Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It has been a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). They made very thoughtful contributions, and I appreciate being able to listen to them.

I entirely appreciate, from my own family experience, the challenges as to why there had to be anonymity in Northern Ireland for so many years. I entirely support that, for the reasons that others have mentioned. I have a great deal of sympathy for amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Belfast East, which refers to a £7,500 threshold and has a provision giving people 18 months or so to make whatever substantial donations they make. A lot of thought has gone into the amendment, and in many respects I instinctively understand and appreciate it. The right hon. Member for Belfast North argued for allowing the Secretary of State to have flexibility up until October, because, sadly, the reality in Northern Ireland is that even though there have been enormous advances, things can change on a sixpence. The arguments are therefore very finely tuned.

A key part of normalisation is to make everything as equitable as possible between Northern Ireland and the UK. I fully understand the reasons for the length of time that the process has been given. I think that we are being very sensible in drawing to a close on this. If the Government cannot accept amendment 2, will the Minister categorically assure me that come October 2014 they would be absolutely cognisant of the fact that if another inappropriate excuse for a delay were implemented, it would be a very sad day for this House and for Northern Ireland? I suppose that some eagle-eyed observers will recognise that I am struggling slightly with this and reading between the lines. I would welcome our having equalisation come October 2014. That transparency is vital, and it is the next and final stage. I urge the Minister to make it very clear that while we retain the discretion up until 2014, our default position is to move towards normalisation expeditiously.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On amendments 7 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), I sympathise with the argument that if we stick unquestioningly to the date of October 2014 there is a danger that the same excuse will be given that the security situation does not permit us to move to more transparent arrangements. It is as if the date has been picked almost as a gesture to pseudo-transparency and the hon. Lady is testing that by proposing that it be brought forward. I sympathise with that, but January 2014 would be cutting it a bit fine, given that I assume the Bill will only get to the Lords this autumn.

I believe, however, that there is a case for bringing the date forward from October 2014. Bills are often enacted at the beginning of the financial year and I see no reason why that should not also be the case with this Bill. Members might point out that there are elections due next year, but I would have thought that a starting date of the beginning of the financial year would adequately and competently address the problem. I certainly do not think that the starting date should be after next year’s two intended elections, because that would make it look as though we were legislating with them in mind and almost allowing last orders for donations.

If January were the only date available before October, I would support amendments 7 and 8. I ask the Minister to consider bringing the date forward, because it looks as though the date of October has been set with next year’s elections in mind. Many people are also concerned that, come October, the can will be kicked down the road yet again.

Amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the hon. Member for Belfast East, seeks to ensure that the real commencement date for transparency is made absolutely clear and unambiguous. We heard on Second Reading, and the Minister has told us in an intervention today, that there is no intention retrospectively to reveal donations, even those made in recent years. A signal has to be sent, however, that there will be a date from which a record of all donations can be revealed when the circumstances allow it. That needs to be made clear and explicit. That is what amendment 2 calls for and I support it, because I do not think the public believe political parties when we tell them that transparency, definition and certainty are not possible and that we cannot give them an unambiguous commencement date for transparency. Amendment 2 goes someway to addressing that deficit in public credence.

As I indicated on Second Reading, I am sensitive to the many risks and threats that people may have experienced because of their involvement in Northern Ireland politics, whether as a candidate, the family member of a candidate, an activist, a member or a donor. However, there comes a point when the public feel that the arguments about security are overdone and are an excuse for secrecy. They are not sure whether secrecy is in the interests of the parties or whether it truly ensures the safety of the donors.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Vernon Coaker]

On increasing transparency, does my hon. Friend think that the confidence of people in Northern Ireland would be increased if there was a statutory duty in the Bill to consult with the PSNI before arrangements were changed?

[Mark Durkan]

That could well be a pertinent point; the shadow Secretary of State makes a very good point. When it comes to security concerns, in many other instances, we treat the Chief Constable almost as an oracle. No doubt, the Minister will tell us that in any decision that he and the Secretary of State take, they reference information from the Chief Constable and other intelligence assessments, but it would be useful if that was in the Bill. Similarly, there is the role of the Electoral Commission; we know of its support for the amendments.

Amendment 6 would remove the right of anybody resident in the south of Ireland to make a donation to a party operating in the north of Ireland. I addressed this issue on Second Reading. I represent a border constituency in a regional city that serves both sides of the border in the north-west and which has strong links with neighbouring towns and areas. As such, the economic interest of the north-west is of cross-border economic interest. The same goes for the social fabric of the north-west: most families have a strong cross-border dimension, with many people living and working on a cross-border basis. Many people who work in the north live in the south, and vice versa, which is reflected in complicated—more so than they should be—arrangements for cross-border workers in respect of tax credits and other things.

When such cross-border life is part of the come-and-go flow of life, it extends to politics as well, because people have a strong interest in what happens in the region and want to offer political support, particularly if they are living temporarily in the south, but are from the north originally and might live there again or if they live in the south and have strong business interests in the north. It is natural. They do not regard themselves as being abroad when working or living in Donegal or Derry. They do not regard themselves as engaging in daily international travel.

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

The Member is coming very, very close to asking Donegal to return to the United Kingdom.

[Mark Durkan]

No, I’m not. Donegal is well placed where it is, so close to Derry, and Derry is well placed and well favoured where it is, so close to the bounteous beauty of County Donegal.

At a wider level, there are parties in Northern Ireland that see us as being part of the body politic of the island as a whole—it is our natural body politic, just as the population of the UK as a whole is the natural body politic for those of a Unionist identity in Northern Ireland. The idea, therefore, that when it come to our politics—our political agenda, our political offer, our appeal for support—our natural broader political hinterland, our natural political family, should be precluded from giving political donations to us would be wrong and unequal. It would be absolutely wrong if Unionist parties were able to receive donations the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including the whole of the island of Great Britain, to which they have such affinity, but nationalist parties in Northern Ireland could not receive contributions from people throughout the island of Ireland who want to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

Just to clarify, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not referring to my party’s website, where such information is easily found? I understand who he is alluding to, but it is not us.

[Mark Durkan]

I assure the hon. Lady and her party colleagues that I certainly did not want any stray fire to land on their reputation in that regard, so I am glad to affirm that point.

However, our opposition to amendment 6 is about putting things on a level playing field for all the parties in Northern Ireland, whether nationalist, Unionist or neither. As political realignment hopefully takes shape over the years to come, there will be all sorts of shifts in how parties present themselves, on either an all-Ireland or a wider-UK basis, and how far their nationalism or Unionism is emphasised. That is why donations should be available for parties from throughout the UK and from throughout the island of Ireland. That seems to me to be fair.

[Mr Dodds]

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about both the donor and the recipient making a declaration. Currently, the rules mean that individuals or companies in the Irish Republic can provide funding to Northern Ireland parties, but that is not permissible when it comes to funding for parties in the Irish Republic, so the position is even worse. How does he think his suggestion can combat that problem?

[Mark Durkan]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a point that throws up the conundrum that, although we are trying to legislate for Northern Ireland in broad conformity with UK legislation as it is applied for parties here, because of the circumstances in Northern Ireland, the exception is to allow donations from the south. Then there is the discrepancy in the donations rules for people in the south, whereby they can donate under one set of rules to parties in the south and under another set to parties in the north. Perhaps there is a case for saying that we should try to arrive at some conformity on donations across the island of Ireland, or that donations from the south of Ireland should conform to the southern Irish rules as well. I do not have a problem with trying to finesse some of these issues so that we are not left with too many obvious conundrums. However, the answer to the question that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has asked is not provided by amendment 6. It is not the answer to his very valid, pertinent and relevant question about the different standards for people from the south contributing donations.

I made the point on Second Reading that there were many people in the south who were originally from the north, or perhaps from this island, who had a valid and benevolent interest in the affairs of the north and who continued to make a contribution there, often through membership of public bodies. I also made the point that not all of them had been appointed to such bodies by nationalist Ministers. If such people are seen to have a valid role and to make a credible input in the best interests of Northern Ireland by way of a public appointment, I do not see why they should be precluded from doing so by way of donations to political parties.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

It is a pleasure to follow all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so far. I intend to make only a brief contribution to the debate, as many of the points have already been raised. I note that amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), uses the word “may”, rather than “shall”, which is in keeping with the rest of the clause that he is seeking to amend. The Select Committee feels that we should move forward in this respect, and that we should try to normalise politics in Northern Ireland. I know that that was the ambition of the previous Secretary of State and the previous Minister, and it is fair to say that it is also the ambition of the current holders of those positions. It has been our guiding principle. Each and every political party that the Committee spoke to during the course of the inquiry approved of moving towards greater transparency.

Everyone on the Committee, myself included, recognises that there is a different security situation in Northern Ireland. The Committee has had a sufficient number of meetings, and paid a sufficient number of visits to Northern Ireland, to understand that fact. Further to my earlier intervention on the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), a question that has frequently been asked is: why should the arrangements be different for donors and for those who participate in the elections? The right hon. Gentleman gave an explanation for why people might want to be donors but not candidates, and I understand that, but I am still not clear why a donor should be at greater risk or under a greater threat than someone who is standing for office for a political party. I would have thought that it was the other way round. People who support a candidate, largely by signing nomination papers, would surely expose themselves to the same risk.

It has been pointed out that if a business makes a donation, it could put them at a commercial disadvantage, but it is up to the business to make that decision. There is a Co-operative store close to my office in Tewkesbury. The Co-op has supported the Labour party for many years, and I have to make the decision whether to go and buy a carton of milk and a newspaper from that shop. It happens to be close to my office and very convenient, so I do that. I do not think that businesses should be able to hide behind the argument of a security risk in order to protect their business interests. If they make a donation to a particular party in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in Great Britain, they should take that commercial risk. That should be part of the normal run of politics.

I am somewhat intrigued by the substantive clause inasmuch as it allows the Secretary of State to increase transparency, but does not allow her to reduce it. Having looked very closely at the provisions, I am still slightly confused on this point. If the Secretary of State increases transparency, can she reduce it at some later date? In other words, she cannot reduce transparency from where it stands now, but can she reduce it if she has increased it in the future?

I make that point because if she cannot reduce it, where have we got to? What would be the difference from what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley proposes? Let us say that the Secretary of State increases transparency, but in the year after that, the security situation—heaven forbid—got worse, so that she had to come back to introduce primary legislation to change that position. In those circumstances, I do not really see what would be any different from my hon. Friend’s proposal.

The Select Committee and I would certainly be against the publication of any information retrospectively when donors have made donations in the belief that that would not be the case. I am slightly concerned about the wording in clause 1, however, which it states:

“Such information may be disclosed if the Commission believe, on reasonable grounds, that…the relevant person has consented”.

We tried to strengthen that provision, saying that there had to be evidence that the person had consented. The Government response was that if they adopted our proposal, it would create an absolute offence and a mistake could be made. I am not completely persuaded by that argument. I think that the clause does need strengthening to ensure that a mistake cannot be made in this respect and that there has to be a clear indication from the person or organisation that made the donation that permission has been given for any such disclosure. I thus seek clarification from the Minister on those points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the events of recent days mean that the concerns that lie behind her amendments are clear and present concerns of the public, and are felt profoundly? It is a bit much for the Minister or anybody else to conduct this debate as though those concerns were not there.

[Naomi Long]

I agree entirely. There is a serious risk if people no longer trust their politicians and no longer trust their institutions to act in the public interest. The only way we can overcome that is by clearing the matter up. No party can easily defend itself while this information remains secret. I am willing to accept the Secretary of State maintaining the discretion as to when the information will be published, but I see no risk to anyone from a decision being made now that makes donors and parties aware that anything donated after January will be made public, when the Minister of State and the Secretary of State are convinced that it is safe to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The intention of amendment 20, which appears in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), is to achieve exactly the same effect as that outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) in respect of her amendments. The Clerks said that amendment 20 would be the best way to achieve the principle of one Member, one Chamber. However, I am open to supporting the other versions that would get us to the same point, namely the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East. I also note the extension of that principle in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), which refers to the European Parliament.

Oddly, the provisions on Members of Oireachtas Eireann being Members of the Assembly date back to a situation involving a prominent and senior member of my party, Seamus Mallon, who was deputy leader of the SDLP. In the 1980s, his membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly was challenged on the basis that he was also a Member of Seanad Eireann. Of course, when my party stood in the election to the Assembly in 1982, we made it clear that we would not take our seats and would not sign on for salaries, allowances or anything else. It is therefore not comparable to Members of Sinn Fein not taking their seats here, but taking allowances. When Seamus Mallon was subsequently appointed to the Seanad, a member of the Ulster Unionist party saw fit to make a legal challenge to force a by-election so that a Unionist could take the seat in an Assembly that had no real powers.

On the back of that controversy, Sinn Fein made the case in the early years of the peace process for a gratuitous piece of legislation that was put through this House, which provided that Members of either House of the Oireachtas could be MPs and/or Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Sinn Fein was the only party that sought that piece of legislation. That was because, in building the party and selling itself to its supporters, it wanted to use its heavy hitters as abstentionist MPs and as candidates for the Dail. It was entirely a confection to support Sinn Fein’s ambitions and pretentions in building the party and the movement. This House was convinced to legislate on that basis. Of course, Sinn Fein has not activated the change it sought, and rightly so. Whenever its more prominent elected representatives in the north decided to seek election in the south, they did so on the basis of giving up their seats in the north. They too seemed to accept the standard of one Member, one Chamber. We should therefore ensure that when there is an opportunity to legislate, we should take it.

The Government were right to move on the dual mandate between Westminster and the Assembly, not least because they had served notice that if the parties did not move to rectify the situation, they would move to legislate. They have done that and I support them. As I indicated on Second Reading, I took my own decision on the dual mandate and it is right that legislation sets a clear, common standard.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how that view sits with his party leader, the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), who sits both here and in the Assembly?

[Mark Durkan]

That is permitted under the legislation. In my view, legislation should clearly not allow that; a party leader should not be under pressure to say that, because they are in one and can be in the other, they should sit in both because the law allows it. There is pressure on people because being able to sit in both helps to protect a second Assembly seat in the constituency, but such tactical considerations should not enter into it. The best way to spare everybody from those sorts of considerations is to have one clear, uniform standard in law.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman’s party has Members who sit in both the Assembly and this Chamber. Indeed, they have one Member who sits in Westminster and the Assembly while serving as a Minister in the Executive. I have always argued—when I was a Minister and subsequently —that any Minister should solely be a Member of one Chamber and be fully accountable to that Chamber. I have consistently argued that one should not be a Minister in one Chamber and a Member of another.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks about consistency. Is it not a fact that when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly he was also a Member at Westminster?

[Mark Durkan]

No, that is not a fact. When I was a Minister in Northern Ireland I was not an MP. I became a suspended Minister—I was a suspendee, not a suspender —in October 2002, and I was not elected to this House until 2005. I subsequently made appointments when I was a Member of this House; I was the leader of my party and had the power to appoint Ministers. I made it very clear well in advance that I could not appoint myself as a Minister, no matter how many seats we had won and how many Ministers we might have had to appoint in the Assembly. I was an MP and could not be a Minister. That was our party rule, and the party standard has been consistent. Similarly, when my hon. Friend the Member for South Down, who was a very able Minister for Social Development in the Executive, was elected to this House, she resigned as a Minister. That was consistent with that principle: we have consistency and form on this issue.

Regardless of what justification Members or parties might be able to give for having coped with the dual mandate in the past, circumstances are different now. We have an absolutely settled process. It is important to give the public the confidence that we believe it is a settled process by moving on dual mandates. That would indicate that we do not believe that there is any uncertainty surrounding the institutions which might give an excuse for having a foot in two Chambers.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention, but may I run one suggestion past him? I have never had a dual mandate and I do not particularly favour them. However, in the context of a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland that is sustainable and will continue, is there not an argument to be made for the Finance Minister in that devolved Administration to be present in this House, particularly for the Budget, financial statements and the comprehensive spending review, so that he or she can address the key issues across the Dispatch Box to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that day and on those issues?

[Mark Durkan]

No, having been Minister for Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, I do not believe there is such a compelling reason. I would have regarded it as a distraction from my full-time day job if I had been operating in another Chamber as well. The limited opportunities we have here to ask questions on a statement or the Budget do not compare to the effective opportunities a Minister and his or her officials have via the other channels to the Treasury, such as joint ministerial committees that exist for engagement between Governments. Those are adequate for Scotland and Wales, so I do not think we should create an exception in Northern Ireland if someone happens to be the Minister for Finance and Personnel.

[Jim Shannon]

What about your party leader?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously missed my point. We want to legislate so that there are no special cases, no special pleading and no tactical pressure on anybody, be they a party leader or anybody else. That is why we should legislate to a standard, not on an ad hominem basis.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. He alluded earlier to a direction of travel and the destination we all want to reach: a single mandate for each Member. I think there is unanimity there, but would he agree that Scotland and Wales seem to have got there without the need for legislation?

[Mark Durkan]

Perhaps they did, but the fact is that notice was served to the parties in Northern Ireland that, if such a change did not happen, the Government would move to legislate, as they have now correctly done. It would have been wrong for the Government to give the signal, and then not to use the Bill to address the matter. We discussed this on previous Bills, because it came up whenever we considered the question of constituencies and voting systems, as well as House of Lords reform.

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Further to the last intervention, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill, if passed, will apply to Northern Ireland. Similar legislation will be passed for Wales, but none will be passed for Scotland.

[Mark Durkan]

That would be a discrepancy as well. If the principle is one Member, one Chamber, it should apply all round. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that those of us who tabled amendments should have included the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, so that there was no question of somebody deciding to be in several Chambers.

[Naomi Long]

That was discussed at length in Select Committee. One reason we did not do it was that, this being the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, there would have been no argument for including it. I think the Secretary of State for Wales is intending to introduce legislation creating that bar, although whether the Secretary of State for Scotland chooses to do the same is a matter that perhaps he could clarify better than me. Either way, this matter should be resolved.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Dodds]

Yes, that is the point that I was making and it is important to put it on the record. We are talking about the difficulties of having a double mandate, but I recall that back in the late 1970s and during most of the 1980s the original three MEPs from Northern Ireland, Ian Paisley, John Hume and John Taylor, had three mandates. Nobody is going to say to me that they did not do a very good job for Northern Ireland in Europe. I know that there was a different context and a different set-up then, but they worked very well together. I had some experience of that through working with Ian Paisley in the European Parliament, and I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will know about it from first-hand experience of working with John Hume. That arrangement was necessary and they did an immensely powerful job for Northern Ireland. Indeed, I recall one of those MEPs, not the one from my party, saying that on one occasion he managed to speak in Strasbourg in the morning, in the Belfast Assembly in the afternoon and in the House of Commons in the evening. I asked him whether he used the same speech, but it was not a single transferable speech. Those were different days and we accept that we have moved forward, but it is important to put on the record where we are coming from.

Let me deal with the issue of the House of Lords. The explanatory notes talk about “dual mandates” and people prevented from being a Member of both this House and the Assembly, as is right and proper. What mandate does a Member of the House of Lords have? They do not have any mandate. We have a mandate because we are elected, but a Member of the House of Lords has none because they are appointed. So this legislation does not apply to the House of Lords because it is in a different position. If the House of Lords were elected, there would be a strong argument for saying that we should be legislating to prevent dual membership there, but it is not elected and it is different. Indeed, that was one of the reasons why people opposed reforming the House of Lords, because to do so would put it on the same level as, or make it equivalent to, this House, and that would threaten the authority of this House. So this matter is summed up in the very phraseology used about ending “dual mandates”. It is right and proper to do that in respect of the House of Commons, but Members of the House of Lords do not have a mandate. They have a legislative role, but they do not have a mandate.

[Mark Durkan]

Is the right hon. Gentleman not trying to create a class of Members of the House of Lords who are Members of that House and sit there without a mandate, but who nevertheless have a mandate by virtue of sitting in another Assembly? He is trying to have it both ways; if he is making a virtue of their having no mandate, leave them without a mandate.

[Mr Dodds]

I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads that over again in Hansard, he will perhaps want to reflect on that contribution.

It is clear that we are legislating to end dual mandates. As Members of the House of Lords do not have any mandate, it does not apply to them. In any case, for the other reasons that have been set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, there is a difference. Interestingly, when the Secretary of State for Wales made his announcement in March, he did not include a bar on membership of the House of Lords and the Welsh Assembly; he confined it to the House of Commons. So for all those reasons, the Government are taking the right approach.

On the issue of membership of the Irish Parliament, we very much welcome the Government’s decision to follow the position of the Select Committee and to take on board the representations made on that matter. It is right and proper that that should be the case.

Finally, let me turn to the issue of non-representation—I raised this on Second Reading and return to it now—by people who have seats in this House but who do not take them and do not do the work of parliamentarians. The Minister will know that the issue has been raised and is being pursued. The Bill is not necessarily the vehicle or the means by which it should be pursued, but the Minister should rest assured that, as we talk about dual mandates and about representation and people being fit for jobs and about the jobs they are or are not doing, there remains the outstanding scandal of all—the Members of Parliament who are elected, who get money to run their parliamentary business and who get representative money for which they do not have to account in the way that we do as parliamentarians and that they can use for party political purposes. That is an issue that the House still must, and, I am sure, will, address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

It is very important that we consider what the electorate have decided to do. The electorate elect people to this House and to the Legislative Assembly. I pay tribute to those who had more than a dual mandate when there was a need for people to put their heads above the parapet and stand for office when things were enormously difficult in Northern Ireland. We have moved on. We accept that MLAs should not be able to stand for the lower House in the Republic, but we do think, at present, that they should be able to sit in the Lords. MEPs are a matter for another Department, on another day, and another Bill, in the Government’s opinion.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister address the issue of membership of Seanad Eireann?

[Mike Penning]

Exactly the same applies: that situation will be addressed, should the issue of the Lords be addressed. At present, the Government are not addressing the issue of the Lords; we will oppose the amendments on that subject. The Government oppose amendments 10 to 17, and recommend that clauses 3, 4 and 5 stand part of the Bill.

[Naomi Long]

I think the argument regarding dual mandates in the House of Commons and the Assembly has been fought and, largely, won. People may well say that the public do not mind double-jobbing, but it was a live issue in the 2010 elections, which is why all parties made the commitment publicly in their manifestos, before those elections, that they would not maintain dual mandates. People were elected on the expectation that they would leave the Assembly during this term. Everyone has said that that is the point that we want to get to. I know why I feel the need for legislation, but I do not know why the Government do. Perhaps it is because every time we discuss the matter, even those who say that they are in favour of such legislation in principle continue to put up quite a spirited defence of double-jobbing—and are still here to do so, three years after the last Westminster election and two years after the last Assembly election. However, I would not want to speak for the Government on that point. It is important that the Government, having made a commitment to legislate on this subject, follow through on that.

On the other amendments that I have tabled, the issue for me is whether we are applying the rule consistently. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made a compelling point: the concern when the issue was raised was not simply about dual mandates, although that became a shorthand for it; it was about serving in two legislatures and the challenge that presents with regard to people being able to do both jobs properly. There is a further point, in that in the House of Lords, the expectation is that people are not fettered or influenced by constituency responsibility. However, if they have that responsibility because they have an elected mandate in another legislature, they are no longer free in that way. That distinguishes elected posts from other forms of employment outside the House of Lords in an important, fundamental way.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that in the context of Northern Ireland, there is a significant point to make about the House of Lords, in that no nationalist political representative takes a seat there? My party will not nominate to the House of Lords, precisely because its Members are not elected, and because of various other constitutional attributes it seems to have. Only Unionists or others who are not nationalists go to the House of Lords. If we make an exception for the House of Lords—an exception that I would not seek to make for Seanad Eireann—we end up with unequal legislation, because it ends up being only Unionist Members, and not nationalist Members, who are able to sit in two Chambers.

[Naomi Long]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s right to advance that case, but it is not my case, or a case that I would choose to make, because if people are elevated to the House of Lords, they have the option of taking up that post. They are not barred from doing so because they have a nationalist perspective, or an Irish Republican perspective, for that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

Let us be clear. In my remarks I referred to a nationalist representative. Somebody who was appointed as a working peer because of the competence and skill they have and the clear independence and service to the whole community that they demonstrated against much grudging from other quarters is entirely able to defend themselves as being there not as a representative of my party or even with the designation that my party confers on itself in the Assembly.

[Naomi Long]

I think—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Murphy]

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in Committee about this very important, if small, Bill. I feel a little in fear of being in splendid isolation on these Benches, although I am also surrounded by a phalanx of Northern Ireland politicians—something that I am not entirely unused to.

This has been an interesting debate. Perhaps, in referring to clause stand part, I could reminisce a little about why the Assembly has a membership that many believe is rather large, at 108. We could compare that with, for example, the Welsh Assembly. Wales has a population roughly double that of Northern Ireland but its Assembly has roughly half the number of Members of the Assembly in Belfast. There is a reason for that. It came about, as it so happened, on Maundy Thursday 1998 at 3 o’clock in the morning or thereabouts, when we struck an agreement with the parties—although of course at that stage the DUP was not involved; I think they were getting rather cold marching to Stormont in the snow.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will recall, the initial belief was that there should be a membership of 95, but in fact it went up to 108. The final figure was reached quite quickly by the then Prime Minister, and we as Ministers, on the basis that although the idea of having five Members per constituency, making a total of 95, had some merit, increasing it to six would give smaller parties that had been involved in the talks on the peace process the opportunity to be represented in the Assembly—the Women’s Coalition, the Progressive Unionist Party and others. That was sensible. It related to the fact that we already had ready-made constituencies in Northern Ireland that could be used as the basis of the boundaries for the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

In the previous debate we heard interesting reference to how things have moved on. I believe that if we had not had people in the Northern Ireland peace process and political process who did not have a dual mandate, those processes would not have happened, because those people brought an invaluable wisdom and a richness of experience to the talks. Incidentally, I am not persuaded that we should be legislating about who should or should not be allowed to stand for the House of Commons or for the Assembly, but that is another issue, and we have just dealt with it. The point is that those decisions were made at the time to ensure that the process went on. I think that the 108 figure was right for the time, because it did what it had to do. Now that times have moved on, however, it seems to me that we should ask whether that figure is an encumbrance. Is it too big? Is it too expensive? Does it work? I think that this is a matter for the political parties in Northern Ireland to decide, as opposed to this place. It should be the Northern Ireland Assembly that decides whether it should be smaller.

Incidentally, when the Government tried a year or so ago to change the boundaries of our parliamentary constituencies they completely forgot about the knock-on effect it would have on Northern Ireland. Happily, that measure has disappeared, but it would have had a profound effect on the balance in Northern Ireland. The Government had not thought about that when they considered the parliamentary boundary review, but that is another issue.

It is for the parties in Northern Ireland to decide on the size of their Assembly and that is why I support clause 6, but I issue one caveat. I understand—had I read the Bill more thoroughly I would know whether this is the case—that the Secretary of State will have to endorse such an agreement. I think that is right, because the Good Friday agreement, the St Andrews agreements and the entire peace process were guaranteed by the Irish and British Governments and the Irish and British Parliaments, so that is another important factor. I will only be convinced, however, when the Secretary of State or the Minister, in response to this or any future debate, make it absolutely clear that no such changes should be made unless they achieve the consensus of all the parties in Northern Ireland as to what the figure should be.

I understand that the Assembly has a mechanism—the Assembly Commission, which is representative of all parties—that could initially consider any representations. Whatever happens, the decision should be reached by consensus, discussion, negotiation and agreement, and only then should the Secretary of State give her approval. Nevertheless, the principle is a wise one and I support it and hope it will be carried if it is put to the vote.

[Mark Durkan]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who chaired the strand 1 negotiations leading to the Good Friday agreement. The very important and patient role that he played throughout the negotiations is not often acknowledged.

Clause 6 deals with possible changes to the size of the Assembly and the right hon. Gentleman has explained why it ended up at its current size. He has corroborated many of the points that I made on Second Reading about how the figure of 108 was arrived at. The decision was made ultimately by the British Government. Some of us favoured a top-up scheme, but I remember the right hon. Gentleman and the then Prime Minister telling us during the night and early morning that the reason why they saw the option of six Members per constituency as offering the best chance of accommodating smaller parties was that if they went with the option of a top-up of 10 it would be too complicated for them to work out all the different permutations of top-ups. That was significant at that stage of the negotiations. We need to understand why that decision was taken. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly said that it can be revised and reviewed; indeed, the review mechanism of the agreement itself allows for that.

I do not think that there is any disagreement between the parties that the size of the Assembly needs to be addressed. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has previously kicked it about, but we have still not seen any substantive moves. There are sensitivities involved in decisions about the size of the Assembly. A reduction to five seats per constituency would probably be broadly supported. A reduction to four seats per constituency would be much more sensitive, because it would make a serious difference to the capacity for proportional representation.

There is a question over the degree of gerrymandering that will be possible when the Assembly or the key parties therein have the power to settle the number of seats per constituency. The parties could abuse that power. That is why it is right that there should be a reserved power for the Secretary of State. However, some of us are not reassured that the Secretary of State would use that reserved power in an alert or effective way, because when Sinn Fein and the DUP come along, the attitude of the Northern Ireland Office seems to be, “Whatever you’re having yourselves.” That seems to account for sufficient consensus on such matters.

[Naomi Long]

In fairness to the current Secretary of State and the NIO as currently constituted, will the hon. Gentleman reflect the fact that what he describes has always been the case, even when his party and another party were in the position in which the DUP and Sinn Fein now find themselves?

[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.

[Mark Durkan]

I will do that, Ms Clark.

On the number of Members in the Assembly, the parties seem to be agreed in principle that that can and should change. The agreement provided for a review, just as the agreement provided that the first Assembly would last for five years. The first Assembly was not extended. There was provision in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and in the agreement, for the first Assembly to be five years, and four years thereafter. We did not agree with the date being changed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

On this question, we disagreed with the Select Committee. We agreed with it on some things, and changed the draft legislation accordingly, but we did not agree with it on this matter.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will not give way. I have finished speaking on clause 7, and I hope that the Committee will allow it to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 8

Appointment of Justice Minister

[Mark Durkan]

I beg to move amendment 18, in page 7, line 4, leave out from ‘is’ to end of line 41 and add—

‘repealed.

‘(2) Any provision by Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly which provides, by virtue of section 21A(3) or (3A) of the 1998 Act, for the method of appointment of a Minister in charge of devolved policing and justice functions, shall be repealed.

(3) Any Minister in charge of devolved policing and justice functions shall be appointed in the same way as other Northern Ireland Ministers.’.

[The Temporary Chairman (Katy Clark)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.

[Mark Durkan]

Amendment 18 deals with the appointment of a Justice Minister. I shall not go through the history of the various bits of legislation that have gone through this House—many of them steered through by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain)—to provide for all sorts of permutations and models for appointing such a Minister. The main parties settled on a version that would allow the Minister to be elected by means of a cross-community vote in the Assembly. Of course, the party that gained that Ministry could then end up having a surplus of ministerial positions over and above its entitlement under d’Hondt.

The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) will recall the tortuous negotiations that we had, and the fact that we were determined that there should be some sort of proportional system, be it d’Hondt or Sainte-Laguë. We went through the various permutations, and d’Hondt was the one that most people were familiar with, because of their experience with the European Parliament. It was deliberately chosen as an inclusive arrangement and to create a situation in which parties were not in a position to vet or veto each other’s ministerial appointments. We actually used that language in the discussions and the negotiations; the parties did not want to be in a position of being able to vet or veto other appointments.

Nevertheless, when it subsequently came to the arrangements for appointing a Minister of Justice in the context of the devolution of justice and policing, there was a departure from that principle—for all the various circumstantial and other reasons with which we are all familiar. I shall not take the Committee’s time in either rehearsing or rebutting them this evening.

If people went for that formula, straying outside the terms, principles and promise of the agreement, they did so on the basis that it was needed to get the devolution of justice started and it was a way of breaking the impasse ensuring that there were no more standoffs. The progress made overall and in the context of justice and policing, means that we have time to consider whether the exceptional arrangements made in and around the position of the Ministry of Justice should still continue.

This clause is designed to end the aberration in the sense of a party being over-represented—over and beyond the d’Hondt entitlement—but that does not simply correct the matter in itself. As I pointed out on Second Reading, it creates other anomalies and potentially some pressures on the parties.

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Member acknowledge that it deals with a second anomaly, too, which is that a Justice Minister could be removed from post by a cross-community vote? That could lead to a different aberration, whereby a party could end up with less than its d’Hondt entitlement to Ministries. Is not that issue relevant as well?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I recognise that. When these measures originally went through, I made a point about the unequal situation and said that the power in the hands of two particular parties in respect of the Justice Minister’s position was potentially abusable. That anomaly clearly needed remedying as well. We always believed that this should be done as part of d’Hondt, and we believed that the number of Departments could have been adjusted at the time—not to add to the number of Departments, but to keep to the 10 that had been approved, absorbing a Department of Justice. The parties chose to go this way and even to add an additional Department even though their stated position was that they wanted to reduce the number of Departments in Northern Ireland.

In our view, the future Justice Ministry—when the Northern Ireland Executive is next appointed—can be decided and allocated in the same way as other Ministries under d’Hondt. We already have a situation whereby there is more tick-tacking, contact and understanding between the parties in advance of d’Hondt being formally run in the Assembly than was originally envisaged or required at the time of the agreement. Some of the issues are about the sensitivities around who will take what post and what might be detonated by that. Those issues will have to be dealt with in the context of the negotiations.

We view d’Hondt as the mechanism for appointing a future Minister of Justice, as with all other Ministers, in full knowledge that that will create a number of difficulties and uncertainties at a number of levels—we have those problems with other ministerial appointments in any case. There are questions this week about existing Ministers, their appointments and the attitudes of parties towards the rules and the spirit of the pledge of office and so forth. It is not as though the issue of the Minister of Justice is the only sensitivity, as there is also sensitivity about the possibility of d’Hondt leading to the Minister of Justice post going to only one political party. There are clearly sensitivities in relation to other matters, which is why the position of the Policing Board and the whole Patten architecture is so important as well. There are various proofs related to the exercise of the powers and responsibilities of a Minister of Justice that have been well observed and honoured in respect of the current Minister, but they would be equally obligatory for any future Minister appointed under d’Hondt.

[Naomi Long]

As I said on Second Reading, I support clause 9. I acknowledged at that time the existence of the twin anomalies that because Justice Ministers were appointed outwith the d’Hondt process, they could end up with a Ministry more than they were entitled to under d’Hondt, and could also lose that Ministry on the whim of a cross-community vote—although I must add, in fairness to parties in the Executive who may feel fearful, that that has not been exercised, or been threatened or in any other way intimated, by any of them.

I am grateful for the way in which the Government have negotiated and listened to what has been said by my party and others, and I welcome the clause. I think it important that including the Justice Minister in the d’Hondt system will result in a fairer arrangement, whether we gain or lose in party-political terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

May I repeat the thanks expressed on Second Reading to Her Majesty’s Opposition for the supportive way they have looked after me in my new role? I look forward to being with the shadow Minister tomorrow, up on the Committee Corridor once again, when we consider another piece of secondary legislation.

I genuinely wish I could support the amendment, but I cannot, as we are not yet in the right position to do so, as the shadow Minister suggested. This is a difficult situation, but I think everybody accepts and understands why the Justice Minister was first appointed in this way and then subsequently again in 2011. We have moved on from that, however. While what we propose in clauses 8 and 9 is not perfect, it does move us forward and address the anomaly in the position of the Justice Minister. We were formally approached by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to look at putting in place a provision that addressed this anomaly. We have done so through clauses 8 and 9, which is why I hope they will be agreed to.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Minister for what was a very straight and straightforward reply. It was exactly as expected. I would not have expected the Government to be moving. I expected that the best we would get would be mutual engagement, but no mutual adjustment. We have had mutual engagement, and there has not been adjustment. I fully understand the points made by other Members as well.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said that there are provisions around the Minister of Justice in terms of the Executive locus. That is precisely what I was referring to when I talked about some of the standards that are there, which are well honoured by the current incumbent, and which apply equally to all other Ministers as well. The existing protections do not need just to apply to the means of appointment, and there are also obligations and standards in place. However, recent events show that we might have more to do either here or in the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of increasing the robustness of some of the standards around ministerial probity and accountability.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill (Clauses 1 to 9) reported, without amendment (Standing Order No. 83D(6)), and ordered to lie on the Table.