Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dodds]

I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady asked that question. I look forward to her, like me, celebrating in 2016 and also commemorating another significant historic event in Northern Ireland—the anniversary of the Somme—on 1 July, as so many Ulster men gave their lives on the first day of that enormous battle. There will be many commemorations, centenaries and anniversaries affecting Northern Ireland in 2016 and the coming years, so I understand what she is saying. Although I do not agree with her on that point, I am sure she will respect my view on the issue.

Let me deal briefly with the change in the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the Secretary of State has said, the powers will change from being in an excepted category to being in the reserved category. The Northern Ireland Assembly will, thus, be able to legislate, with the consent of the Westminster Parliament, and that is right and proper. We believe that there should be more such provisions, making it easier for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate in other areas, such as its working, the make-up of the Executive and how they are formed. Of course, this should be done on a cross-community basis and as a result of negotiation, agreement and a cross-community vote, but it would send a strong signal that more of those powers are for the people and parties in Northern Ireland to agree.

Of course, Northern Ireland is over-represented, but we have 108 Members because the parties that supported the Belfast agreement in 1998 wanted the Assembly to be that big. We opposed that, for the reasons of over-representation that many Members are now talking about. The choice of six Members per constituency was a blatant attempt, once again, to get smaller parties that were, at that stage, in favour of the Belfast agreement into the Assembly at the expense of others. It did not work out that way because the Northern Ireland electorate had much greater common sense, voting for parties that would fight for change and reform, and for a better way forward. We achieved that, which is why we have the stability we have had since 2007.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I wish to add a little information and insight. When strand 1 was negotiated, the agreement between the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party on that holy Thursday night or early hours of Good Friday was for a 90-Member Assembly based on five-seat constituencies. What we disagreed on was whether there should also be a top-up, in either the first Assembly or, possibly, the first and second Assemblies, of an additional 10 Members that could account for smaller parties that might be under-represented because of the spread of the vote. That idea was not agreed by the UUP and, in the absence of agreement between us, Tony Blair stipulated it had to be six-Member constituencies—108 Members. None of the Northern Ireland parties proposed that.

[Mr Dodds]

I think I am grateful for that explanation. Two things come out of it that are clear. First, the SDLP and the UUP still wanted a significantly larger Assembly, with more than 100 Members, no matter the form of the electoral process. [Interruption.] Certainly, initially—

[Mark Durkan]

Ninety—

[Mr Dodds]

Ninety, plus, as I understand it, a further top-up, which would bring the figure to 100. So they wanted a significantly larger Assembly than the one we want to see nowadays. The second thing we learned from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was, once again, how much in debt we are to Tony Blair for so much in the political process, both here and in Northern Ireland! Whoever speaks for Labour will doubtless want to defend what Tony Blair did in that regard.

[Mr Dodds]

I was not getting into the issue of credit for the peace process as a whole; I was only making reference to Tony Blair’s contribution to having a bloated Assembly in Northern Ireland. I do not think that John Major would want to be associated with that. I gladly pay tribute to John Major and others on both sides who have played a significant role in the peace process. I am glad to put that on the record.

With no difference between the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland, most of its parties are on the record as supporting a reduction in the size of the Assembly. The DUP, the Alliance party, the UUP, the SDLP and many independent Members are in favour, but Sinn Fein is not. Let us be clear that the reason we are not getting this reduction is not because the Assembly Members all want to keep their positions and the parties all want to keep the same numbers; it is because one party, Sinn Fein, refuses to accept that, in this day and age so many years on from the 1998 agreement and St Andrews, there is no need to have 108 Members any more. Let us put the focus squarely where it belongs, just as we need to do with the “blame”, if I may put it like that, for the national security issues. Again, they are the result of one or two parties in Northern Ireland taking a particular stand.

On the issue of dual mandates, our position is clear: they are being phased out. The Bill does not bring an end to dual mandates; the political parties in Northern Ireland are bringing an end to them. We in the DUP are certainly doing that. We made a commitment that by 2015 they would be phased out, in line with the recommendations made by the independent body—I cannot remember its name, because we had so many of these bodies at one time. That was what was said should be done, we committed to it and it is what we are doing. The Bill’s provisions outlawing dual mandates should apply to Scotland and Wales as well. I am glad to hear that the Welsh First Minister is introducing such proposals, but they should also apply to Scotland—Northern Ireland should not be unique in this regard.

The issue of non-representation also needs to be addressed. I alluded to it at the start of my remarks and I will close with it. Although it is not a matter for legislation, it is a matter for the resolution of this House—it is a House of Commons issue. It is a scandal that there are Members elected to this House who do not do their jobs and do not carry out parliamentary activity but get expenses, allowances and money, and not just to carry out their constituency duties—through representative money they get money to campaign. The rest of us are bound by the rules of this House and are rightly accountable for our expenditure for parliamentary purposes, but these people can spend this money for party political purposes and not a word is asked about it.

That special provision was brought in, again, under Tony Blair’s premiership. The then Secretary of State, John Reid, brought it in. It was opposed by the then Conservative Opposition, as it had been by the previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, and others. Sinn Fein had challenged all the way to the courts—European Courts—and had been defeated, but it was introduced as a special concession because it was argued at that time that it was necessary to bring Sinn Fein into the political process. If anyone can argue today that Sinn Fein is not in the political process, I would find it staggering. The time has now come for the House to address this issue. If we are concerned about dual mandates and about people being in two places at once, we cannot ignore the glaring issue about non-representation and a special status given to Members who do not attend. Their arrangement is actually advantageous and better than the position given to Members who do take their seats.

[Mark Durkan]

It is not often that I stand up to defend the former Secretary of State John Reid from criticism about his time in Northern Ireland but the measure on Opposition party money and the special terms given to Sinn Fein was actually introduced by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) when he was Secretary of State. He said that it was a necessary measure for the peace process. He refused to answer when asked what promise or threat made it so necessary, but confirmed that Sinn Fein could use the money for entirely different purposes from anybody else.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the glaring discrepancy in accountability arrangements for this money. That is not tolerable, because all the political parties that take their seats in this House are at a disadvantage compared with Members who do not take their seats and who can use the representative money for whatever they like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like others, I am glad of the opportunity to address several matters relating to Northern Ireland. As other hon. Members have said, the many positive recent developments have confirmed the benign trajectory on which Northern Ireland is headed, thanks to the peace process and a well-embedded agreement that gives us a broadly settled process. It has made the difference because it allows us all to give allegiance to shared institutions for the first time, to work through our differences and, I hope, increasingly to work through common challenges and to do so more productively and ambitiously than in the past.

This is a tapas Bill: there are slivers of meat in it, but there is not very much of it. Some of it might be to some people’s taste, but less so to others, and perhaps we are not quite sure exactly what some of it is and must accept other people’s assurances and technical descriptions of it. On the broad issue of political donations, like others I recognise that historically there have been serious difficulties and challenges for people engaged in politics, whether by virtue of donating, canvassing or being a party member. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) rightly pointed to the many risks that people have taken in elected politics, and I pay tribute to all of them, particularly those who were threatened and victimised in very real and vicious ways.

I extend that tribute, however, to the many people in political parties more generally who faced such threats, challenges and various levels of intimidation, whether in their neighbourhood or in their working lives. A forthcoming book on the Glenanne gang will point out that some of its targets were picked precisely because of their membership of, or association with, the Social Democratic and Labour party. Of course, that was a loyalist gang, but members of my party were also targeted by republican paramilitaries for their own twisted reasons. I know that many other people in many other parties have suffered the same.

All that was true, but things are changing, including the public’s expectations and understanding. When I was leader of my party, I said that the then extension of the anonymity arrangements should be the last one and that we could not keep kicking that can down the road, but we now appear to be granting another extension and leaving the way open to another one after that. Hon. Members are right that the anonymity promises on donations made in recent years should be kept, unless people expressly say that they want their donation declared, and I agree that there should be no retrospective revelations to which people have not agreed. But if the public are to accept that sort of protection for historical donations, they will want to know that there will be a definite end to anonymity for future donations. The one should go with the other, on a fair’s fair, everything square basis.

The question of donations also gives rise to a situation in which people might think that parties have more to hide than they actually have. When I was leader of my party, I said that the change should happen because there was nothing for us to hide. In a small place such as Northern Ireland, people sometimes get suspicious about donations, not only to individual parties but to several parties. They can create suspicion in the mind of the public that decisions are being influenced at various levels and in various policy areas. If the threshold for publication were significantly lowered, some people might worry that complications could arise because they had given to a number of parties on different occasions, or even at the same time. Those issues are going to have to be addressed by the people and the parties concerned, however, and people cannot be protected against that potential for embarrassment under the guise of security sensitivities.

In respect of sensitivity about donations, I know that my party colleague Alex Attwood who is currently the Minister of the Environment in Northern Ireland, imposed a rule on himself and his Department that if a planning application came in from anyone whom he was aware of being a donor to our political party, he would declare that fact to his officials. His officials said, “There is no official need to do that. No one has ever thought of doing it before.” But he has made a point of saying that it should be done because, in some people’s eyes, the donation could be a material consideration that may influence him and he must therefore inform his officials. The officials can then bear the information in mind when carrying out their work on the planning application.

There is an issue beyond the provisions in the Bill on donations and political life in Northern Ireland. Many significant public appointments are made by Ministers in Northern Ireland and perhaps we need to address whether such people who are known donors to parties should be duly registered at departmental level and open to scrutiny. These things should be looked at beyond the level of electoral donations.

On the question of donations from people based in the Irish Republic, I believe that the current provision is right and equal. We have parties in Northern Ireland that have a Unionist outlook, and those with a nationalist outlook. We also have parties that do not frame themselves specifically in relation to Unionism or nationalism. Within that broad base, if people are able to collect donations and win the support and approval of the members of the body politic throughout the United Kingdom who regard themselves as British, I do not see why those who regard themselves as Irish should not be able to collect donations from the democratic body politic to which they see themselves as belonging—that is, people living on the island of Ireland.

[Naomi Long]

I broadly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but a more significant issue are the donations that come into Northern Ireland through the Republic of Ireland from international sources—that is, donations that would not be able to come in through the UK but can come in through the Republic. Such donations probably benefit only one party, and it is not here to debate the issue.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, but I do not believe that the answer is to have a general ban on donations from people living in the Irish Republic. If we were to say that anyone living there who wanted to make a donation had to be registered on the list of electors there, that would go some way towards strengthening the provisions. If there are loopholes that allow moneys that would otherwise be unacceptable to arrive in the north, and if those loopholes are being used to “wash through” money, mechanisms will have to be put in place to stop that happening. Declarations would have to be made in relation to any such money. I would have no problem with a requirement for such declarations, not only from those giving the money to say that it was truly coming from them and not from someone else, but from those receiving it. That would fix minds quite clearly. That is where the responsibility should rest, and that is where the law should be targeted.

I represent a border constituency. Many of the people who make significant investments in businesses there and make a significant contribution to the economy, not only in Foyle but in the whole of the north-west, live in the south. Some live just a few miles across the border, others live further away. Many of them originate in Derry. There are many families in Derry whose cousinage is in Donegal and in many other parts of the south—

[Stephen Pound]

Including Mayo.

[Mark Durkan]

Including Mayo, as the shadow Minister says. I was also glad to hear earlier from the Liberal spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). Perhaps we have a gathering of the Mayo association here today. I speak as a grandson of Mayo myself, rather than a son.

The point needs to be recognised that there are many people in the south whose roots are in the north. Many of them have business and professional links with the north, and many of them undertake public appointments there. Thankfully, they are appointed not only by nationalist Ministers. Those people from the south can have a legitimate input into the democratic governance and well-being of the north, and I see no reason to preclude them from doing that through duly registered political donations if they wish to do so.

We have heard the arguments for and against the dual mandate. I made my own decision on that a number of years ago when I took the personal step of saying that if I was elected as an MP again, I would give up my seat in the Assembly. I did not believe that the dual mandate could be sustained any longer. On that basis, I also resigned the leadership of my party, because I did not think that anyone could seriously try to lead a political party in Northern Ireland without being in the devolved Assembly.

I took that step after we had been frustrated in our attempts to change the rules. During various negotiations and initiatives, some of us had made the point that we needed to draw a line under the dual mandate. We said that the parties needed to agree on a date or a point in the electoral cycle when dual mandates would stop, but it was impossible to reach agreement on that. I recall debates in the Assembly in which the Democratic Unionist party voted against any such move against dual mandates. It praised them, saying that they were the best thing since sliced bread and that they were saving us money. Then, in the wake of the pressures resulting from the expenses scandal, the DUP suddenly started playing leapfrog over the rest of us. It suddenly wanted to get rid of dual mandates, too. In many ways it hid behind the Kelly recommendations, saying that if an outlying date of 2015 were set, that would be the target date towards which it would work.

Historically, the dual mandate could be justified by the uncertain circumstances that existed in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is arguable that many people were able to do great work carrying dual mandates, not least John Hume and Ian Paisley when they were in this House and in the European Parliament. Along with their Ulster Unionist colleague, they were able to do productive and effective work in Europe and to bring home significant benefits. As with the question of openness over donations, however, public expectations have moved on. People can see that circumstances and standards have changed. Change changes things. That is probably the most underestimated fact in politics and democratic life. We need to move on.

If a limit is, rightly, set on dual mandates in this House, the Bill should also make provision for that in respect of any possible membership of Dail Eireann. Any such provision should apply not only to MPs but to Teachtai Dala. It would be right to extend that to Members of the House of Lords and to Members of Seanad Eireann as well. If the rule specifies membership of one legislative chamber and one only, it should apply regardless. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) that that should apply whether or not the proposed abolition of Seanad Eireann goes ahead. I hope it does not; I would much prefer to see reform of that good constitutional tool. The fact is that people should be members of one legislative chamber and one only.

As to the size of the Assembly, I made the point in an intervention that the position on which parties were negotiating at the stage when we negotiated the agreement was broadly based on a 90-member Assembly, with five Members for each of the parliamentary constituencies. It was not the case that it was a matter of principle that we wanted the Assembly elected from the existing parliamentary constituencies. The point was that if we were going to get an Assembly established on the back of an agreement, it had to be on the basis of some existing constituencies, and the parliamentary constituencies were obviously the available and relevant ones.

The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 creates five-year parliamentary boundary reviews, but I think that will cause problems, not just in respect of the potential impact of boundary reviews in parliamentary terms, but in Assembly terms, too. What might appear to be a small change in a constituency in parliamentary terms could be very significant for Assembly members. Somebody’s well-established Assembly bailiwick could be directly split in a way that might appear marginal to the parliamentary constituency, so I think there are difficulties there. I know that there has been some discussion in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee about whether the Assembly still needs to rely on or stick to absolute coterminocity of Assembly and parliamentary constituencies for the long term. If we end up having a difficult experience from five-year boundary reviews—I hope this will be revised in the future so that we can move to something more sensible than having reviews for every single Parliament—the Assembly might well be advised to consider something different.

The position on the number of Members was, as I said, five for each constituency. If, under the boundary reviews, the number of constituencies is reduced, that will obviously reduce the number of Members in the Assembly in turn. In the context of previous negotiations, including those in Leeds castle and elsewhere where there were reviews and half reviews of the agreement, the SDLP put forward its views, but there were no takers for the changes, just as when we offered proposals to improve the transparency of the Assembly and to make it a bit more robust as a chamber of accountability.

Some of those who talk most about transparency and accountability resisted. I remember Peter Robinson saying at Leeds castle, “Well, we do not want that much accountability.” The proposals did not even go as far as saying that there should be a formal opposition in the Assembly, but sought to ensure that there were ways of holding Ministers to account to the Assembly. One way of doing that was that after budgets, all Ministers would make statements on what they were planning to do with the moneys allocated to them rather than hide behind one statement by the Minister of Finance.

As other hon. Members have said, the question of opposition is important. When we negotiated the agreement, just as we were clear that the Government would be inclusive for those parties that wished to exercise the right to take their mandate into ministerial office, so, too, the scrutiny and accountability role of the Assembly had to be inclusive. Some of us, perhaps naively, envisaged that members of the Ministers’ own parties would challenge them and put questions to them; unfortunately, that is not what we have. Anyone looking at the Parliament channel, for example, is likely to see question time and debates, and there are more plants than at a garden centre! It is not what we wanted—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentions vegetables in particular, and I am sure his party colleagues will be delighted by that proud reference and strong endorsement.

The discussion that many people are having is important. What it reflects is not necessarily the absolute need for an opposition that some have seized on; it is more a feeling that there is not enough challenge, scrutiny or debate. Some people think that real debate ends up falling to “The Nolan Show” or other talk-back radio programmes, but questioning and challenging decisions should be taking place in the committees of the Assembly and on its floor. We should have other types of committee —more cross-cutting committees, for example, with the sort of teeth that the Public Accounts Committee has. They might be rated more highly not just by Ministers but by civil servants than they are under the current committee model. As other hon. Members have said, there are a number of things that we can look at.

On the appointment of the Justice Minister, we recognise that there are a number of anomalies. The proposed changes seem neatly to answer the problem of the d’Hondt excess enjoyed by one party, which goes against the proportionality provisions and the inclusion promise of the agreement. I fear that in resolving the anomaly in the proposed way, however, we will end up creating a predicament for the system and potentially for a party that could find itself typecast, particularly through the role of the Justice Minister, in ways that might well prove frustrating in the future. Other parties might find that frustrating or might abuse their sense of frustration. We need to be careful that in fixing one problem, we do not create another problem for the long term or build a permanent abnormality that imposes an obligation or a limitation on any particular party.

[Naomi Long]

As my party provides the Justice Minister in the current arrangements, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. The arrangements being put in place here would apply equally to any party, and the anomaly would apply regardless of which party provided the Justice Minister. The fix, as it were, would apply regardless, too. I do not think that anybody is typecast in that sense. I would also take issue with him about what counts as normal. I happen not to think that using d’Hondt to appoint Ministers is normal; it is actually a mechanism to deal with division, which is abnormal. I would not want to move in that direction; I would prefer the other Ministry to move towards cross-community support.

[Mark Durkan]

I note the hon. Lady’s point of view, but it is not the one from which I come to this debate. I was involved in the negotiation and drafting of parts of the agreement, not least in respect of strand 1. I would certainly defend the understanding and agreement that we secured then, but I would never pretend that we are stuck with it or that we can never adjust or change it. I certainly recognise that when it comes to the institutions and the fundamental architecture we have to see differences between fixtures and fittings. That is why review mechanisms were built into the agreement and why my own party has proposed changes and developments in a number of reviews—and we would certainly envisage more in the future. They should all be based, however, on the firm and clear foundations of inclusion that are guaranteed in the agreement.

On the issue of the Justice Ministry, I was not saying that it is a given and that it will always go to the Alliance party; I was simply stating a caution, in case things end up being that way. We know all the reasons why the Ministry ended up with an Alliance party member on the first and second occasions. What I am saying is simply a point of caution in that regard.

When it comes to electing other Ministers by cross-community support, I am disappointed that the Bill does not take the opportunity to restore something that was in the Good Friday agreement—that the First and Deputy First Minister should be elected jointly by cross-community support. That was in the Good Friday agreement, and it was important that the administration of the Executive would be headed and chaired by people who had a mandate from the Assembly and were accountable to it. Instead, what we have is a system whereby those two positions are simply appointed from their respective parties by a letter, which goes to the Speaker. That is not the right and proper way to do this.

The change in how the First and Deputy First Minister were appointed—no longer elected by the Assembly but simply appointed by their own parties—was a result of a so-called comprehensive agreement in December 2004 between Sinn Fein, the DUP and the British and Irish Governments to create a new rule whereby parties could only appoint Ministers if those parties voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. The agreement was published, but because there were not photographs in relation to decommissioning, and people were using language about sackcloth and ashes, it did not stick. However, it remained the desired outcome of Sinn Fein, the DUP and the British and Irish Governments until the very day of the St Andrews talks that parties could only be included in government if they voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. That was a complete violation of the basic principle in the Good Friday agreement—the promise of democratic inclusion. The DUP was able to appoint Ministers without having voted for Seamus Mallon or David Trimble; they were able to vote against David Trimble and me, but it did not preclude their holding ministerial office, and rightly so, because that was the promise in the agreement. Similarly, Sinn Fein was able to abstain on the election of the First and Deputy First Minister and still hold ministerial office. The DUP and Sinn Fein, however, were prepared to say that the SDLP, the UUP and, if it qualified, the Alliance party, could only take Ministries if we voted for the First and Deputy First Minister. We would have to submit our mandate to them; we would not even be allowed the right of abstention.

The first people who would be excluded from office under the agreement, under a Labour Government, were those in the SDLP, not for having committed any crimes or transgression, whether in office, in terms of standards in public life or breaching commitments to peace and non-violence, but simply because we were prepared to exercise our democratic right to abstain on the election of those from other parties. Only because the DUP got the message from us clearly in a meeting upstairs in a Committee Room, on the morning we were all flying to St Andrews, that we would not be voting for them, and we understood that the UUP would not be voting for them, so the DUP would be in the Lobby voting on their own with Sinn Fein—the very thing they wanted to prevent—to elect Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, and only because we stuck to our threat did the DUP scramble to get a different basis whereby people would be appointed to ministerial office by a letter to the Speaker.

Why are we not returning to the agreement in the Bill? Things seem to be bedded down quite well now between Sinn Fein and the DUP—they seem quite happy to go through the Lobby together on lots of things, whether it is to force through future local government boundaries that suit them, or anything else. If they can use their muscle or mandate together in those respects, why should they not be able to do it in relation to electing the First and Deputy First Minister as originally provided for in the agreement?

In relation to local government boundaries, Sinn Fein and the DUP put through a Bill a couple of years ago for the appointment of a boundary commissioner, but the Bill actually fixed the boundaries, and all the boundary commissioner could do was pick the names of the councils and make recommendations around some of the wards. The Bill contains other welcome measures, on the face of it, to transfer further powers in relation to electoral matters, to change their reserved status, and to give more latitude, potentially, to the Assembly, but we need to register some caution. Decisions that can be taken at Assembly level can essentially be taken by Sinn Fein and the DUP themselves, so we need to be careful about a significant reduction in the size of the Assembly that would mean fewer than five Members per constituency, which will affect proportionality, democratic opportunity and fairness, and about other changes in relation to electoral matters.

Northern Ireland began with a Parliament set up after partition, and there was proportional representation. One of the first decisions taken was to remove proportional representation in local government, and then to remove proportional representation for the Parliament itself. The rot set in, and the difficulties came from there. If we get to a situation where everybody else’s democratic opportunity is dependent on the decisions of Sinn Fein and the DUP, to borrow from the late, great Paddy O’Hanlon, that is a bit like asking Attila the Hun to mind your horse. We are asking for trouble if we just say, “It will be up to them.” We ought perhaps to consider ensuring that the Electoral Commission has a bigger, stronger and more defined role in relation to such matters, rather than leaving them to the Executive level and to some parties in particular.

There are other aspects of the Bill, including in relation to court and other matters. Will the Minister clarify the intention in paragraph 5 of the schedule on court rules, in relation to inquests, and the reference to the

“relevant authority must allow or disallow rules submitted to it”?

Is the phrase “relevant authority” intended to allow for both the devolved and the Westminster authority in respect of different issues? In the past, we have seen attempts in the House to change the rules on inquest to provide for secret inquests, and to provide for inquests in which coroners could be sacked and others appointed, the implications of which are very sensitive in Northern Ireland, not least in relation to many cases, even some of the outstanding inquest cases, from the troubles, or some cases in which new inquests are being requested.

Other Members have raised the issue about the National Crime Agency, which I do not want to leave unaddressed. My party colleagues have been working with others to get as many of the issues resolved as possible. Our concerns are genuine and do not relate to trying to prevent asset recovery or other powers being fully exercised in Northern Ireland. Nobody has demanded and defended strong powers of asset recovery and wanted them robustly used more than the SDLP, which is why our initial concerns were about the establishment of SOCA potentially undoing the good work of the Assets Recovery Agency. However, we do have concerns, with which hon. Members should be familiar, in relation to the primacy of the Patten policing model and the primacy of the Chief Constable accountable to the Policing Board.

First, we are concerned that that was significantly breached in relation to the St Andrews agreement by the rerouting in relation to national security so that even MI5 liaising with the PSNI would be beyond the purview of the Policing Board or the Police Ombudsman, and we do not want the National Crime Agency compounding that. The Secretary of State is aware, as I have informed her, of our concerns about how SOCA’s pursuit of some people is being abused by MI5 putting those same people under untoward pressure to work for it, putting them in a position of real and likely threat. We want those issues resolved. I cannot look in the eye those people who come to me with genuine concerns and stress and say, “Yes, I believe in your concerns. I am trying to give representation to them,” and then blandly go along with other changes without getting the necessary safeguards. The problems are real, but I believe we can come up with real answers to them. I commend those in my party and others who have been working to get those answers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

That’s not shorthand—it’s longer.

[Mr Donaldson]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Mr Donaldson]

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

[Mr Donaldson]

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

[Mark Durkan]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Donaldson]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Mr Donaldson]

rose—