Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Mark Durkan

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I should say that I was struck by the number of times he condemned Sinn Féin for using a veto—that from the DUP, the most veto-holic of all the parties, not least in relation to the abuse of the petition of concern, which other hon. Members referred to earlier.

Let me join others in referring to the grave attack at the weekend—the attempt to murder police officers and to use the precincts of a school to create disruption in a community and set up a situation where, yet again, officers of the PSNI, who serve and represent our whole community, would be under threat. However, I cannot join the attack by the hon. Member for East Antrim on the BBC for somehow making an untoward reference to that incident. He seemed to omit the fact that, in a debate I was part of on the BBC yesterday, his own colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), referred to the attack in the context of the political vacuum that exists and that could continue to exist. That linkage was made by one of his own parliamentary colleagues, so for him to turn round and use it as an excuse to have yet another go at the BBC just seems bizarre and out of place.

[Ian Paisley]

In his opening comments, the hon. Gentleman said there was abuse of the petition of concern. Does he agree that the biggest abuse came when the SDLP and Sinn Féin joined together to stop Gerry Kelly from being suspended from the Assembly for five days in line with the recommendations of the Commissioner for Standards?

[Mark Durkan]

No. The biggest abuse of the petition of concern comes whenever it is used to prevent motions in the Assembly—even non-binding motions and valid and credible motions of censure—from having any standing whatever. If people are going to use the petition of concern in relation to motions of censure in one way, they should recognise that others are going to say, “If you are going to veto things in one way, you are creating the rules, and you are going to have to live by them.”

As on so many things, we need to return to what was originally provided for in the Good Friday agreement. The petition of concern was not included in the agreement as a veto; it was provided as a trigger mechanism for an additional form of proofing by a special committee in relation to concerns about rights or equality—that is all it was provided for. Unfortunately, the legislation did not properly reflect that, and it left things up to the Standing Orders in the Assembly, but those Standing Orders have never been right. Sinn Féin and the DUP have always been happy to leave the petition of concern as a dead-end veto under the Standing Orders of the Assembly. That was never in the agreement, as people will see if they care to look at the relevant paragraphs. Let us return to the petition of concern as an additional proofing mechanism for rights and equality, not as a prevention mechanism against the advancement of rights and equality in areas such as equal marriage.

The hon. Member for East Antrim excoriated the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and told him that devolution is the opportunity to best make the laws that reflect the views of society. I absolutely agree with that. I am quite happy for the Assembly to make the laws that apply to abortion and to equal marriage. The Assembly is showing a clear wish and a clear intent there, and there have been clear indications of where the support of the people of Northern Ireland lies—it is similar to that in the south, as shown by referendum. The problem is that the DUP is vetoing and stopping the devolved Assembly having that legislative power. The DUP is criticising Sinn Féin for not allowing the government function to be created in circumstances where the DUP itself is regularly using a veto to prevent the legislative function of the Assembly. It is a “Whose veto trumps whose?” situation.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

Those are points that I shall touch on in my remarks, and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will do so as well. By way of response to the hon. Lady, I make the point that there have been efforts over a number of years. When I chaired the Assembly’s Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, we conducted an inquiry into credit unions in Northern Ireland, which have a very large membership base and a very strong savings base, far beyond those of credit unions here, which by comparison are merely developing.

The fact is that credit unions in Northern Ireland have been precluded from having as broad a range of services to offer their members, unlike credit unions here, and the key to broadening the range of services, of course, was to have credit unions in Northern Ireland regulated by the Financial Services Authority—subsequently the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.

However, while credit unions in Northern Ireland will be regulated from London institutions for those financial services, they still come under a devolved legislative window. That goes back to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which deliberately ousted credit unions from the reserved power in relation to financial services through specific mention of the fact that devolution would include the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Credit unions are therefore in a sort of dual-control legislative and regulatory environment; they are registered under devolved legislation but regulated under financial services legislation of this Parliament, and rightly so.

However, that leads to some quirks and bumps in interpretation. A credit union Bill that would address some of those issues seems to be held up somewhere in the Assembly processes. In those circumstances credit unions are particularly concerned that they might become unintended casualties of some of the restrictions and exceptions that are rightly being introduced with the devolution of corporate tax by the Government and with the agreement of the parties in the Assembly.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman—indeed my hon. Friend—accept that in addition to that being grossly unfair to credit unions, mutuals such as the Progressive building society, which employs almost 200 people and operates solely in Northern Ireland, in fact its back office applies only to Northern Ireland, could end up being penalised by this legislation?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I have to be honest that the slightly left-handed amendment I tabled in Committee could have introduced its own difficulties, as the Minister pointed out at the time. This less left-handed—I apologise to any cuiteogs in the House—amendment addresses the salient point in respect of credit unions and also takes in for the first time a point that I had overlooked in Committee: the position of a mutual building society based wholly and solely in Northern Ireland, such as the Progressive. This wider amendment, which thankfully has been seconded by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), is therefore designed to cater to both circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

Does that not really take the biscuit when the Progressive is told by the Treasury that only 5% of its back office will apply for an exemption? Its staff are scratching their heads, wondering what part of their work does not apply to Northern Ireland and to activity solely related to Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Exactly. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is no known rational basis for it. In circumstances in which we are talking about arrangements aimed at preventing any artifice on the part of companies, just coming up with such an arbitrary figure does not particularly help. In circumstances in which we see that larger firms can be advised and assured that their existing operations of large and hopefully growing scope will be covered by the new devolved tax rate and will not be caught in the exclusion of financial services, it seems strange that the financial services entities that are not for profit, which are not taking money out of Northern Ireland but recirculating it into the local economy, would be penalised.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Mark Durkan

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley]

I was not suggesting that it was mandatory, but it does say that people should not do it. Rule 148 is very clear that people should not do a crossword, read a map, eat a sandwich or smoke while driving.

That takes us back to the crux of the matter. A person who lights up and smokes in front of a child—I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this—is a prat, in my view, and we as a House should not be legislating on that, but educating. What we should really be engaging in is educating people. We do not require legislation to educate people not to be prats and to be sensible.

The number of people involved is minuscule, so is it right that this House is taking time, money and effort to legislate on such a minor problem? I do not believe it is.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the number of people smoking in cars with children present is minuscule, but he has produced no evidence to back that up in relation to the UK. If the number is so minuscule, why is the provision so disproportionate and excessive and how would it make enforcement impossible in the way he suggests?

[Ian Paisley]

Let me take one of the facts raised by Labour tonight. According to tobacco consumption rates in the United Kingdom, 22% of people smoke in the Liverpool district, but according to the statistic put in front of us tonight, 25% of all children are subject to being in front of smokers. The number of people smoking is, therefore, higher than the Government statistics show. We need more clarity on the stats being put about by Members on both sides of the House. Labour and Government Front Benchers should wait, as they said they would in November, for the outcome of the Cyril Chantler independent review. If we wait for the gathering of evidence that we can all accept, we will be in a much stronger position to make the decision we are making tonight.

I am also concerned about the plain packaging measures, which will decimate an industry. There is not sufficient evidence to show that they will do what everyone wants them to do, which is to stop people smoking. A pound store I visited sells boxes for people to put their fags in. It is even possible to get ones that say “Vote Labour” or “Vote Conservative” on them. Believe you me, Mr Deputy Speaker: whenever cigarettes are sold in the future under this provision, these boxes will be given out freely by certain companies because they will take away the one warning that we do know is important, which is that smoking kills. Tonight we are putting in place an opportunity for people to cover cigarettes with no warning whatsoever.

The biggest problem that this country faces on tobacco is the illicit trade: 25% of all cigarettes smoked in the United Kingdom tonight will have been smuggled by criminals. We as a House should do something, on a united basis, to wipe out such criminal empires, instead of making it easy for them by giving them plain cigarette packages that are simpler to print, smuggle and get into the hands of children. That should be our real cause and health concern.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Mark Durkan

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that gives rise to questions about what other support should be available as a way of assuring people when they are co-operating with inquiries. Perhaps that would also encourage more people to co-operate in future, given that we have experience of times past when some did not, and we now have a signal that fewer would in future.

New clause 3 provides for whatever work goes on in the future in relation to the past; it is not prescribing what work should go on. It states that, whatever different channels are used to review and report on the past, it would be right and proper for this House, year on year, to receive an annual report that reflects the work that has gone on and for that report to be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State that refers to whether there is independent legal advice to show that all that work is compliant with article 2 of the European convention on human rights and addresses other salient matters.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

While I understand the merit of what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, is there not a huge danger of such a process creating a free-for-all for lawyers, with ultimately only lawyers benefiting from it?

[Mark Durkan]

No, there would be no free-for-all for lawyers in my proposal, because it would not add any new form of investigation relating to the past. The new clause basically says that whatever different strands are dealing with complaints about the past, whether it be the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims Remains, the HET or any successor body, the police ombudsman, or any other inquiries or panels—and whatever their work is—this House would receive an annual report showing what had been done in that year. It would also address article 2 compliance, because that is a serious issue that has arisen in relation to the HET, and other matters.

One issue the annual report could address is whether the reports of that year show new findings and put new light on events that were previously the subject of very different accounts in Parliament. We know that Ministers reported very differently to Parliament about a lot of these events, compared with the evidence now available from HET reports and Government papers that have emerged from the archives, thanks to the work of the Pat Finucane Centre and others. The annual report, with the statement from the Secretary of State, could be a parliamentary point of record for any apologies that have been issued by anybody in Government, and not only the British Government. Any apology by any public body or any Government in respect of findings or reports would be recorded, rather than being left as though it is just a matter of private correspondence between a victim’s family and a Government Department, which is the Government’s current position. The Government say that if they issue an apology on the back of something in an HET report or anything else, they do not see it as being up to them to record it or to acknowledge it in Parliament in any way. If the Government are iffy about doing that in every single instance, an annual report that reflected on work on the past and responses to it would provide a way for them to do it.

It would be very important for this House, as its encouragement to the parties in the Haass talks, to say, “Yes, we know that on the issue of the past there is a huge responsibility on the parties to come to an agreement and an understanding on how better to deal with it. More honestly addressing the serious events of Northern Ireland’s past is not the job of the Northern Ireland parties alone; there is a serious and particular role for the British Government and for this House, which held Northern Ireland under direct rule for so many years and heard so many accounts and versions of events that may now have to be addressed differently in the light of what reports find.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way so often. He will be aware of the phrase, “Victors write history.” Is he not in danger of handing the historiography of the troubles to a group that he would not even agree with?

[Mark Durkan]

No. The new clause is aimed precisely at preventing that. In the absence of anything wider, people are getting away with their own gable wall histories. They are getting away with their own pretences about the nefarious character of violence during the troubles being attached to one side and not the other. Equally, we still sometimes get the nonsense from some spokes- persons within sections of Unionism that the loyalist campaign existed only as a response to republican violence, and that it needs to be understood in that context. As far as I am concerned, all the violence was wrong. None of it could be justified, and none of it could be justified by the violence or excesses of anybody else. What the IRA did, did not justify what the loyalists did. What the loyalists or security forces did, did not justify what the IRA did either.

It is important that we are able to bring those sorts of narratives out. If reports are available from the various mechanisms to deal with the past, they should be sourced and reported on in the way I talked about—on a class basis, which can straddle a number of years and localities, as under new clause 1—or through future annual reports to this House. Such reports would provide an assurance that the past is being dealt with by due standards and is receiving a due response from those in Government and in other public bodies who should be responding to it. I make no pretence to claim that either of the new clauses would directly burden paramilitary organisations with compliance with giving evidence or the truth. However, the new clauses would be a lot better at addressing the truth and being open to all dimensions of Northern Ireland’s difficult past than some other partial proposals.

I remind hon. Members that back in 2005, this House saw what was probably the worst piece of proposed legislation: the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. It attempted to set up an entirely secret tribunal whereby people could go in, unbeknownst to the relevant victims, and claim complete indemnity and immunity from anything in the past. Not only would the issuing of certificates have been secret; the then Government proposed a clause through which an added seal of secrecy could have been imposed by the Secretary of State. The only person who could have gone to prison in connection with any crime committed in the past would have been a relative or a reporter who reported or alleged that somebody had benefited from a certificate relating to their particular victimisation. Potentially, only the victims, or people who were reporting in sympathy with the victims, could have ended up in jail—not anybody else.

I do not pretend that the two new clauses are perfect, and nor are they complete. I do not want to pre-empt what might come out of the Haass process, but they are offered as honest contributions, recognising that more could be done with what is already being done in relation to the past. Whatever happens with Haass, this House has a continuing responsibility to address the past and to acknowledge its responsibilities during that past.

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Ian Paisley and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, as happens with many such things. When the civil service and the parliamentary draftsmen are asked to look at things, their predictive text mentality focuses only on certain aspects and the rest of us cannot get any other logic or language in there. That is precisely the present situation. We do not have to take huge numbers of days to debate the Bill, but if Members are to be comfortable with how and what they are legislating for, we need more time.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said that we now have separate stages, but the Report stage will be very compressed and when Lords amendments come to the House, there cannot be amendments to them in this House, as far as I can see, unless they are tabled by a Minister of the Crown. There will be a very short Report stage and a short stage for Lords amendments.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for adding to the strange and wonderful coalition that is emerging on the matter. Does he agree that the Government appear to be saying, “We cannot give you more time because we would have to go to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Belize, St Lucia, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, St Christopher, St Kitts, Nevis, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon islands, Barbados, the Bahamas and Jamaica and ask them their opinions, and that is just too complex, so let’s push this through in a hurry”? That is wrong. Not only have we a right to raise all the issues that concern us, but all those other territories will have matters that are of concern to them and they should have the same rights as we have.

[Mark Durkan]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. None of the arguments or excuses that might be offered for simply microwaving the Bill through in its present form—as the Government are doing today, without looking at the suspect content that we will still be leaving on the statute book—will stand. Those of us who are calling for more time are not calling for hugely more time, nor are we talking about the sort of grand world tour that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would love to go on to consult people in those other Chambers.

I know that some Members, including probably the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), have a deep allegiance to the Crown. I know that the former Member for North Antrim, who just happened to have the same name as the current hon. Member, used to state straightforwardly that he was loyal to the Crown so long as the Crown remained Protestant. I am sensitive to why people have their own issues and their own thoughts, but other people have a different conscience and a different approach.

If some people’s loyalty or allegiance to the Crown is qualified by that religious precondition, those of us in the House who do not share that view have to ask why we, as the price of taking up membership in the House, are forced to recite a form of words that we do not believe. We pledge allegiance to the sovereign and to her heirs and successors, and remember, the Bill will make a change that has implications for who the heirs and successors might be. People are concerned about some of the consequences and the conundrums that might arise as a result of these changes. But I hope that those who have such sensitivities and concerns about succession will have some sensitivity to those of us who are forced, as the price of representing our constituents, to use either the affirmation or the oath. I use the affirmation, and I then hand my letter of protest about that to the Speaker. I use it under protest because I will not swear a lie. I will not swear a lie that I will bear allegiance to someone to whom—

Security in Northern Ireland

Debate between Ian Paisley and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I support the motion. Let me begin by discussing its opening sentiments, which concern the murder of David Black.

David Black’s murder was rightly, strongly, thoroughly and comprehensively condemned across the democratic political spectrum, which counts for an awful lot and, I hope, means something to his family and colleagues. That may distinguish it from some of the previous murders of prison officers and others. However, I want to make it clear that while we welcome that united, strong condemnation, we believe that every other murder committed by every other paramilitary group was equally deserving of that thorough, comprehensive condemnation. David Black was entitled to his life and his living; so were all the other prison officers who were murdered by various paramilitaries. His family were entitled to his living love; so was every other victim in Northern Ireland.

It is not the case that there was a phase during which there were legitimate targets and we are now experiencing a phase during which there are no legitimate targets. We all need to be clear about that, because there is a danger that gross revisionism, on all sides and in all directions, will eventually plant in the heads of a new generation the false notion that the troubles were merely a necessary and unavoidable prelude to the peace process that we now have. They were not. We must bear in mind the violent campaign of the IRA and the violence of loyalist paramilitaries, and the fact that loyalist paramilitaries were indulged for years without even being proscribed. Unionist politicians justified the existence of the Ulster Defence Association by saying that it was a legal organisation, and Ministers in this House—in both parties—justified not proscribing it as though there were some acceptable level or form of terrorism or paramilitarism, which there never has been. I reject any suggestion, whether it comes from Martin McGuinness or any other member of Sinn Fein or from anyone else, that there was ever any way of treating paramilitarism in any of its forms.

Of course David Black’s family have been promised what the families of many other victims have been promised in the past: that no stone will be left unturned to bring the killers to justice. I join other Members in stating that I hope that is true, but the work of the Historical Enquiries Team and other organisations has revealed that it was often in the past not true when victims were told no stone would be left unturned, because it has been found that information held by the intelligence services was not passed on to the police, or that when information was passed on, the use to which it could be put was heavily circumscribed.

There were victims whose murders could have been prevented. There could have been intervention, apprehension and prosecution, but that did not happen because an intelligence long-game was being played, which allowed violence to happen. There was collusion and complicity, and that was not confined to the indulging of loyalist paramilitaries in attacks on Catholics; it extended to republican attacks on police or prison officers and on civilian targets. Such attacks were allowed because it was believed that an intelligence asset was being protected and must not be compromised. That should not happen.

People need to know that if anything has changed as a result of the peace process it is that there will be no interference or inhibition in the full and proper conduct of police inquiries and of prosecutions of anybody against whom there is relevant evidence. No consideration of protection of intelligence assets must be allowed to interfere in that. All victims need to have that assurance nowadays, and they need it all the more because there is evidence that in the past victims were sold short.

Even the victims of the Omagh bombing feel that way. I know how sick they feel when they hear it being said that no stone will be left unturned, because they were assured of that as well. They believe calculations were made and mistakes were allowed to happen in the Omagh investigation. As we completely reject the murder of David Black and the agenda of those behind it, we must also be clear that we are in no way trying to sanitise any of the past violence and excesses of any group.

As has been said, the murder of David Black comes at a time when there are many things we should be positive about and be trying to build on. We are now learning to move beyond lobbying our special case—which we are very good at, and have had to be very good at—and are getting much better at selling our special place. We will be able to do that through the opportunities we will have at the G8 summit next year, and we saw it with the MTV awards and the Titanic festival in Belfast. We will see it again at the world police and fire games, and when Derry becomes the UK’s city of culture next year. That will be a fantastic year-long celebration which will offer great opportunities for the city, particularly as it will be happening in the same year that the island of Ireland will have “The Gathering” as a way of bringing back the diaspora to the island of Ireland. That will enable us to sell in a new way, and it will be hugely important and positive. We want to build on all those positive sells.

Of course, there are dissident groups and tendencies who know that all such events and sells present an easy target for them. They could get very easy coverage from leaving a bomb outside the city of culture offices in Derry, for instance, or from planting devices here and there. However, we should not be thwarted, intimidated, deflated or deflected in any way by the fact of knowing that they are going to try to do that. They might be able to come up with viable devices that they can plant, but they have not been able to come up with any viable rationale for what they are doing, because they are just stuck in a groove, carrying out the old provo tactics through the old provo methods. That is the only agenda they have.

As far as I am concerned, if these dissidents have any rationale, let them bring it forward—let them take it to us. I will meet them; I have met them before, and I will meet them again, in my constituency or elsewhere. Any argument or case they want to put can be met by democrats, and it needs to be met by democratic nationalism and republicanism. There is an agenda for democratic nationalism and republicanism in the coming years: to disarm any pretence these dissidents have, not least in the build-up to 2016 and the centenary of the 1916 rising, that they are the sole keepers of the republican flame and that because they are the remnants of physical-force republicanism, they are the only people who stand in the 21st century for the ideals of Irish republicanism and for the principles in the 1916 proclamation. Democratic nationalism, in all its forms and parties—now joined, thankfully at last, by Sinn Fein—has a duty to get its act together to make sure that nobody is able to say that constitutional democratic nationalism, north and south, has been derelict on the basic nationalist cause or nationalist principle.

The dissidents try to say that those of us who subscribe to the Good Friday agreement have abandoned any belief in nationalism or the republican ideal. I am 100% committed to the Good Friday agreement but I am still 100% a nationalist and committed to a united Ireland. I also know that many Unionists are 100% committed to the shared institutions we now have in a settled process but that they are 100% committed to the Union. That is the strength and beauty of the agreement and these shared institutions: we can have our own different senses of legitimacy. The sense and source of legitimacy for me, as an Irish nationalist, comes from the wishes of the people of Ireland. The sense and source of legitimacy for Unionists is bound up in the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.

With the Good Friday agreement, we recruited both those senses and sources of legitimacy, so that we could give allegiance to institutions, because Unionists cannot give allegiance to institutions that are not legitimate according to their political ethic, and nationalists and republicans cannot give allegiance to institutions that are not legitimate according to theirs. That is why in negotiating the agreement and in ratifying it by the joint referendum—articulated self-determination for this generation of the Irish people—we significantly moved politics forward. We created a new beginning for politics and for policing.

There was massive resistance to that, as we knew then. At the time of the referendum on that agreement, I made pledges to people about those institutions. Many people found the institutions controversial; people found the idea of inclusion by mandate—just this elective inclusion—hard to grasp. I started off as its sole proponent in the Social Democratic and Labour party, and the SDLP started off in the talks as the sole party proposing it, but it became part of the outcome. Similarly, the idea of a joint office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister was ridiculed by many, not least because we came up with it only in the last month of the negotiations, but it was inspired by the sight of Seamus Mallon and David Trimble going to Poyntzpass following the murder of Damien Trainor and Philip Allen by the Loyalist Volunteer Force. That was a symbol: here were two leaders—unionism and nationalism—almost literally helping to bind the wounds of the community and defy a violent threat aimed at undermining political prospects at the time.

At the time of that referendum, I predicted that the Good Friday agreement institutions would have working in partnership not just unionists and nationalists, loyalists and republicans, but those who vote yes and those who vote no, because we did not want the agreement—those pro-agreement and anti-agreement—to end up being the new running cleavage in Northern Ireland politics or in Irish politics. Thankfully, that prediction has proved to be so.

Sinn Fein had to play catch-up in accepting and getting its head around the political institutions in the new arrangements and the new beginning for policing, which it rejected and attacked us for. All sorts of intimidatory gestures were used in the council chambers when we were nominating people to the district policing partnerships; gun-shaped hands were being pointed at people and all the rest of it. We faced that down and we saw this through because it needed to happen. Those people of course were saying that change would not happen. The unionists, in the form of the Democratic Unionist party and others, were saying that change should not happen, but it needed to happen. In the end, when those in Sinn Fein conformed on policing all they brought to the policing agenda was themselves. Nevertheless, that was important and welcome, and we see its importance and worth when we see the First Minister and Deputy First Minister able to stand with the Chief Constable and others in the aftermath of murders in recent years. That was hugely important and it had to happen, but some of us had to see it through and take that stand, and some of the “veto-holic” tendencies of other parties had to be faced down—that is what has to be remembered.

In today’s debate, I have listened to nostalgia bumping into amnesia on the way back from revisionism on the question of how we are where we are now. We have had more people on more roads to Damascus in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years than the Syrian bus fleet would have on a peaceful day. That has been good, because people have moved from justifying and supporting violence to being able to condemn it. They used to condemn us for the politics of condemnation; now they are thoroughly involved in condemning what should be and needs to be condemned and confronted.

There is also an issue about dissidents. Not only will they try to exploit the fact that the rest of us all support the agreement and are now branded as the establishment, particularly at a time when there is a lot of economic disaffection and difficulty—it is very easy for them to try to seize on that sense of alienation, which has been faced by some other hon. Members—but they are trying to exploit impressions about the situation in the prisons. Historically, the provisionals movement exploited impressions and issues in prisons in a way that helped to fuel them and their campaign and to feed a sense of alienation and disaffection, helping them to recruit other people. It is quite clear that the dissidents are trying to do the same.

I believe we need to disarm the dissidents of that ability, and we can do so. Nobody is more cynical about the cynicism of Sinn Fein than me, but when I meet republican dissident prisoners and their families and they tell me, “We think Sinn Fein is using the situation because they want to break us in the jails,” I tell them that although no one would be more on Sinn Fein’s case than me, I do not believe that that is true. The idea that Sinn Fein is using David Ford, the Minister of Justice, to help break their rivals in the prisons is simply not true. It is nonsense, but it is feeding the mindset of those people and we need to confront it.

We need to ensure that we deal with people’s legitimate questions and concerns in prisons, for example about why strip searches should be carried out at the rate and in the form in which they are carried out. Whenever there is a clear modern technological alternative, that should be used. Rather than wasting time experimenting with the technology in other locations, it should be brought in where it is most needed and that is Maghaberry.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today the new BOSS— or body orifice security scanner—chair has been introduced into Northern Ireland, meaning that the number of full strip searches will be reduced? As a result, I understand, 20 dirty protestors have come off their dirty protests.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my point, which I have made to people in the Northern Ireland Prison Service and to others, about my interventions and involvement and many other people’s, too. That is the point that we have been making; we want to see that argument disarmed.

Similarly, when people raised serious health questions about the circumstances of prisoners such as Marian Price and latterly Gerry McGeough, we were trying to ensure that those issues were properly addressed. Any sentences duly imposed must be served, but, as with any prisoner, if any issue gives rise to thoughts about their release, it should at least be considered.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), I acknowledge the strength and sincerity of his contribution, but I strongly and sincerely disagree with his views on these matters. I pay tribute, none the less, to his conduct and to his positive contribution as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in relation to Northern Ireland, where his insights and instincts were hugely appreciated by all parties and by people outside of party politics as well.

The Social Democratic and Labour party does not take seats in the House of Lords. As a point of principle, we do not believe in taking seats in a Chamber that is unelected, and in any other situation people in this House would see a wholly unelected Chamber as being anomalous, anachronistic, absurd and, indeed, a constitutional atrocity.

Only a few weeks ago, here in this Parliament, we hosted Aung San Suu Kyi. The majority of the parliamentarians who were present and called to assemble to hear her speech, however, were unelected, and she was talking about the importance of elective democracy. That is an irony which should not be lost on anyone in this House or, indeed, in the other House.

I have listened to many arguments from Members on both sides of the Chamber, and people seem to be turning themselves inside out in relation to the different position that they now hold on programme motions, compared with how comfortable they were with such motions when their party was in government and was the absolute master practitioner of them.

I have listened to Government Members raise queries about the West Lothian question, and they might rightly feel affronted that in this Chamber elected Members who are not from England are able to pass laws that affect England, but they seem to have no problem at all with unelected people from wherever passing laws, or with their numbers being inflated and added to all the time.

There are easy ways of dealing with primacy. The Parliament Act needs to be affirmed, but it also needs to be amended and updated. There is no reason why that could not be done if the Bill receives a Second Reading and we go on properly to amend it. Primacy can also be reflected in ensuring that this Chamber is the sole seat of the Executive. There should be no Ministers in the other place. If it is meant to be a revising, second legislative Chamber, its role should be primarily to do with legislation and its revision, and it does not need any Executive membership. Ministers can go to that Chamber and speak to and answer for their Bill, but they need not be Members of the other House.

We have heard the arguments about 15-year terms. If the fixed-term Parliaments had been for four years, then three terms would equal only 12 years, which would be more reasonable than 15 years, but unfortunately we are stuck with that because the legislation gave us five-year terms. However, it is better that people are elected for 15 years than appointed for life.

As regards how we can justify the Parliament Act in terms of maintaining financial privilege in this House, we can do that because the people elected to the other House will be, in some ways, unaccountable. The only people who should have powers over taxation are those who will be accountably representative. The justification is to say that there should be no taxation without accountable representation.

I, like others, would criticise many aspects of the Bill and hope to see them amended and changed if it were to make progress—although of course it now has the “uncommitted” status that the Speaker told us about earlier. Many people have said that there is a strong case for having some appointed Members, but I am not sure about that. If there is such a case, I want to hear it tested and proved further. Perhaps that is the issue that would most justify a referendum. If there is to be constitutional reform with a democratic House of Lords, and if other people will continue to be appointed through some obscure system, perhaps that should be subject to the decision of the people. They will have the right to elect the first set of Members, so perhaps they should have a say in a referendum whether they want the other Members as well.

On the question of the bishops, I am not comfortable with the idea that there should be a Bench of prelates drawn from one Church alone. If there is a case to be made, as I have heard people argue, for a pastoral Bench from which people can speak on the basis of certain ethical and faith-informed values, its Members should not be confined to one denomination or one faith. Perhaps they should not have votes either, because they should not want to be sullied or compromised in relation to party political matters.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman diminishes the role that the bishops have played in the other House, but he must accept that on welfare reform they led the charge that brought that matter back to this House and got it to change its position.

[Mark Durkan]

I would accept the hon. Gentleman’s point if he and his party colleagues had not voted against the bishops’ amendment on child benefit, which said that it should be excluded from the benefits cap. If there is a case to be made for the bishops on the basis of the contribution that they have made, which I do not decry, I still do not know why they should be solely confined to the Church of England and why that is ordained in the Bill.

Members are telling us that the Bill is not wanted by the public and that it will be a waste of parliamentary time and a distraction, yet some of them would have been prepared to vote against the programme motion to say that they wanted even more time taken up on it in this Chamber and elsewhere. A wise observation is that irony in politics is usually hypocrisy with panache. There is a lot of irony in the strange positions articulated by many Members on both sides of the House, and there is a lot of panache in the way that they have presented their cases, but of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have heard no hypocrisy.