Oral Answers to Questions

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

It has been said that serious gaps are emerging. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, these are devolved matters, but we are keen that the National Crime Agency should be able to pursue organised and serious crime in Northern Ireland, and there is no difference between us on that at all. Two parties in the Executive are holding things up, however, and I ask why they are doing that and why we do not all want to pursue serious criminality in the Province.

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

3. When she plans to report to the House on her Department’s inquiry into the administrative scheme for on-the-runs.

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

While Lady Justice Hallett is making progress on her report, she has informed me that it will not be ready for publication until shortly after the 30 June deadline.

[Mr Donaldson]

The Secretary of State will be aware of deep concern in Northern Ireland about revelations that a number of terrorist suspects were granted the royal prerogative of mercy—in other words, pardons— for serious terrorist crimes. Will the report on the on-the-runs include information about those who have been granted such so-called pardons?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is an independent report so I do not know what it will contain, but given the concerns raised about the use of the royal prerogative of mercy, I expect that aspects of that issue will be covered in Lady Justice Hallett’s report. I emphasise that this Government have not used the RPM in Northern Ireland, and it was used by the previous Government on only 18 occasions. Sixteen of those involved terrorism, but in all cases it was used to shorten sentences, not to cancel the offence.

Haass Talks

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Rebalancing the economy in Northern Ireland by boosting the private sector is crucial. That is why we are pressing ahead with implementing our side of the economic pact. I will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in taking forward their obligations in the economic pact. I am delighted to say that the first tranche of the new capital borrowing powers that have been granted as a result of the pact will in due course support a new shared education campus in Lisanelly, which will give many more children the chance to share part of their education with kids from different community backgrounds and traditions.

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

As the Secretary of State will know, 90% of the deaths in Northern Ireland during the troubles were caused by paramilitary and terrorist organisations, and yet much of the focus is on what the state did. We cannot have a process that is disproportionate, that seeks to rewrite the history of the troubles and to sanitise terrorism, and that ignores the needs of the vast majority of innocent victims who were murdered by the terrorists.

[Mrs Villiers]

I certainly agree that the processes on the past need to be balanced and must recognise the proper attributions of responsibility for the deaths during the troubles. I acknowledge that that is one of the most important things to get right. I am impressed by the degree of progress that has been made by the political parties. They have come a great deal closer to an agreement on the past than I ever expected. I hope that in due course we will reach an agreement and a conclusion on that matter.

Northern Ireland

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes the ongoing discussions in Northern Ireland chaired by Dr Richard Haass on a number of important issues including the legacy of the Troubles; recognises the deep sense of loss still felt by the innocent victims of violence and their continuing quest for truth and justice; acknowledges the valour and sacrifice of the men and women who served and continue to serve in the armed forces, the police and the prison service in Northern Ireland; and is resolved to ensure that those who engaged in or supported acts of terrorism will not succeed in rewriting the narrative of this troubled period in Northern Ireland’s history.

It is a privilege to move the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and other colleagues on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. First, I wish to record an apology on behalf of my right hon. Friend. As Members will be aware, he is attending a memorial service in his constituency to mark the 20th anniversary of the Shankill bomb on 23 October 1993, in which nine innocent people tragically lost their lives.

Today we remember the families of John Desmond Frizzel, aged 63, in whose fish shop the bomb was exploded; his daughter Sharon McBride, aged 29, married to Alan with one child; George Williamson, 63 years old, married with two children, and his wife Gillian Williamson, 49 years old; Evelyn Baird, 27 years old, married with two children; her daughter Michelle Baird, seven years old, a schoolchild; Leanne Murray, 13 years old, a schoolchild; Michael Morrison, 27 years old, married with three children; and Wilma McKee, 38 years old, married with two children.

Today I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in saying that the tragic loss and pain suffered by those families and the thousands of innocent victims—whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or of other faiths—killed or maimed in Northern Ireland, here in Great Britain or elsewhere during our troubled past will never be forgotten by those of us who cherish the value of human life, reject violence and pursue peace as the only way forward for Northern Ireland. Today we especially remember the families of the victims of the Shankill bomb.

I also wish to acknowledge the presence of the Secretary of State. I am aware that she had other obligations and commitments this week outside of the United Kingdom, and we appreciate her presence today.

Discussions between the political parties at Stormont have failed to achieve sufficient consensus on dealing with the legacy of the troubled past to which I have referred. Therefore, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have invited Dr Richard Haass to chair discussions about this and related matters such as parades and protests, flags, emblems and symbols. Dr Haass is assisted in this work by a small team, including Meghan O’Sullivan, who is his vice-chair of the talks presently under way.

I also acknowledge the work of the previous Consultative Group on the Past, led by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley, and the recommendations set out in its report. However, I must place on record the fact that many of those recommendations were rejected at the time, not least because of the schism that exists at the very heart of the debate on the past and the definition of a victim.

The Democratic Unionist party remains firmly of the view that we cannot equate the perpetrators of terrorist violence with their innocent victims, yet that is precisely what the current law does in Northern Ireland under the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. This is a law that the DUP seeks to change, and for that reason I have proposed a private Member’s Bill that is due to be given its Second Reading in December. My Bill would ensure that an individual killed or injured as a result of their own act of terrorism or convicted of a terrorism-related offence as defined in law would not be classified as a victim for the purposes of deriving any benefit from schemes designed to assist victims and survivors.

I referred at the outset to the Shankill bomb and the innocent people murdered by the IRA in that incident. One of the IRA terrorists on that day, the bomber Thomas Begley, was killed when the bomb exploded, and his accomplice Sean Kelly was seriously injured. When convicted of this heinous crime, Sean Kelly was given nine life sentences—one life sentence for each life he had destroyed—yet under the early release scheme that formed part of the Belfast agreement, Kelly was released after serving just seven years in prison. That is less than one year for each life that he destroyed that day on the Shankill road.

That is an enormous burden for the families of those victims to bear. Michelle Williamson, whose father and mother were murdered by Sean Kelly, campaigned vigorously to prevent his release. Regrettably, Kelly walked free. To have this injustice compounded by the fact that the law currently defines the IRA bombers Sean Kelly and Thomas Begley as victims in just the same way as the nine innocent people who died that day on the Shankill road are defined as victims is an outrage. It is an affront to decency and the rule of law, and it is something that this Parliament should act to change. For the sake of the nine innocent people who died on that terrible day 20 years ago to this day, I trust and pray that parties throughout the House will support the necessary change to the legislation.

That is fundamental to finding an agreed way forward on dealing with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. On the definition, let me be clear: whether the innocent victims were murdered by those IRA bombers or by the Ulster Volunteer Force gang known as the Shankill Butchers that operated on the Shankill road, or whether the victims were Protestant or Roman Catholic or of other faiths or none, it does not matter. There cannot be equivocation between the innocent victims of terrorism and those who perpetrated those acts of terrorism. The principle applies in all cases. Those who commission or commit murder cannot be equated in a definition with their innocent victims.

Of course, this is not the only challenge we face in dealing with the legacy of the past. This summer has been a stark reminder of the difficulties surrounding very sensitive issues that we desperately need to address and resolve. I am bound to say, in the absence of the Sinn Fein Members elected to this House, that their attitude in the summer and recently has not helped to create an atmosphere in which we can make progress.

I refer specifically to an event that occurred in Castlederg in August when we witnessed a blatant glorification of terrorism by senior members of Sinn Fein. Castlederg is a small town in County Tyrone near the border with the Irish Republic. Many terrorist atrocities were committed there during what we call the troubles. The IRA waged a vicious sectarian campaign against the local Protestant community and especially targeted the security forces.

This August, republicans held a commemoration event in Castlederg to unveil a memorial to two IRA terrorists, Seamus Harvey and Gerard McGlynn, who 40 years ago, like Thomas Begley, were killed by their own bomb. I cannot understate the insensitivity of this event. Initially, republicans even sought, as part of the commemoration, to have a parade past some of the locations where the IRA had murdered people in Castlederg.

The speeches that were made on that day, most notably by the Sinn Fein Member of the Legislative Assembly, Gerry Kelly, were undoubtedly interpreted as a glorification of terrorism, and rightly so. Mr Kelly was convicted of trying to blow up the Old Bailey in London in March 1973. In his speech, he asserted that his actions were not acts of terrorism. I ask every Member of this House the following question: if a gang that includes Mr Kelly plants a bomb outside a courthouse in a public place and that bomb explodes, killing one person and injuring more than 200 people, is that an act of terrorism or something else? My understanding is that that is an act of terrorism as defined by the law of the United Kingdom and international law. We have the ridiculous situation whereby republicans are trying to redefine what terrorism is and to recast the actions that they perpetrated during the troubles. They are trying to explain away the heinous nature of those actions by some form of twisted justification. That will not do and we will not stand for it. There can be no redefinition of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on raising this important issue. It is important that we do not paper over the fact that terrorists committed horrendous crimes during the troubles. We should all congratulate the civilians and soldiers on their courage and steadfastness at that time. Will he admit that it is important to remember those terrorist acts if only because, in remembering the horrendous nature of those crimes, the Province stands a better chance of having a brighter future?

[Mr Donaldson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and I will speak about commemoration and dealing with the legacy of the past in a moment.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his party on calling this debate. He mentioned the fact that Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats. Does he think that it is time for this House to get to grips with that issue? There is an idea that we cannot have that debate in this House. However, those MPs still receive allowances and support. Is it not time that we all stood up to the blackmail, almost, that we have from the Sinn Fein MPs, who think that they are entitled to decide whether they come here or not, and yet—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donaldson]

I concur entirely with the hon. Lady’s remarks. She can be assured that that issue will be raised on another day in the House of Commons.

On the same day that the IRA commemoration took place in Castlederg, 11 August, there was a memorial service in Omagh to commemorate the Omagh bombing of August 1998, in which 29 innocent people lost their lives. Sinn Fein members were present at that event in Omagh. I pose a simple question: how can the same party, on the same day, in the same county engage in an act of glorification of terrorism in one town and stand alongside the victims of a similar atrocity in another town, and claim that there is no double standard?

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

For 14 years, I represented Omagh and Castlederg in the House of Commons. Sinn Fein have a twisted mentality that means that they can easily do that, because they were not associated with the Omagh bomb and they close their minds to all the other bombings, including Teebane and the many other atrocities across the Province.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those words. I pay tribute to the way in which he has represented people in Northern Ireland over many years. The personal cost that he and his family have borne for that representation is often overlooked. He is absolutely correct.

We cannot equivocate on this matter. The finger would be pointed in our direction if we sought to justify an act of terrorism by one paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland while condemning the same kind of action by another paramilitary organisation. The two bombers whom Sinn Fein commemorated in Castlederg were transporting a bomb that was designed to murder innocent people in a country town. The people whom they condemned in Omagh on the same day were doing the same thing: they transported a bomb into the heart of a town in the same county of Tyrone and it was designed to murder innocent people. What happened in Castlederg and what happened in Omagh must be condemned equally. It is time that Sinn Fein grew up and recognised that wrong is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator. There can be no rewriting of the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, particularly given that I was a few minutes late for the debate, for which I apologise to all Members. I invite him to confirm to the House, as I am sure he will do gladly, that his party leader, who serves the entire community in Northern Ireland as First Minister, has brought those criticisms of Sinn Fein’s behaviour to the attention of his Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. I would like that assurance.

[Mr Donaldson]

I know that the hon. Lady takes a keen interest in all these matters. I confirm to the House that our party leader, the First Minister, Peter Robinson, has on numerous occasions brought to the attention of the Deputy First Minister the inconsistency and double standards adopted by Sinn Fein in these matters, and the damage that that does to the building of community relations and the development of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein needs to address this issue.

We will not stand for a process that seeks to paint the forces of the state as the bad guys and the terrorists as the good guys. I remind the House that the Sutton index, which tabulates and records all the deaths associated with the troubles in Northern Ireland, is very clear that of the 3,531 deaths recorded to date, the Army was responsible for 297. Many of those were entirely lawful and legitimate, and were carried out by soldiers acting in the course of their duty to protect human life. The Ulster Defence Regiment, in which I was proud to serve, was responsible for eight deaths. When one hears the attacks that are made against the integrity, valour and sacrifice of the Ulster Defence Regiment, one would think that it was responsible for many more. I reiterate that those deaths were the result of soldiers acting in the course of duty. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is also demonised at times by Irish republicans, was responsible for 55 deaths. Interestingly, the Garda, the Irish police, were responsible for four deaths and the Irish army for one.

Let us look at the record of the paramilitary organisations. On the republican side, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Irish People’s Liberation Organisation, which were part of the same grouping, were responsible for 135 deaths and the Provisional IRA was responsible for 1,707 deaths. The Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters were responsible for 260 deaths, and the Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible for 430 deaths.

Let me say that every death associated with the troubles in Northern Ireland is regrettable. I do not seek, in any sense, to diminish the sense of loss that people feel when they lose someone.

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

My right hon. Friend is outlining the distinction between the various paramilitary groups of all kinds and the security forces. Does he agree that there is one massive and very simple distinction: the forces of law and order were committed to maintaining law and order, whatever may be said about a tiny percentage of their number who exceeded lawful authority, while the paramilitary groups were set up precisely to kill, murder and create mayhem, which they did for many years until they were prevented from continuing to do so?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely correct and I need not add anything to what he said.

The reality is that republican terrorists were responsible for 60% of the totality of deaths during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for 30%, and forces associated with the state—whether in the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom—were responsible for 10% of those deaths. As my hon. Friend stated clearly, the vast majority of those killings were within the law and carried out in the course of duty by soldiers and police officers protecting the community.

However, when we look at the current process for dealing with the past, whether the Historical Enquiries Team, the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, or an inquest or inquiries funded by the state, the vast majority of resources to examine the past in Northern Ireland are devoted to the 10% of killings, with a scant amount devoted to the 90% of killings carried out by paramilitary organisations on both sides. That cannot continue as it only adds to the sense of disillusionment felt by many people about the current process in Northern Ireland. It is one-sided, biased, and is assisting Irish republicans to rewrite what is called the narrative of the troubles. That has to stop. We must find a process to ensure that attention goes to the more than 3,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland, the vast majority of which were committed by illegal paramilitary organisations on both sides. The victims of those atrocities deserve better than they are getting at the moment.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is reinforced by successive Governments who have permitted, endorsed and financed inquiry after inquiry into the role of the security forces during the troubles in Northern Ireland, while at the same time there is no such inquiry into the role of republican paramilitaries?

[Mr Donaldson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We hear republicans talk about a truth process and the need for truth, yet when the challenge has been brought to their door, I think, for example, of the Saville inquiry into the events in Londonderry in 1972. When Martin McGuinness, now Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, gave evidence to that inquiry, he refused to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, citing some IRA code that he had signed up to when he joined the Provisional IRA.

Sinn Fein agreed to co-operate with the Smithwick inquiry, which is investigating circumstances surrounding the murders of the two most senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan—killed by the IRA in south Armagh. Sinn Fein agreed to assist the inquiry with its investigation, and designated two IRA members from south Armagh to meet lawyers representing the Smithwick inquiry. It was a farce. The two IRA members arrived at the meeting; lawyers were present, there was a discussion, and questions were asked. Each time a question was asked that might in some remote way have caused the IRA members to implicate any member of the IRA in any way whatsoever, they left the room, made a phone call, came back in and said, “We cannot answer that question.”

That was a private meeting with lawyers. It was not on the public record or in the public domain, yet even in those circumstances the IRA could not tell the truth about what happened and the circumstances surrounding the murder of the two most senior RUC officers to be killed in the troubles. What hope do we have of getting the truth from Irish republicans when their leadership, when called on to tell the truth, cannot do it, and when those members who have been designated by the leadership to tell the truth also refuse to do so? The problem for me is that when the state is called on to tell the truth, records are brought out, filing cabinets opened, and it is all laid bare.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for initiating this important debate on dealing with the past. Is he aware of the several hundreds of files lodged in a place in Derbyshire that have not yet been released to the Historical Enquiries Team? Those would bring great benefit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in investigating many unsolved crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)—that beautiful part of Northern Ireland—for her intervention, but I think she would be better directing that question to the Secretary of State. Of course the state has a duty to co-operate, but the difficulty I have is that paramilitary organisations are not under any such duty to co-operate, and show no indication whatsoever of a willingness to co-operate in providing the truth. Through the Historical Enquiries Team, a number of cases have been reviewed. Have republicans come forward at any stage in that process to assist the families of those victims with information that might help them get to the truth? No, they have not in any case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

For the record, there have been occasions when the authorities have inadvertently given evidence or information that they should not have given, thereby disclosing people who were involved in helping the security forces. On occasion evidence has been given that should not have been given, and compromised people who were helping the security forces.

[Mr Donaldson]

Indeed, and I am sure my hon. Friend will wish to elaborate on that important point in his remarks. The extent to which the state is co-operating, whether with an inquest, the police ombudsman, or through the Historical Enquiries Team, could potentially compromise the modus operandi of the security services, and others who are tasked with protecting the community, not only now but in the future.

Before drawing my remarks to a close I want to place on record some principles that I feel are important as we seek to address the legacy of the past in these talks with Richard Haass. The first principle is that victims have the right to justice and must continue to have that right. Last Monday, as part of the Haass process, I met a number of victims at Stormont. I want to quote the words of one young woman, whose brother I had the honour to serve with in the Ulster Defence Regiment. He was a young man called Alan Johnston from Kilkeel, my home town, and I served with him in the 3rd (County Down) Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment. He was murdered one morning on his way to work with his lunchbox under his arm. He was a joiner and a part-time soldier, cut down by the IRA. His sister said this:

“A denial of justice would only serve to re-victimise the innocent victims.”

I agree with her. It would be wrong to deny victims the right to justice.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his party on raising this important issue. He referred to his meeting with victims as part of the Haass process. Does he agree it is important that Dr Haass takes an inclusive approach to the process, and engages not just with the parties but also with victims and survivors?

[Mr Donaldson]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent work he did in Northern Ireland when he was a Minister. He is right, and I assure him that Dr Haass is meeting a wide range of people—as is Meghan O’Sullivan—including the victims. Indeed, some of the victims we saw on Monday had already met Dr Haass. It is important that their voice is heard in this debate.

The second principle I want to be clear about is that there must be no amnesty for the perpetrators of terrorist violence. Thirdly, as I have already stated at length, the definition of a victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland should exclude those who were killed or injured as a result of engaging in an act of terrorism, or convicted of a terrorist-related offence. We hope that that will be taken forward either in this House, or through the Haass process. Fourthly, the glorification of terrorism should not be facilitated or allowed, and if the law needs to be strengthened in that regard, it should be strengthened. This is a free country and a democracy, and we are proud of freedom of speech, but there are times when we have to step in and say that what people say and how they behave is irresponsible, provocative and should stop.

The Democratic Unionist party is strongly opposed to the establishment of any kind of one-sided and unbalanced inquiry process. Any evidentiary process such as a truth commission will inevitably focus on the state, because the paramilitary organisations did not keep records or documents and, as I have stated, are unlikely to tell the truth. Such a process would create an unfair narrative of the past, in which the true perpetrators of the vast majority of the deaths and injuries—more than 90%—will seek to legitimise their actions. They would not be held to account or held responsible for what they have done.

The needs of the victims and survivors must be met as far as possible. Their loss and circumstances should be treated with respect and sensitivity. They deserve and need proper recognition. Victims should have the opportunity to tell their story without it having to be intertwined with the voices of the perpetrators. Innocent victims should be remembered through a significant act of remembrance and commemoration, and, potentially, through a significant regional memorial in Northern Ireland. That could take the form of a memorial garden to the innocent victims of terrorism.

In conclusion, the narrative of the past should reflect core values, including that terrorism was and is wrong, and that it is not a legitimate method of obtaining a political or other objective. The narrative must clearly reflect the fact that approximately 90% of the deaths were the result of terrorist actions, and that the majority of those were by republican groups, so we are very clear that we condemn murder on all sides.

All hon. Members have a responsibility to address the issues relating to our troubled past. The Government have a responsibility—I hope the Secretary of State tells us what role the Government will play—and the process cannot be down to the political parties in Northern Ireland. Equally, the Irish Government have a responsibility. Some of the atrocities were committed in the Irish Republic; some were committed by those acting from the territory of the Irish Republic. The Irish Government have questions to answer about the arming of the IRA in the early days of the troubles, their extradition policy, and their failure at times to co-operate fully with the RUC in a way that would have brought to justice those responsible for terrorist actions in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government therefore have a role and a responsibility in the process.

Finally, I pay tribute to those who have served this country and protected the community, whether they were in the Royal Ulster Constabulary or, as it is today, the Police Service of Northern Ireland; in the armed forces and the regiments that came faithfully to Northern Ireland to serve and protect the community, some of whom are current Members of the House; or in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the locally recruited regiment of the Army, and its successor, the Royal Irish Regiment.

It is worth reminding the House that the RUC was awarded the George cross by Her Majesty the Queen, as a recognition of the collective courage and dedication to duty of all who served in the RUC and accepted the danger and stress it brought to them and their families. The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment were awarded the conspicuous gallantry cross by Her Majesty the Queen in recognition of their valour and sacrifice over the years in Northern Ireland. It pains me when I hear nationalist parties attacking the RUC, the UDR and the Royal Irish Regiment in the way they do—without any balance in their approach to the service that those men and women provided in protecting the community.

I trust that the House will support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McDonnell]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. All the difficulties have been resolved in Derry. Everything is now a celebration, and the contention surrounding the parades has gone. Derry’s month as UK City of Culture has been an outstanding success story. I congratulate the people of Derry, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who represents them.

We in the SDLP seek from Dr Haass—in broad terms—a bigger and better agreement. We want an agreement that transcends the narrow issues of parades and flags, and addresses the past in an expansive way; an agreement that celebrates rather than denigrates the expression of culture, allegiance and political identity across the communities in Northern Ireland; an agreement that promotes healing and reconciliation, and enables us to grow up politically and develop mature politics in the atmosphere of growing mutual respect that was promised in the Good Friday agreement, after which—in 1998—the people voted for

“reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust”

and for

“partnership, equality and mutual respect”.

Only a radical change of attitude all round that embraces the values and ambitions of that agreement will deliver the successful outcome that Northern Ireland needs so much. Surely, given ambition, flexibility and resolve, that much is not beyond our reach. We in the SDLP are up for the challenge posed by Dr Haass and Professor Meghan O’Sullivan.

In recent weeks—I put my hand up at this point, as indeed we all must, because we have all made mistakes and must now join others in making progress—we have sought to make our small contribution to the healing process by addressing an issue that has been raised in the House from time to time. Some months ago, our councillors in Newry voted to retain the name of a local play park that the council had named after an IRA hunger striker 10 years earlier. Our councillors genuinely believed that if the name were allowed to remain, a line would be drawn in the sand and no other public spaces would be similarly named in future. In local terms, perhaps, that was a pragmatic decision—it was, perhaps, understandable in terms of local government. Our representatives acted entirely in good faith. They reassured me, one and all, that it was neither in their thinking nor was it their intention to cause hurt or distress to anyone. I want now to reaffirm the SDLP’s position. Our position is that no public place or public space should be named after any person involved in state or paramilitary violence of any sort.

The issues addressed in the Haass process can be resolved only on the basis of mutual respect, equality and parity of esteem. The SDLP will not be found wanting in generosity or determination to bring about a comprehensive agreement that will be an example to divided communities everywhere. The atmosphere for these talks would be greatly improved, and Belfast traders would breathe a huge sigh of relief, if the loyalist flag protesters called off their planned demonstrations in the city in the run-up to Christmas and if the Orange Order agreed to call a halt to its continuing irresponsible protests at Ardoyne, which are resulting in a policing operation that the PSNI estimates is costing £50,000 a day—which amounts to £5 million over the period. That would have paid for 200 or more young teachers, 200 nurses and perhaps even 200 extra police that we so badly need

[Mr Donaldson]

The point the hon. Gentleman makes about the economy is an important one. Is it not therefore a matter of regret—this is not an issue for this House but it is nevertheless worth placing on the record—that yesterday the Minister for the Environment, who belongs to the SDLP, refused to move a Bill that could transform our planning system and help attract a lot more investment into Northern Ireland? Should not the SDLP act on its own words?

[Dr McDonnell]

At this point, may I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your place and say what a privilege it is to speak in this Chamber under your chairmanship?

I will respond later to the comment that was just made, because it is a clear example of what is wrong, rather than what is right.

The past is a more intractable and complex issue than flags and parades and it casts a long shadow in Northern Ireland. By far the best and most coherent blueprint for tackling the past is the report of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley. The group jointly chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley carried out an immense amount of work, publishing a report that ran to almost 200 pages and carried more than 30 main recommendations. It is unacceptable that such a balanced and carefully considered document should apparently be forgotten—gathering dust on a shelf somewhere—because of the controversy that attached to one of its recommendations in relation to ex gratia payments. The SDLP believes Eames-Bradley still has much to commend it. All would benefit from giving it the reconsideration it has well-earned and is due, while, of course, bringing additional ideas of their own to the table.

There are many among us who would wish to forget the past, but there are many victims out there whose lives have been wrecked and who cannot move on without closure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I know that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has a strong view on air passenger duty. I understand the concerns about competitiveness and the recent announcements by the Irish Government. The Government have not had a request from the Northern Ireland Executive to devolve short-haul APD. We would consider such a request seriously, but it would be an expensive change to make.

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

The Secretary of State will join me in welcoming the visit to the House today by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Business Trust, an effective organisation that brings political and business leaders together. How does it strengthen the Northern Ireland economy to centralise jobs in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea, resulting in the loss of hundreds of jobs and millions of pounds from our local economy?

[Mrs Villiers]

The issue is a difficult one. The Government must look carefully at proposed efficiency measures. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is looking with care at the proposal, and I have had a lengthy conversation with him, as I did with his predecessor. He is very much aware of the issues, and I have made it plain that it is important to consider the onward economic impacts in Coleraine of the decision that he will be making in due course.

Northern Ireland

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), I too wish a full and speedy recovery to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I think I speak for colleagues in saying that we look forward to welcoming him back to his place before very long.

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

Thank you for those kind words, Mr Speaker. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) will have heard them as he recovers this afternoon. I also thank the Secretary of State, the Opposition spokesman, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and all hon. Members who have spoken to me and my colleagues in recent days for their kind comments. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will be back with us before long.

We on this side of the House unequivocally condemn the violence that has occurred in recent days, and in the past, on the whole issue of parades. No violence can be justified in these circumstances. We stand firmly for the rule of law. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the rule of law is applied fairly and impartially, and that whether it is a loyalist rioter or a Sinn Fein MLA obstructing the police in the course of their duty, the law must be applied equally, fairly and impartially?

We pay tribute to the police officers who have been injured and wish them a speedy recovery. We support the police, just as we support the rule of law. We do, however, have issues regarding the consistent lack of intervention by the police in the Short Strand area of east Belfast, where they have failed to protect people lawfully processing on the public highway. We need to examine why adequate protection is not afforded to those parading peacefully and lawfully. That is not, in any sense, to condone violence resulting from people being put under attack.

We have grave concerns about the operation of the Parades Commission. There is no doubt that the clear perception among many people in Northern Ireland is that the decision on the Ardoyne parade rewarded the violence of the previous year, to which the Secretary of State alluded in her remarks. That violence included dissident republicans opening fire on the police in the Ardoyne, and a huge of amount of petrol bombs and other devices being thrown at the police. We must not have a situation, in any circumstances, where violence is seen to be rewarded.

Finally, on the all-party working group, in which I have been asked to participate on behalf of my party, we are committed to finding ways forward on all of these contentious issues, including parades. However, may I say to the Secretary of State that if a shared future is to mean anything, it has to include shared space? If we have a situation in Northern Ireland where there are no-go areas, where one side of the community is not welcome, that is not a shared future and not shared space.

[Mrs Villiers]

I reiterate my sympathies to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, who was doing such brave work to try to look after his constituents and found himself the victim of unacceptable violence. Of course I agree with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) that the rule of law should be applied impartially, and I am absolutely convinced that the PSNI does that. I note his comments on what he perceives as the handling of the Short Strand area. Again, I hope I can provide reassurance that proportionality and fairness is at the heart of everything the PSNI does, whether in Short Strand or elsewhere. I note his comments on the Parades Commission. As I said, I understand the concerns about its decision, and I know that the debate continues on the future of the Parades Commission. I think the way forward to resolve these problems is through local dialogue, but channelling efforts, enthusiasm and energy into looking at options for future reform through the Richard Haass working group is also an important way forward. I also agree that in a shared future we need shared space. We need to find a way to ensure that different traditions can be celebrated in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

Other hon. Members have referred to the recent television programme and the issues that have arisen from it. On Second Reading, I put it on the record that my party colleague, Alex Attwood, took the initiative when he became the Environment Minister for Northern Ireland of saying that he would tell officials if he was aware that the person behind a planning application or the person who made a significant objection to a planning application was a donor to his party, so that the information could be recorded and the officials could handle the matter at a sufficient distance from the Minister. The officials made the point that that had not happened before and that it was not necessarily required, but in his view it was required. When we now hear stories, impressions and accusations ricocheting around in relation to companies and political parties and who may be on donor lists, the public concern is palpable. We cannot in this House ignore that. The parties in Northern Ireland, even those who have defended extending security cover and security sensitivity, cannot ignore that. When there are so many questions, people cannot take as the answer, “Well, there is still a compelling need for secrecy and we cannot afford transparency at any level.”

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. On his point about the Environment Minister for Northern Ireland notifying officials when a potential SDLP donor is involved in a planning application, does he know whether that information, when lodged with officials, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and is it available to a member of the public?

[Mark Durkan]

As I understand it, it is not, not least because it is not a compelling point. He informs his officials and the matter is handled in a particular way, but that does not put anybody at any risk. I do not believe that Alex Attwood is inadvertently trying to find a way around the provisions and the whole question of protecting things on a retrospective basis; it is about him as a Minister being honest with his officials and with the responsibility entrusted to him to exercise good, clear, honest and independent judgment. It is also about allowing his officials to do that as well, because many of the issues that have arisen in recent days involve concerns that Ministers are intruding into what officials are doing—that Ministers are being overactive in their Departments in relation to matters being handled at an official level. Questions arise about who meets Ministers and whether they record and declare those meetings fully, and whether they account for those meetings in response to questions in Committees. When those questions are being asked, we need to address transparency requirements.

It will not fall to this House and the Bill to provide all the answers to remedy the situation: the Executive and the Assembly will have to address tightening the ministerial code on ministerial meetings and donations. On Second Reading, I made the point that this issue does not just relate to planning decisions, and recent events relate to significant public contracts and public appointments. There have been a lot of questions on whether public appointments in Northern Ireland always follow the standard they are meant to follow. Many people would anecdotally suggest that there is too much coincidence and pattern in some public appointments.

Those are all reasons why we need more transparency. The fact that Northern Ireland is a small place is often used as a reason why we cannot have too much transparency. When I was a Minister, I would have made it known to a civil servant if a relative of mine was appointed to something. I would not have made the appointment, but it would have been for me to take official note of it. I wanted to disclose that, rather than have somebody else find out later on. Where relatives might have had a perceived interest in a particular project, or even a rival project, I would again have made a point of always declaring it. Of course, I was often told by civil servants, “Look, you can’t do that every time. Northern Ireland is too small a place. You can hardly walk down a street without bumping into people. You couldn’t throw a stone without hitting somebody that you know or are related to.” [Laughter.] That is not particularly good advice and is not the way I would usually want to make contact with people—even I might tweet first before doing that. The smallness of Northern Ireland can become an excuse for not having proper standards of transparency. That smallness is one of the reasons why it is necessary. The danger is that slippage in one area becomes an excuse for slipperiness in another. We should not allow that to happen. I have been definite about my support for making stronger moves on transparency, which is why I support amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I fully take the hon. Lady’s point; it was a helpful intervention, but the point that the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made was also a good and valid one. If we were using the Bill, in the pedantic sense, to make it truly perfect and to cover all the options, we could have included the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, but we did not, for the sorts of reasons she mentioned.

If we are moving, rightly, towards precluding dual mandates in this Chamber and the Northern Ireland Assembly, the same should apply to the other place as well. If it is to be one Member, one Chamber, it would be wrong if somebody could be in another Chamber in this Parliament—a Chamber which, because of the strange rules, procedures and fixations that people have here, seems at times to have more impact on legislation, by way of amendments, than this one.

The argument then arises about why somebody should be allowed to sit in another Chamber simply because they are not elected and have no mandate. The fact that they are there on an unelected basis does not make their dual membership of two different legislative Chambers any more acceptable than it would be for somebody who had been elected to both Chambers. Indeed, we have heard the Democratic Unionist party make the argument that there is more legitimacy if someone is elected to two Chambers, because the public, in electing that person, know that they are in two Chambers and knowingly give them that mandate. In many ways, the least defensible position is to say that someone can be an elected Member of one Chamber and an unelected Member of another at the same time.

The same thing has to apply to the Oireachtas. If people have rightly been precluded from being a Teachta Dala at the same time as being a Member of the Assembly, they should also be precluded from being a Member of the Seanad Eireann at the same time, whether as a Taoiseach’s appointee or as someone elected through the panels by the electoral college system that exists in the south for the Seanad. Again, if people are sitting in one legislative Chamber, that should be their sole place. That is the point of amendment 20 and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East.

I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Amber Valley, who wants to extend that position to the European Parliament. Some of us had thought that that was already provided for, but I understand that it applies more specifically to membership of this House—to national Parliaments, as opposed to regional or other territorial Assemblies. In practice, when the parties in Northern Ireland have run Members of the Assembly as candidates for the European Parliament in recent times, they have usually done so on the basis of a full declaration that, if elected to the European Parliament, that candidate’s membership of the Assembly would cease. However, in taking a belt-and-braces approach, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point with amendment 3.

I repeat the point that if we want to have one Member, one Chamber, we should apply that to the second Chamber of Parliament and the Oireachtas, as well as to the first Chambers of both.

[Mr Donaldson]

We do not have an amendment in this group, but I want to speak to a number of the amendments that have been tabled.

I, along with others here, held a dual mandate for some time, being a Member of Parliament and subsequently being elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. At times I think it pushes the boundaries a little to suggest that there is huge public opposition to the concept of dual mandates. When I was elected for two terms in the Assembly, I was a Member of Parliament, but I was elected—I do not share this for any reason other than to illustrate my point—with the highest number of first preference votes of any candidate in the Assembly elections on both occasions. No one voted for me on the basis that they did not know that I was already a Member of Parliament, yet they deemed it appropriate to elect me to a second Chamber. The idea that the public were always entirely opposed to dual mandates is therefore spurious, because the facts do not support it.

Because of the development of the peace process in Northern Ireland, we needed people in the Assembly who had the experience of serving as Members of Parliament. That was important. I recognise that we have now moved on and, on the basis of voluntary undertakings given by parties in Northern Ireland, we now have very few Members who hold a dual mandate between this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and by the next election there will be none. To say that there is a need for these changes is therefore stretching the point, to say the least. Indeed, this issue would be way down my list of priorities for inclusion in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made the point that the Government said they would legislate on moving to a single-mandate position only if the parties did not move in that direction voluntarily. Is it not the case that the parties have so moved, yet the Government are still proceeding with the measure?

[Mr Donaldson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The Government have already legislated—as, I think, the Assembly might have done—to ensure that a Member of this House who is also a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly receives no pay for holding the office of Assembly Member and has a much reduced office costs allowance. There is already provision to deal with the issue. The reality is, however, that the proposal is also incorporated into this Bill.

I would like to say on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party that we oppose the amendment that would exclude Members of the House of Lords from the opportunity of serving in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and we have valid reasons for doing so. The House of Lords is an appointed second Chamber in the United Kingdom Parliament. In making appointments to it, there is a desire to achieve a degree of regional representation. I happen to think that it is to the benefit of devolution to have a connection between this Parliament and the devolved legislatures. I accept that it is not preferable for that to involve Members of this House, because we are elected and there is the question of the dual mandate and because certain issues can arise at constituency level.

Those matters do not pertain to Members of the House of Lords, however. Even in a reformed House of Lords, there would be value in making provision for some Members of the devolved legislatures also to be represented, if they so chose, in the House of Lords. That would help to bind the United Kingdom together, and to recognise the special position of the House of Lords. As a body, it is not necessarily representative in geographical terms, but it is widely representative of society. Why should we not have in the House of Lords legislators from the devolved regions of the United Kingdom? We do not accept the need to amend the Bill to exclude Members of the House of Lords from having that dual representation—if not a dual mandate—in the separate Chambers.

[Lady Hermon]

The House of Lords is a key part of the legislature of the United Kingdom and, as someone who is very keen on devolution, I believe that the Assembly is an essential part of the Government in Northern Ireland. Can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say, with his hand on his heart, that a person—or multiple people—sitting in the Assembly and in the House of Lords can do justice to both roles and sit in both places simultaneously?

[Mr Donaldson]

I can say, hand on heart, that I believe they can. When I was a Member of the Assembly and of the UK Parliament, my attendance record on Committees in the Assembly was far superior to those of single-mandate Members of the Assembly. When I chaired the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, I had a 100% attendance record—I was the best attendee on the Committee. We have to weigh these things up and strike a balance.

[Naomi Long]

I certainly do not dispute the fact that the right hon. Gentleman’s Assembly Committee attendance record was good, but we should look at the disparity between the average voting records of those in this House who do not have a dual mandate and those who do. According to “The Public Whip”, the average voting record of those of us who do not hold a dual mandate is 413 to 414, compared with 259 to 260 for those who do have a dual mandate. The Assembly might not suffer, but the attendance of those Members in this House seems to do so. I am not suggesting that that is the only metric we should take into account, but it is an important one.

[Mr Donaldson]

I come back again to the issue of mandate. If the people of East Londonderry decided that they wanted someone other than the current Member to be their MP, because the current Member also happens to be a Member of the Assembly, they will have made that choice. The reality is that the choice they made at the last election was to elect someone who was also a Member of the Assembly and who has, by the way, an excellent voting record in this Chamber and participates well in debates. In all those issues, we have to strike a balance. What we are recognising is that we accept the argument that in respect of Members of this House there is a greater weight of opinion that says that it is difficult to do both tasks. In respect of the House of Lords, however, I believe that having a small number of MLAs who also happen to be Members of the House of Lords is something of value to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I know this is probably academic, as I recognise that we are moving in the same direction. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) singled out voting records. That is one and only one element of performance. If we look at oral contributions, written questions and the tabling of motions, we see a very different picture. It is worth looking at theyworkforyou.com which can show us who is performing well and who is not.

[Mr Donaldson]

I would also say that a constituent, whether it be in Limavady or Lisburn, is well able to make a judgment about whether the person they elected to a particular chamber better serves the interests of the people by being here to vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill, which is of no relevance whatever to the people of Limavady or Lisburn, or by dealing with an issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly that is of relevance to them.

We have moved on from the question of dual mandates between the House of Commons and the House of Lords or the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I do not believe that the same arguments apply in respect of being a Member of the House of Lords and being a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As I have said, I think there is real value to the Assembly in having a small number of Members who are also Members of the United Kingdom Parliament by virtue of their membership of the House of Lords. Equally, I would hope, the House of Lords can see the value of having that sort of representation, albeit on a small scale.

We nevertheless support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) because the European Parliament is an elected chamber, and we draw a distinction between an elected and an appointed chamber. If the argument is made that it is difficult to be in London and in Belfast, I would say that it is even more difficult to be in Brussels or Strasbourg and in Belfast. None of the Northern Ireland parties pursue the option of having their MPs as an MLA, but if the argument goes that we are legislating to prevent dual mandates for the House of Commons because we want to prevent it happening in the future, I suggest that the same principle should apply to Members of the European Parliament as well. It may not be the practice at the moment, just as I believe the practice of dual mandates in this House is coming to an end, but if preventive measures are called for, we have to be consistent and look at the position of the European Parliament.

We are minded to support amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley, but to oppose the amendments that include the House of Lords in the excluding provisions. We believe it is right to include the Irish Parliament within the exclusions, given that it is an elected body, and I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is seeking to extend that to include the Irish Senate.

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Irish Senate is not actually elected in a public sense. Indeed, some of the seats are appointed by the Taoiseach. Those of us who are backing these amendments are being consistent: whether or not a chamber is elected is not what matters; what matters is whether it is a legislative chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donaldson]

That is a fair point, but my party approaches the matter from a very different perspective. The Parliament of the Irish Republic is in a separate jurisdiction, outwith the United Kingdom, and we have always taken the principled view that a member of a Parliament that is outwith the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction should not be entitled to membership of a devolved legislature or of this Parliament.

[Jim Shannon]

My right hon. Friend is making a valid point. Surely it would be ludicrous for a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly also to be a member of Dail Eireann or of a Senate with a different constitution, a different aspiration, and a different way of looking at things from an Assembly that is in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Donaldson]

Indeed. I do not know what affirmation new members of the Irish Senate make, but it is surely a contradiction for people to come to either of the Houses of Parliament here and affirm their allegiance to the United Kingdom, and then to go to the legislature of another country and affirm their allegiance to that country. That is why, on principle, we cannot accept the concept that a Member of the Parliament of another country could also be a member of either a devolved legislature in the United Kingdom or, indeed, of this Parliament.

[Ms Ritchie]

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and I firmly believe in one Member, one Chamber. I declare an interest as a former Member of, and Minister in, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, and also as a former district councillor in Northern Ireland. As such, I know very well that Members must serve only one Chamber if they are to do the job properly and adequately.

The proposal to extend this legislation to the upper chambers, the House of Lords and the Seanad in the Irish Parliament, has my full support. I believe that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in contending that dual mandates must end while ignoring the practice in respect of other legislative bodies. The current approach is inconsistent, and leaves us with an untidy arrangement.

There was a period during the early years of the Assembly—back in 1998—when dual mandates were an important part of the political system, but given the changes in our political system in Northern Ireland and its evolving maturity over the past 15 years, there is clearly a different political climate as well as a different expectation on the part of the body politic. While I am not convinced that this legislative route is the most appropriate, the direction of travel is clear, and my party supports it.

As we move towards the new system, however, we must ask why we are preserving the practice in some arenas but not in others. Why are we creating this imbalance? I accept that the House of Lords operates differently because it has no constituencies, but the important point—emphasised a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle—is that it is a legislative Chamber. If we are legislating to prevent people from being members of two different legislatures, that is exactly what we should do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donaldson]

Will the hon. Lady accept from me that there is at least one Member of the House of Lords who would claim to come from a nationalist background and whose spouse, I believe, happens to be a member of the same party as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan)?

[Naomi Long]

I understand the point that is being made. However, it is not my job as a member of the Alliance party to pigeonhole Members of the House of Lords and to count Unionists and nationalists, given that I do not want elections to be conducted by such distinctions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I am not aware that we tried any such thing. I certainly never agreed to any such moves, not least when I was Deputy First Minister. When my fellow leader suggested that there were things that we could do to ensure better political patronage, I made it very clear that I was not for doing any such thing, regardless of what the NIO wanted to do. I used to spend much time in disagreement with NIO Ministers who had wheezes that they were working out with the First Minister. I did not go along with any of the Jonathan Powell, John Reid, David Trimble, Tony Blair wheezes on further ensconcing the position of the then leader of the Ulster Unionist party. It seemed to me that messing about with the institutions and playing those sorts of games was not the way to do things, either for that party or for the process and institutions that we had.

[Mr Donaldson]

It is just a minor point, but I am interested in how the hon. Gentleman regarded the wheeze that was introduced in the Assembly to unresign the former Deputy First Minister, who was then the deputy leader of the SDLP.

[Mark Durkan]

I think that privately I was the first to make the comparison with Bobby Ewing in the shower. I know that others said it publicly, but I think that the memoirs will show that I made that observation first because it was an obvious one to make. I did not agree with such wheezes. When it came to my election as Deputy First Minister alongside David Trimble as First Minister in the autumn of 2001, I did not agree with some of what the then Secretary of State said about the circumstances in which that election would take place. I made it very clear that, as far as I was concerned, if the Assembly fell and there was an election, that should be that.

Similarly, to correct a misrepresentation that was made on Second Reading, we did not agree to the wheeze of moving the date of the Assembly election. Under the agreement, the date of the second Assembly election was meant to be May 2003, because the first Assembly was to sit for five years to allow for bedding in. We did not agree with the date being postponed from May 2003. The right hon. Member for Torfaen, who was Secretary of State at the time, will remember that we said we were opposed to moving that election date. We have not agreed with any of the wheezes. When things are said, they should remain.

[Mr Donaldson]

Lest we rewrite the Second Reading debate, I wish to place it on the record that the point I made was merely that there is a precedent for extending the Assembly to five years. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now accepts that the 1998 Assembly was extended to five years to, as he describes it, bed in. The point that I made on Second Reading and that I reiterate now is that there is a precedent for extending the life of the Assembly to five years.

[The Temporary Chair (Katy Clark)]

Order. I ask Mark Durkan to address the amendment that we are debating.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

No, I have not expounded on the cost implications, but I certainly do not believe that a ban on dual mandates in the Assembly and the House of Commons would add significantly to the cost of politics in Northern Ireland.

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

The Secretary of State described dual mandates as a problem, but during the difficult years of the peace process it was absolutely essential that Members of the House who were in leadership positions took seats in the Assembly to help it through those initial years. It is therefore regrettable that she described it as a problem: it was part of the solution, in terms of moving Northern Ireland politics forward. Thankfully, we have moved on, but let us not look back and say that it was a bad thing.

[Mrs Villiers]

I would certainly agree that there are a number of reasons why there were more dual mandates in relation to Northern Ireland than for other parts of the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there may have been justified reasons for that at the time. However, things have moved on, and it is a greater sign of normalisation that, arguably, what might have been a need or justification in the past is no longer relevant today.

In response to a recommendation on double-jobbing from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the Bill bans double-jobbing in the Assembly and the lower House of the Irish Parliament to maintain parity. I am grateful to the Committee for highlighting that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

The fact that the National Crime Agency cannot operate in Northern Ireland as it does in the rest of the UK is a source of great regret to us all. I hope that as we go through the Bill we can look at ways in which we may continue to support the Secretary of State in putting pressure on the Home Secretary to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to get the legislative consent necessary for the agency’s remit to extend to Northern Ireland.

The Executive’s publication of their strategy on community sharing and integration is to be welcomed. However, that does not mean that there is no longer a role for Westminster and the Government to play in helping to build a shared future across Northern Ireland, with no community left behind. I would have liked the Bill to include a measure to consolidate the work of the Executive and, most importantly, of the thousands of individuals and organisations doing hugely important work to bring people together in friendship, understanding and co-operation.

Some weeks ago I spoke to a group of students from Queen’s university and the university of Ulster. I was struck by their confidence, ability and experience. Let us be clear: these young people, aged 18, 19 and 20, were not untouched by sectarianism. I was genuinely surprised to hear from one very bright and articulate student that the first time she had, in any real sense, met someone from the other side was when she went to university. We have a duty to ensure that in future 18, 19 and 20-year-olds do not have to leave home to meet their neighbours.

The Bill contains provisions relating to arm’s length bodies such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which does important and valuable work. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State outlined what role she sees for it in future and shared her views on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.

On the electoral registration provisions, I add a note of caution. We need to get the balance right between ensuring that as many people as possible who are entitled to do so engage in our democratic process while protecting against the kind of electoral fraud that is an affront to that process.

In this Second Reading debate, the main point that I want to make to the Government is that they should reflect on whether anything more could be included in the Bill that would help to build peace, progress and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I am always glad, and often surprised, to learn how keen people in Northern Ireland are for us to visit to hear their stories and share in some of their experiences. Nowhere has this been more evident than in engaging with victims and survivors. It is always an incredibly humbling and emotional experience to speak with those who have lost loved ones. The heartbreaking stories that I have heard have moved and affected me greatly, as I am sure they have many others.

I have met dozens of victims and survivors, some with organisations, some individually, right across Northern Ireland. Some months ago I spent time with a woman whose two brothers had joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary together on the same day—a very proud one for her family. One of them was killed in a car bomb just a few months later, and just as she was beginning to recover from that, the other was killed in a mortar attack on a police station, 15 years after his brother. It devastated her and her family. I also met the mother of a young girl aged 12 who died in her father’s arms just yards from her home after being shot by a soldier. There was no explanation of or justification for either of those events.

These are very difficult and painful things to speak about, but we have had many difficult and painful conversations in Northern Ireland, and we need to have this one. Is there nothing we can propose in the Bill that would help this process and take it forward? The Government say that there is no consensus on the way forward and therefore no possibility of agreement. In essence, that it is to do with them. I fundamentally disagree, as Members will know. Dealing with the past—the legacy of the troubles—is expressly a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. It cannot act alone, of course, and I have consistently said that we need a comprehensive and inclusive process with victims and survivors at the centre. The last time we debated Northern Ireland on the Floor of the House, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked me what I meant by that. I repeat today that the Government, in partnership with the Irish Government, have a duty to lead, but not to prescribe. They must create a vehicle through which these issues can be discussed and resolved. Of course, that will take time and it will not be easy, but the prize will be worth it. Victims and survivors are not afraid to talk about the past; the Governments should not be either.

Just last week, I went to St Ethelburga’s church, which was blown up by the IRA in the Bishopsgate bombing in 1993, where I saw the Theatre of Witness production, “From the Rubble”. It was an incredibly powerful performance that bore witness to the wounds of the past, which are still visible to many in Northern Ireland. The performers were not acting, but telling their own real stories. One said that we need to have an eye on the future, as well as an eye on the past. We cannot ignore the past, but we must not be trapped by it either.

That is why I am saddened that the Government cannot find a way in the Bill to allow the issues of the past to be discussed and addressed, so that consensus may emerge. The legacy of the past has to be dealt with and the Government must consider the impact that it has on the victims, the survivors and everyone in Northern Ireland.

[Mr. Donaldson]

I thank the Opposition spokesman for his moving words, for his genuine concern for the victims of the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland and for the time he has taken to meet many of the victims. He speaks of the British and Irish Governments taking the lead. Does he accept that it is not just a matter of taking the lead? We have heard a lot from our Government by way of apology and inquiry, but precious little from the Irish Government, despite the evidence that Irish Ministers were involved in arming the IRA at the beginning of the troubles and the growing evidence of collusion between Irish state forces and paramilitary organisations. If the Irish Government are to take a lead, they need to accept that they too have a responsibility to acknowledge the wrongdoing of the past.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about me. I appreciate them when we are discussing such a sensitive matter. I say to him that everyone needs to be involved in the process of coming to an understanding of what happened and of how we can move forward.

Westminster still matters to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland must matter to Westminster. The Bill gives the House of Commons the chance to demonstrate that through our deliberations. The UK Government should work ever closer with the devolved Administration to do the best that they can for Northern Ireland and its people. The key message from the peace process that we should share with the world is that an end to conflict is only the start of the peace. Along with the Irish Government, and with the support of the European Union and the United States Administration, we must continue to provide support and encouragement as Northern Ireland continues to move forward. That is our responsibility, that is our role and that is how we will build peace, progress and prosperity in every community in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I welcome the fact that, through this Bill, the House is paying some attention to Northern Ireland today, but we should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security that everything in the garden is rosy and just a few tweaks here and there will make everything perfect. Attention to Northern Ireland from this House is needed. I believe it was the shadow Secretary of State who said that devolution cannot mean disengagement, but there has been some degree of disengagement.

Although I will comment on the Bill, I feel there is a need, before I do so, to set it in context. The context is that, yes, progress has been made—I agree with others on that—but there is a lot more to do. The Bill is concerned with some details of the interior decoration of a structure whose purpose and future are still being debated. Fifteen years ago, we had the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, and legislation followed in this House to put much of that agenda into law. This country—indeed, the world—thought that we had achieved the impossible and that lasting peace was copper-fastened. Sadly, that is not quite true.

It was wonderful to have an end to the violence and to hear almost all the guns and almost all the bombs fall silent. Hope gushed eternal from the people who had been oppressed, smothered, injured and damaged by violence, and they dared to dream of a life and a future, but an end to violence was not peace in any meaningful sense. Really, it was just what it said on the tin: it was an end to violence. Peace does not happen; it has to be built, and when it has been built, it has to be sustained, and it can be sustained only by people’s hope for a better life and a better future. There is no doubt in my mind that in 1998 the people of Ireland, north and south, were voting not just for peace, but for a better life that the peace would make possible.

We need our people to make a long-term personal investment in that peace, and we must show them what return they will get on that personal investment. In other words, the peace process can be sustained only if it is followed up by a prosperity process. Unfortunately, the financial boost required to pump-prime a prosperity process has never quite been delivered. We have heard much talk about rebalancing our economy towards wealth creation and away from over-reliance on public spending, but we have seen little action other than cuts in welfare. We have had a great debate about cutting corporation tax to put us on a level playing field with the rest of the island of Ireland to attract serious foreign investment, but the Treasury did not want a cut and priced it right out of the ballpark. The economy in Northern Ireland is fragile and the private sector small and extremely fragile. To date, too few of our people have seen any prosperity or, indeed, any economic benefit arrive on the back of the peace process. That is unfortunate, because they were entitled to some economic advance.

As a result, many people—those on the economic margins of our society—are looking backward, not forward, whether they be former provos peddling themselves as dissidents, or loyalist paramilitaries creating havoc under the guise of a flag protest. Incidentally, that protest wiped out most of our Christmas and hospitality season and left many of our hotels, restaurants and retailers bankrupt. Whatever the source or the excuse for disruption, Northern Ireland has quite a way to go before we can say that we have true peace. I am anxious that the Bill should not be taken as some sort of a final touch on the whole process. We will not have true peace until we have attended to all the factors that undermine peace, including economic factors, and we will not have it unless the sovereign Government recognise the responsibilities they undertook back in 1998. Devolution has been used by Government as an excuse for walking away. I repeat what the shadow Secretary of State said: devolution should not be an excuse for disengagement.

It needs to be remembered that devolution in Northern Ireland is based on an international agreement between two sovereign Governments from which neither can walk away. The British Government have an obligation to see the Good Friday agreement through to completion. Unfortunately, it is still not complete. There is an obligation to act, in co-operation with the Irish Government, to ensure that devolution is not an excuse for stagnation. I regret to tell the House that, in terms of the special objectives, devolution in Northern Ireland has stalled to some extent. The two main parties have pushed the other three parties, including mine, to the margins—they have pushed us aside and are carving up the cake in their own self-interest, rather than the public interest. The Prime Minister and this Government cannot turn a blind eye any longer: they must recognise that the two-party stranglehold within a structure that was designed to be inclusive is now preventing that structure from achieving its objectives.

After 15 years, where is the progress on reconciliation and where is there any reference to reconciliation in the Bill? Where is the progress on cohesion, sharing and integration, or any reference to them? Where is there any progress on the victims’ situation, or on dealing with the past or with divisions? I am distressed and concerned that the Bill is silent on those matters. I would prefer that we were here today to discuss how progress on those issues could be advanced and included in a Bill.

[Mr Donaldson]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House how he feels it is a contribution to reconciliation for his party’s councillors to support the naming of a children’s play park after a convicted, dead IRA terrorist, who was caught in possession of the weapon involved in the murder of 10 innocent Protestants at Kingsmill in south Armagh?

[Dr McDonnell]

The issue the right hon. Gentleman refers to is not relevant to this Bill. It is quite simply an example of the DUP—

[Dr McDonnell]

Yes. The DUP are bigots and sectarian and they want to drive a wedge through our society.

[Mr Donaldson]

Mr Deputy Speaker!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

“Bigots” is a very strong word. I am sure that hon. Members never judge each other like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, we have been dealing with the review of public administration in the period of various Ministers, including at least three from the DUP when the RPA was being discussed.

[Mr Donaldson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ritchie]

I have not finished this point and I wish to do so, if the right hon. Gentleman will let me. Obviously, there would be concerns, but I also know that it was the DUP and Sinn Fein that insisted that these arrangements for new councils be pushed ahead with—I know that from my colleague the Minister of the Environment.

[Mr Donaldson]

Of course, this is not without precedent because the Northern Ireland Assembly was elected in 1998 on a four-year mandate by the people but that was extended to 2003 with the full support and connivance of the very party that now protests against the very thing that it and the UUP supported back in 1998 to 2003. So it may be that the answer to the mystery is a bit closer to home.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think that there have been some memory losses here. [Hon. Members: “Oh no.”] Oh yes, because I can well recall, as can my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and for Foyle—the latter was Minister for Finance and Personnel and subsequently Deputy First Minister—the considerable periods of suspension, when the people of Northern Ireland suffered dreadfully as the DUP sat outside the Executive and did not participate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am warming to this idea of using shorthand for parliamentary constituencies. Perhaps in future I will refer to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) as the Member for a river in Londonderry, and perhaps the SDLP will think again—

[Mark Durkan]

That’s not shorthand—it’s longer.

[Mr Donaldson]

It might be longer, but, considering the length of the hon. Gentleman’s speech—[Interruption.] Length seems to be very important indeed.

I want to deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) about extending the term of the Assembly. This year is the year of culture in Londonderry and I think the SDLP should consider entering some of the competitions, particularly storytelling. The hon. Lady would tell a very good mystery story indeed.

Let us deal with political history and reality. The principle that the hon. Lady seeks to express is that when the public vote for an elected body for a fixed term, if we seek to alter that term we should go back to the people before we do so. In the stakes of political U-turns, political changes of mind and the irony of taking up a position one day and then advocating the opposite, the SDLP must take first prize.

The Assembly elected in 1998, after the Belfast agreement, was elected for a four-year term. I accept that there were periods when the Executive did not function, but Assembly Members continued to be paid and to hold office throughout that period. There was no election until November 2003, I believe. Mathematics was not my strongest subject at school, but I know enough to say that November 2003 back to May or June 1998 is a lot more than four years. Did we hear the SDLP— the largest nationalist party at that time—say, “This is dreadful! We must go back to the people. We must have an election”?

[Mark Durkan]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I, as leader of the SDLP at the time, advocated that the election, if it was to take place, should take place at the due time, on the due date. The British Government of the day said, “No. We have negotiations going on with the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein. They need the summer to work at this and to move things on. They need more time.” I opposed moving the election day, and I imagine that John Reid, who was misquoted earlier, could confirm that that was the position I stated to him as Secretary of State.

[Mr Donaldson]

Just as, no doubt, the SDLP opposed the extension of local government terms that occurred in Northern Ireland. Let us not hear this drivel about how it is somehow undemocratic in principle to move the date of an election. When it suited the SDLP’s political purposes to have the term of the Assembly extended, the term of the Assembly was extended by fiat of the Northern Ireland Office—not even by coming to this House.

[Mr Dodds]

Given that these points were made so strongly by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), it is right that we get the facts right. As for local government, this is not ancient history. Only in the last mandate, the term of local government was extended from elections in 2009 to elections in 2011, so that instead of serving four years, councillors had six years. The SDLP did not object—[Interruption.] It did not object. In fact, it supported the move.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making precisely the point that I have been making: when it is politically advantageous for members of the SDLP to do something, principle does not come into it, but when they consider themselves potentially disadvantaged—I am not sure why they feel they in particular would be disadvantaged by this provision of the Bill—all of a sudden, they find a principle on which to take a stand. Well, we are not into revisionism. Madam Deputy Speaker, if you study the psychology of Northern Ireland, you will find that there are two different approaches to history: there is the revisionist approach, where you rewrite the facts to suit your argument, depending on where you are standing at the time; and then there is the approach that says that what is fact is fact, and it should be recorded as fact. On this issue—

[Mark Durkan]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donaldson]

I think I have given way enough. The SDLP is backpedalling furiously on this issue. SDLP Members know the reality: they have decided to make a point on the Bill tonight, but it is a bogus point—one on which their own record, when it is subjected to scrutiny, does not stand up for a moment.

Today, we have heard from the leader of the SDLP about the need to make progress towards reconciliation. On this point, we are agreed: we do need to make progress towards reconciliation; we do need to address the issues of the past. I too was struck by the comments made by young Hannah Nelson last week at the Waterfront hall. She said, yes, we have a past and we most certainly cannot forget what happened in the past. We must acknowledge the hurt and the pain suffered during those dark, dark years of the troubles, and the victims need to be acknowledged and recognised. But we also want to help to move Northern Ireland forward. I really do not think it is helpful when during efforts to move Northern Ireland forward and to get a discourse, a dialogue, going about how to deal with those matters, people resort to old insults such as, “All you lot are bigots.” That really does not engender the sort of political climate we need to make progress on reconciliation. What must the young people of south Belfast be thinking this evening, when their Member of Parliament stands up in the House and describes the leading party of one side of the community in Northern Ireland as a bunch of bigots? Is that conducive to the kind of reconciliation that the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) claims he wants to achieve?

What does not help reconciliation is having political parties that posture as being the moderate voice and, at the same time, take actions that can have only one effect, which is to cause hurt and pain on the other side of the political divide in Northern Ireland. That is why I challenged the hon. Gentleman on the point about reconciliation. It does not help when, in Newry and Mourne district council, councillors from his party support the renaming of a children’s play park in Newry after a dead IRA terrorist—and not just any dead IRA terrorist but a terrorist who was convicted of a number of offences, including possession of a weapon, which was used in the murder of 10 Protestants in Kingsmill in south Armagh.

One might think that a progressive party that claims to be a moderating voice and which wants to promote reconciliation might reflect for a moment on the fact that supporting the naming of a children’s play park after someone with such a record might be offensive to a section of our community, and might cause hurt to the families of those killed in the Kingsmill massacre. It might be a retrograde step for our wish to move Northern Ireland beyond the dark days that we witnessed in the past.

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly speaks passionately about the feelings in this instance of the relatives of those who were murdered in such a vicious, sectarian way at Kingsmill. I have been on the record, as have party colleagues, both publicly and privately, saying that we thought what our councillors did at that time was a mistake. I have subsequently been advised by those councillors that this was not the first naming of the park—it was named 10 years ago, and the vote was simply to confirm the original decision. When the decision was first made, no objections were made by any Unionist councillor present, and the vote that my party colleagues supported was also a vote for a procedure that would ensure that it could not happen in future—nothing could be named in such a way again. I fully accept his criticism, but I urge him to look at the wider facts, and in saying so, I do not detract in any way from the important point that he has made in relation to the relatives of the Kingsmill massacre.

[Mr Donaldson]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We have gone a little wide of the Bill in the exchanges that have just occurred, but I think that this matter has been well aired on the Floor of the House. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman returned to the specific provisions in the Bill.

[Mr Donaldson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We welcome most of the Bill’s provisions. However, we will want to table a number of amendments in Committee. The past few years have been difficult and challenging. As the Secretary of State said—and she was echoed by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—the Bill, and the manner of the Bill, represents a mark of progress. We are beginning to deal with issues that one might describe as reasonably normal. Nevertheless, there is a legacy that we still need to address. I am not sure that the Bill is the right vehicle for taking the initiative, but there is a need to address elements of the legacy.

Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have not always regarded elements of the peace process as something we could fully embrace. It has been difficult—I accept that it has been difficult for both sides in Northern Ireland—and challenging. Elements of the peace process have caused people a lot of pain and hurt, not least the early release of prisoners, and so on.

However, there is one aspect that goes to the heart of the sense of injustice felt by many victims in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community. I am disappointed that the Bill has not yet provided us with an opportunity to address this and I think it ought to do so. That relates to the definition of a victim. In Northern Ireland at present—this is hard to believe, but it is true—a victim of the conflict, if I may use that term, is defined as anyone, no matter who or what they were, who lost their life in the course of the troubles.

Let us consider that for a moment. It includes, in effect, the people who pulled the trigger, who wore the balaclavas, who were members of illegal organisations, who planted the bombs and who skulked in the shadows if they lost their lives, sometimes through their own actions—killed by their own bomb, as in the case, for example, of Thomas Begley in the Shankill bombing in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Thomas Begley blew himself up with his own bomb and murdered nine—I think it was—innocent people that day on the Shankill. Thomas Begley, under the definition of a victim, is as much a victim as the innocent men, women and children whom he killed that day on the Shankill road.

Equally, the definition covers the attack that occurred in Loughinisland in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down, where six people were killed in a public bar while watching a World cup football game. They were killed by loyalist paramilitaries. The irony is that every one of those six victims is equated with the people who committed the murders. If, for example, one of the loyalist group that killed those six men subsequently lost his or her life, they would be regarded as a victim.

I cannot come to terms with that. I cannot believe that in dealing with the past—and we must address the legacy issues—we can continue to go forward with a definition that says, “If you were a child walking down the street or going into a fish shop on the Shankill road with your mother on a Saturday afternoon and your life was cruelly cut down, you are the same as the person who, that morning, planned the attack, primed and transported the bomb to the scene and then detonated the bomb.” I cannot accept ever that it is right to equate the bomber with the innocent civilian, no matter who or what side the victims came from.

[Naomi Long]

The current definition of a victim is a very sensitive issue and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is something that we need to discuss, but I take issue with what he suggests. The definition of a victim ensures that the needs of everyone who is a victim—for example, the mother of the bomber, who may have suffered real pain and grief, in the same way as the husband of an innocent person who was blown up—are addressed in the same way. What it does not do and what it should not do is create moral equivalence between the two people. We have to be careful how we treat individuals who have suffered, but accept that the definition does not create a moral equivalence, because it should not and it does not.

[Mr Donaldson]

The problem is that it creates a legal equivalence. That is the difficulty we have. When it comes to administering victims services—I was the victims Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive for a time—it creates a problem. When I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly I introduced a private Member’s Bill to change the definition of a victim, and I hear the point that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is making but, for me, the person who was engaged in a terrorist act when he or she lost their life ought not to be legally equated, even if in our minds they are not morally equated, with their innocent victims. I believe that is a matter for Parliament to address, which is why in considering the Bill we will want to explore it further with the Government. I am not convinced that there will be the circumstances in which we can get a political consensus in Northern Ireland on the definition of a victim, simply because of the nature of the parties we are dealing with.

The hon. Member for Belfast East talked about moral equivalence. I believe that Parliament has a moral responsibility to examine this issue, for the victims back home in Northern Ireland and indeed the victims here. I have talked with victims of bombings in Belfast and met victims’ groups here in London. I have met people who lost loved ones or were badly injured, for example in the Canary Wharf bomb, and they feel the same way. They do not believe that there should be this legal equivalence.

In conclusion, although we welcome many elements of the Bill, we believe that there are things that need to be addressed, and we look forward to raising those further in the course of our consideration of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

A huge amount of work is going on. Indeed, I was at Belfast docks recently observing the fabrication of new types of offshore wind farm technology. I should add, however—wearing my former Shipping Minister’s hat—that while of course we need offshore technology and connectivity, we must ensure that, as we introduce it throughout the United Kingdom, we protect our shipping lanes.

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

One of Northern Ireland’s attributes is its beautiful countryside and rural setting. As we pursue renewable energy sources, it is important for us not to end up with the blight of windmills throughout our countryside. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as he co-operates with our neighbours in the Republic.

[Mike Penning]

Absolutely. The Northern Ireland Executive are committed to protecting the environment and countryside, although they want 40% of Northern Ireland’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020.

Events in Northern Ireland

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that these violent protests are counter-productive and that those engaged in violence are undermining the cause they wish to support. It is important that decisions on flags are taken in an inclusive way with respect for different perspectives and points of view. Arguably, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, which is why I have been encouraging the leadership of the political parties to come together and engage in dialogue on the right solution for flags and symbols in Northern Ireland.

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

I am proud to be British and proud of our Union flag but the violence in Northern Ireland, whether from loyalists or dissident republicans, grieves me greatly. We have been unequivocal in our condemnation of all such violence and of attacks or threats against elected representatives. Before Christmas, I, my wife and my children were threatened with being shot because of the stand that I take in Northern Ireland. This House will stand with all Members from Northern Ireland who continue to uphold the standards and principles of democracy.

I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain): we need more than condemnation. The Good Friday agreement and the St Andrews agreement were about developing consensus politics in Northern Ireland. With respect, the decision of Belfast city council to remove the Union flag was not about consensus politics; in fact, it was a reversion to the very thing the nationalists say they detest—majority rule. We need to build a consensus, and Unionists must be included in such sensitive issues. If we exclude one community, we get not consensus but confrontation, which we need to move away from.

A shared future must include everyone—not just one side of the community, but both sides—and it must respect the identity and tradition of both sides. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to support Northern Ireland politicians, because I believe the Government have a role to play in that. Politics is the only answer. As the right hon. Member for Neath has said, we need to consider initiatives to tackle social deprivation in areas where there is a disconnect.

The DUP will provide leadership—the First Minister has stated that—but we need a level playing field. Right now, many people in Northern Ireland feel that the peace process has become skewed, and we need to correct that imbalance.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is a great regret and concern that the right hon. Gentleman and his family have been subjected to those threats and I pass on my sympathies to them. He is right that the way forward is to seek consensus, and one that respects the different identities present in modern Northern Ireland. I fully agree with him on the importance of the UK Government working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on initiatives to regenerate and provide the economic prosperity that is vital to underpin the peace settlement in Northern Ireland. That is particularly important in deprived communities across Northern Ireland. I am happy to continue the work I have been doing since being appointed on how we can boost the Northern Ireland economy and attract jobs and inward investment from around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeffrey M Donaldson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I strongly believe that the de Silva review will reveal the truth. It has been a very serious exercise. One reason the Prime Minister and my predecessor chose the review process, as opposed to a public inquiry, was the experience of public inquiries taking many years. It would not have been right to wait that long or for the family to have to wait another 12 years to get to the truth. The truth is what counts, and I am sure that the de Silva review will reveal it next week.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for her premature, but nevertheless welcome, birthday wishes.

The Secretary of State takes a great interest in the Finucane case, but will she cast her mind to the families of the 10 people murdered at Kingsmill in south Armagh, and will she note that one of the guns was found in possession of Raymond McCreesh, after whom a play park in Newry has now been named—shamefully—by the Social Democratic and Labour party and others? Will she cast her mind to those innocent victims who today are hurt by the decisions of Newry and Mourne district council, which frankly are a disgrace?

[Mrs Villiers]

It is important, both today in the House and next week when the de Silva review is published, to remember all the victims of the troubles. There were far too many despicable murders and tragedies, and the focus on individual cases should not blind us to the gravity of the suffering imposed on so many people across so many years. We will be emphasising that next week when we look at the Finucane case. [Interruption.]