Deputy First Ministers. The “Fresh Start” agreement provides that two members of the new commission will be nominated by the Executive. The Northern Ireland Policing Board is not, however, part of the Executive, and the amendment would therefore not be consistent with the terms of that agreement.

In amendment 7, the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) propose that the power to nominate be conferred on the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice, following consultation with the First Ministers, and subject to the approval of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. While the Government recognise the interest that the Justice Minister, in particular, will have in the nominations, it is our view that the First and Deputy First Ministers, acting jointly, are the most appropriate office holders to nominate members on behalf of the Executive as a whole, in view of the objective and functions of the commission.

We would of course encourage the First and Deputy First Ministers to consult their Executive colleagues—in particular the Justice Minister—before making nominations. It is also open to the First and Deputy First Ministers to refer the nominations to the Executive Committee and, indeed, to consult more widely. For example, amendment 1 proposes a role for the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and that could certainly provide helpful recommendations regarding candidates for nomination. I also noted that the hon. Member for Foyle highlighted the difference between the HIU and the IRC—two different bodies with very different functions. His point is well made when it comes to the reference to the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound]

I accept the lash that the hon. Lady applies, and to a certain extent I deserve it. However, the point that my colleagues and I would make is that we have to look at this matter further and in greater depth. More consultation needs to be done and more discussion needs to be heard. We have heard ambivalence on both sides of the House today, and questions have been asked about interpretation. It is essential that we get this right. Heaven knows, when the hon. Lady refers to living under terrorism, I know what she means but I can never precisely understand it because, thanks be to God, I have not experienced it myself. However, I have immense respect and admiration for those who have experienced it, and I hope that they will allow Labour Members to say that we have to get this right today.

We have to discuss these matters further. If the Government are prepared to extend an olive branch, to make an effort to consult more widely and to understand that this is not the best way forward, it will be appropriate for us neither to support nor to oppose them on this matter. I am sorry if I appear to be sitting on my hands. I apologise profoundly to those people who have been making the right points, but I hope they will understand that what we have heard today is not entirely a Manichaean argument. There have been many areas of interpretation, and it is there that we need to go. We need to get this right. This is not a binary choice. This is something that has to be discussed further.

[Mr Wallace]

I shall be short, sharp and to the point. I have listened to the contributions today, and feel that I must take Members back to what the Bill is about, which is to enable the “Fresh Start” agreement to be implemented in law. That is the basis on which we must draw the line of consensus. I have heard the arguments of the SDLP that the “Fresh Start” agreement was not really a consensus—that actually no one was massively behind it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I do not disagree with a large part of it, but the Bill deals with the “Fresh Start” agreement—the Stormont House agreement—in so far as it applies in Northern Ireland. I am sure that there will be further opportunities to redefine “victims” as that term would apply in the United Kingdom. Under the previous Government, the Ministry of Justice did a lot of work to ensure that the criminal injuries compensation scheme did not extend to burglars, robbers and everyone else who had managed to claim against it when they had perpetrated a crime. Precedents in United Kingdom law, or certainly in English and Welsh law, make that difference clear. I hear loud and clear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that there will be opportunities to address that in future legislation, but today we are considering this Bill, which is a consequence of the “Fresh Start” agreement.

New clause 4 would establish the implementation and reconciliation group, which is one of four new bodies to be established as part of the Stormont House agreement. The others are, as we had hoped, the historical investigations unit, the independent commission on information retrieval and the oral history archive. Members will be aware that the Government continue to support the establishment of all those bodies and the other measures in the Stormont House agreement. However, for reasons that I will set out, we do not agree that it would be a positive step to move ahead with the IRG in the absence of the other bodies and measures. The IRG and the other measures to deal with Northern Ireland’s past require cross-community support in Northern Ireland and must be dealt with as part of the package of bodies and measures proposed in the Stormont House agreement.

As I have mentioned, the IRG is an integral part of the four bodies proposed in the Stormont House agreement. The Government have committed £150 million towards the establishment of those bodies as part of our commitment to help Northern Ireland to deal with its troubled past. The design and implementation of the bodies was considered as part of the intense negotiations during the “Fresh Start” legacy talks, but the establishment of the IRG and the other legacy mechanisms could not be agreed at the time. The Government continue to work on making progress on the legacy strand of those negotiations. As is set out in the Stormont House agreement, the Government support much of what was proposed. The IRG should receive and commission reports; it should promote reconciliation; it should be appointed by Northern Irish political parties, the UK Government and the Irish Government; and it should have a chair of international standing who is nominated jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

As Members know, there have been a number of previous initiatives aimed at addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s troubled past, and they have all recognised that it cannot be reduced to a one-dimensional issue. No single approach or solution will work in isolation; a concerted and multifaceted approach is required. The Stormont House agreement makes it clear that the four legacy bodies are intended to constitute a package of measures to deal with the past, each addressing a different dimension of this difficult issue.

I suggest that establishing the IRG on its own would not ultimately promote reconciliation, although that is a key function of the body. I say that because the proposed new clause ignores many of the ingredients acknowledged by the political parties in Northern Ireland as integral to dealing with Northern Ireland’s past. Those ingredients must address the suffering of victims and survivors, facilitate the pursuit of justice and information recovery, and be balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable.

A significant criticism that victims have raised with us regarding the current approach is the piecemeal nature of how legacy matters are dealt with. I do not think that we wish to perpetuate that through a piecemeal implementation of the legacy institutions. The IRG, as an integral part of the Stormont House agreement, can realistically be implemented only in parallel with the other legacy bodies, and it is clear that progress on the whole package of legacy mechanisms must have cross-community support in Northern Ireland.

I recognise the views of UUP and SDLP Members about new clauses 2 and 3. Indeed, I sympathise with the sentiment behind the measures. On the face of it, reverting to the pre-St. Andrews agreement method of electing the First and Deputy First Ministers might be a welcome change, because that involved an overt demonstration of cross-community support. However, to accept the new clauses would be to turn back the clock to before the St Andrews agreement and the subsequent legislation, which is the basis on which devolved government was restored in 2007 and continues to this day. The reality is that such changes would need to be supported on a cross-community basis, but that has not happened. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the Government’s commitments under the “Fresh Start” agreement, and the proposals go beyond that agreement.

I am concerned that if we made changes to the institutions without cross- community support in Northern Ireland, we would risk destabilising the political process in Northern Ireland, damaging the substantial progress that we have made and diverting attention from the challenges and opportunities that Northern Ireland faces. Our priority in supporting devolved politics in Northern Ireland must be to implement the “Fresh Start” and Stormont House agreements, and we are taking another step towards that with this Bill. I recognise that this matter has been considered in the past. The same amendment was tabled in the other place during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in early 2014, but the Government could not support it then. I am afraid that, for the same reason, we will not do so today.

I have outlined the reasons why the Government will not support new clauses 1 to 5 and amendment 2, and I urge hon. Members not to press them to a Division.

[Stephen Pound]

I will speak very briefly. Not for the first time, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) has made a very pertinent and relevant point. As someone from west London who was close to the Harrods bombing, the Town House bombing and the BBC bombing—I am also aware of what happened in Guildford, Birmingham and Warrington—I would be the first person to agree with his point that there is no territorial definition of victimhood.

I thank the Minister—the hon. and gallant Gentleman —for his comments. Everyone in the House must associate themselves with his words—there can be no equivalence. We hear that loudly from this side of the House and from that side of the House, and I think it is also said across the nation. We must support our armed forces—that is absolutely right—and we must endorse and support the armed forces covenant. I think of the work of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and many other people who have done so much work in that area.

Above all, we must never ever forget, in everything that we do in relation to this subject, that victims must be at the heart of our deliberations. Victims are the people we must consider above all. We have to work with those who are physically and psychologically scarred by their horrors.

I will not speak for long, because I must give other Members a chance to speak, but I want to support and endorse the comments made the Minister—the hon. and, if I may say so, gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Stephen Pound

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

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

Debate between Ben Wallace and Stephen Pound

Monday 20th July 2015 General Committees

[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.

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

Debate between Ben Wallace and Stephen Pound

Monday 20th July 2015 General Committees

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ben Wallace and Stephen Pound

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[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?