General Election Television Debates

Debate between Jeffrey M Donaldson and Naomi Long

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I rise to support the motion, but I do so with some reservation, because although I come from a part of the UK where we are well accustomed to talks about talks, I suspect that with debates about debates there is a similar relationship between public interest in the debate and the amount of time we spend debating the debate—an inversely proportional one. The timing of this debate is particularly unfortunate, as it feels slightly self-indulgent for us to be debating who is able to debate the issues instead of using parliamentary time actually to debate some issues that matter to our constituents and which would make a difference. As Northern Ireland MPs, we get a relatively limited amount of time on the Floor of the House to be able to engage in those issues where Westminster has a direct impact on our constituencies. So it is unfortunate that we end up today in something that could be viewed by the public as slightly self-indulgent: a discussion about how parties will engage with each other in the run-up to elections.

[Mr Donaldson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Naomi Long]

I want to move on, because I have said my piece on that.

How do the public view this? They will be weary of the debate around it. However, I did rise to support the motion; although I am not sure this is the right time or place, on this occasion I am not disagreeing with the proposal made. I believe there is an inherent unfairness in the way this whole situation has been handled. I agree with the motion because it is not about individual political parties or the amount of air time they get in the run-up to the election; it is about allowing members of the public to engage with the issues and to hear what those people who may beyond this general election have an influence on the formation of a Government—that could be any of us who stand for election to this place—would do in terms of the kind of Government who would be subsequently formed. So it is important that every party is treated fairly and equally.

Previously, two rationales were given to us as to why Northern Ireland was not included in those debates. The first was about the threshold at which parties “validly” could argue their position for being in those debates. The Liberal Democrats made a strong case on the last occasion, managing to find a way to be part of the debate, even though their prospects of providing a Prime Minister were very limited. That was the first point at which the normal rationale, about the parties that would provide a Prime Minister, started to break down.

We then moved beyond that to a basis of opinion polls and of elections of a different kind, whereby UKIP should also be included because of its performance. Previously, however, elections of a similar kind had been used as the basis for making those judgments. So the comparison between a European election, where UKIP’s policies perhaps have a particular resonance, and a general election, where wider policy may play a greater role in people making their decisions, would not have been taken into account in the same way. The inclusion of UKIP in the debate suddenly gave us another crack in the façade of the rationale as to why people were or were not included in the debate.

We moved on from that to discussing the political challenge around the debates, then demanding that the Green party ought to be included because it also ran in a national way across all of Great Britain. Of course that relates to the second logical reason for the exclusion of the Northern Ireland parties, and indeed the Scottish and Welsh parties: they did not run candidates in every part of the UK.

[Mr Donaldson]

It may have been a slip, but I am sure the hon. Lady did not mean to say that when we talk on a national basis, we talk about Great Britain—the nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long]

I think my views on that are well known. I did make the point that the Greens ran in all parts of the UK, so when I refer to the UK, that is what I am referring to.

The logical reason being given was that our Northern Ireland parties did not run candidates throughout the UK—that was the second rationale for our being excluded. However, when we remove that second rationale, no argument can be made for why a party that has one Member elected to this House in this Parliament—the Green party—ought to be in those debates, yet other parties that have eight Members, three Members and one Member are excluded. There is no logic to that. There is no rationale, and that is because this is all being done on an ad-hoc basis.

I believe that the logical reason was always there; there was a clear and concise reason and rationale for how the debates were structured, one that was clearly understood by the public, and clearly understood and respected by the political parties. However, when that was abandoned in favour of a kind of populism and things were thrown open, we opened a Pandora’s box. Wherever the line is now drawn it will feel unfair and arbitrary to some party in Parliament. Plaid Cymru could be included in the debate but the Social Democratic and Labour party excluded. Why would that be the case? It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

The problem is that, having opened Pandora’s box, no one seems clear about how to close it again. Let me make it clear that I am not standing here to make a pitch to be included in the national debate, or for the SDLP, the DUP, Plaid Cymru, or the SNP to be included in the debate. I say that not because I want to see any of our parties excluded, but because if the purpose of these debates is to engage the public and to make them interested in what the next Government and the leadership—particularly the Prime Minister—might look like, we will end up with a panel that is so large and unwieldy that any real debate, exchange of ideas, or engagement will be absolutely stifled.

What we need to do is return to a situation in which the panel size is reasonable and in which the rationale is clear, legal and justifiable. Given the mess, the time scale, and the challenges that could hold serious sway if they were taken up by a number of parties, my fear is that we will end up risking the situation. I say that not because of the debate we are having about the debate, but because of the unwieldiness of any subsequent panel. The number of people on the panel could outstrip the number of people who actually want to watch the debate. The biggest crime of all would be to disengage the public further. We need to stop debating the debate and to get a clear rationale, which must be fair and apply to all parts of the UK and not disadvantage those whom we represent.

Military Covenant

Debate between Jeffrey M Donaldson and Naomi Long

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is personally aware through her work of the many people who require such support. She paid tribute to my friend and fellow constituency representative, the former Minister of Health, Mr Edwin Poots. I will refer later to some of the provisions that he put in place.

First, let me refer to the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, whose Chairman I am delighted to see in his place this afternoon. The Committee undertook an inquiry into the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that its conclusion stated:

“There are a number of cases where the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland does not receive the same level of benefits in relation to health, housing and education as that community in Great Britain.”

There are deficiencies that need to be addressed.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

One other conclusion that we reached flies in the face of the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about section 75. We concluded not that the equality framework had created a barrier to the implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland, but that the problem was the awareness of Departments, so the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland has undertaken to better inform them.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. As I alluded to earlier, the perception often does not match the reality. I take her point, and I come to section 75 now.

I had a number of cases of veterans who required health care support, on which I was in correspondence with the former Minister for Health, Mr Edwin Poots. He pointed out in a letter to me that there were constraints within his Department on providing adequate support for the veterans’ community, although he did establish an armed forces liaison forum, which was linked to the armed forces protocol. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pointed out, some valuable work has been done by the Department of Health, under DUP ministerial control, to co-ordinate the health and social care response to the needs of service personnel and veterans in Northern Ireland.

On occasion, however, when officials are interpreting that policy and the protocol they are allowing the equality provisions to get in the way of providing the support that is required. The Equality Commission has a job to do in educating our civil service on what the armed forces covenant means as regards ensuring that veterans are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service. We are not looking for special privilege; that is the point. We want to ensure that they are not disadvantaged as there is some evidence to suggest that Departments are acting in a way that disadvantages members of the armed forces.

[Naomi Long]

Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that my colleague Stephen Farry has been doing on access to third level education for those leaving the armed services? That is also a very important part of people being able to access the employment market after they have left the armed forces and being able to participate fully in society.

[Mr Donaldson]

I am very happy to acknowledge that work and to commend Dr Farry for the work he has been doing to ensure that those leaving the forces have access to higher level education.

Indeed, I also want to mention the Department for Social Development, which has been undertaking work to ensure that the housing needs of veterans are met. There are still problems, however. I had two soldiers in my office last Friday who are in the transition phase and have encountered real problems in being rehoused under the Northern Ireland housing selection system. More work needs to be done in this regard to ensure that soldiers leaving service are not disadvantaged by having to join a waiting list when the situation might have been different had they been living ordinarily in their community. The two soldiers have been resident in Lisburn, in Thiepval barracks in my constituency, for some time. They have been living in the city, but when they joined the housing selection list they were treated almost as if they were newcomers. We need to look at that and to bring about some clarity.

That brings me to section 75 and the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). When what was then the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was making its way through this House, we tabled an amendment the effect of which would have been to add veterans of our armed forces to the list of categories of groups protected by section 75. That is important, because had our amendment been accepted it would have cleared up once and for all this misunderstanding about the status of veterans of the armed forces in the equality legislation. Section 75 covers everything from people of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation, people with disability and so on. We would like the veterans of our armed forces to be specified as a distinct group under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 so that it is absolutely clear to every Department that under that equality legislation they have an obligation—indeed, a statutory duty—to promote equality when carrying out their functions. All that means is that the armed forces and veterans are treated fairly and equally and that they are given a distinct status under the current legislation. We believe that that would bring the clarity required to the current law and end any ambiguity that there might be in the minds of civil servants. We urge the Government once again to consider this minor amendment to section 75, which does not alter in any way the statutory duty placed on Departments and authorities but ensures that veterans and the armed forces are properly treated when it comes to meeting their needs.

I mentioned the Royal Irish Regiment Aftercare Service and the continuity the service provides, and again we urge the Government to ensure that it is properly resourced in the future. The need is not diminishing. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that post-traumatic stress disorder, for example, only becomes apparent several years after a member of the armed forces has left service. To suggest that we cease the aftercare service for the former home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment would be a mistake. We need to continue that service to ensure that the thousands of soldiers who serve continuously in Northern Ireland on operational deployment 365 days of the year are properly looked after, not just now but in the future.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Jeffrey M Donaldson and Naomi Long

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- 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.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Jeffrey M Donaldson and Naomi Long

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Military Covenant

Debate between Jeffrey M Donaldson and Naomi Long

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House acknowledges the service and sacrifice of the United Kingdom’s armed forces and veterans and supports the full implementation of the military covenant in each region of the United Kingdom.

It is an honour to lead off in this debate on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House. At the outset, I want to pay tribute to all our service personnel from across the United Kingdom, and indeed from other countries, who serve in our armed forces. I also pay tribute to the veterans who have served this country with great distinction. In Northern Ireland, we hold our armed forces in very high esteem, and we have seen in recent years—during the time of the troubles—how the armed forces were on the front line, standing in the gap between the general public and those whose objective was to create mayhem and undermine the democratic process.

We have also seen our armed forces in action in recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. We understand the sacrifice that they make, and the sacrifices made by their families—by those left behind at home, the husbands, wives and children of members of our armed forces. That is important in the context of this debate, because the military covenant should not just be about the personnel who serve or have served: it includes their families.

Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I stood beside the war memorial in Lisburn in my constituency on 11 November as we honoured the dead of two world wars and of the conflicts that have occurred since the second world war. I watched as my constituent Ian Walker, his wife Rhoda and their sons, Kyle and Ross, laid a wreath in memory of Corporal Stephen Walker, who served with 40 Commando in Afghanistan and was killed in action in May 2010. Although Stephen had been living in Scotland with his family, he was from Lisburn and our community saluted his memory. We stood with Ian and his family as they remembered their dear loved one, and this was repeated in many places across the United Kingdom.

It was good to see that representatives of the Irish Government were present at some of the war memorials in Northern Ireland to mark the fact that many people from the Irish Republic served in the British Army during the great war in particular, which of course occurred before the Republic of Ireland left the United Kingdom. Indeed, some have served since then, and even today we have people from the Republic of Ireland in the modern British Army and the other services.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my hope that the leadership that has been shown by the Irish Government on remembrance may defuse some of the tensions in Northern Ireland around the implementation of the military covenant, which is still—sadly—a politicised issue?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point and I will come on to that subject in the course of my remarks.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Jeffrey M Donaldson and Naomi Long

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Lady will be aware that people who were born in the Republic of Ireland but who reside in Northern Ireland are eligible to vote in local and Assembly elections, but not in national parliamentary elections or a referendum. The same applies, of course, to migrant workers who come to Northern Ireland. Is that not a recipe for confusion on the day?

[Naomi Long]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, because all the evidence suggests that that is exactly the case. When we have had national and local elections on the same day, it has caused confusion about who could vote in which election. It has also caused distress when people have turned up expecting to be able to cast their vote but have found themselves unable to do so because they were not a qualified elector in that particular election. I agree with him entirely that that is an unnecessary confusion to visit on the staff who administer the elections and those who turn out to vote.

I also want to raise the issue of campaign material, and I speak as someone who has experience of elections being held on the same day. I have listened very carefully to the representations made by Royal Mail about the complexities of delivering all the campaign material. If we have not just two local elections but a referendum on the same day, the need to deliver all the relevant election material to all the relevant people will place the people at Royal Mail under particular stress. The election material will be less likely to assist voters with their choice than to simply bury them under a deluge of information. I suspect that voters will not engage as fully with any of the elections, given the amount of material that they will receive daily for all three elections.