Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think the House would benefit from having a copy of the letter in the Library. We are grateful to the Attorney-General.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Department of Health seems to advise that it would be okay if neither of the two signing doctors had actually seen the woman referred for an abortion. Does the Attorney-General believe that that is some distance from a strict reading of the 1967 Act?

[The Attorney-General]

As I understand the matter, the form exists so that two doctors may make an independent evaluation of whether the abortion is necessary for the health and well-being of the woman concerned. It seems to me, as a matter of logic, that that requires a conscious act of assessment. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to work out whether a conscious act of assessment is going to take place on the pre-signed form.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May we have a bit of order in the House for the last question so that the questioner can be heard and we can hear the Secretary of State as well?

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Beyond her exhortations to the parties, has the Secretary of State actually scoped what legislative measures would be required from her in respect of the Haass proposals on the past? In addition, what authorisations and directions would be needed from ministerial colleagues in Whitehall?

[Mrs Villiers]

The advice I have been given is that Westminster legislation would not be required if the parties decided to implement the Haass 7 proposals, apart from a devolution of parading. The measures on the past, I am advised, could all be done via legislation in the Assembly, but I am happy to review this matter in discussions with the hon. Gentleman at a later date.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the characterisation of what we are trying to do in our relationship with Colombia. Colombia is a society traumatised by horrific violence, and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there are still some instances of terrible abuses and violence. It seems to me that, in the long run, the only way in which the country can find its feet and have a proper, law-abiding system in which human rights are protected is through peace and non-violence throughout the country.

It is important for us to support the negotiations between President Santos and the FARC terrorist group so that we can try to establish peace for the people of Colombia. In the meantime, we are very unambiguous in what we say and do in supporting human rights activists in the country—including NGO activists—and, indeed, in supporting the Government of Colombia in ensuring that human rights are promoted.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group on human rights to discuss issues such as land rights, human rights and the health of the peace process, on which he will have been able to reflect during his visit?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I am keen to look constantly at ways in which we can collectively reinforce our messages on human rights in troubled parts of the world such as Colombia, but we know from peace processes of our own that, in the long run, the best way of guaranteeing human rights and the rule of law is to entrench peace, and to ensure that violence subsides and is then stopped altogether. That is what we are doing in our work with President Santos’s Government. We are also ensuring that the free trade agreements into which the European Union has entered with Colombia contain very clear human rights provisions, to be enshrined in 54 specific measures that the Colombian Government need to introduce in order to protect human rights under the terms of the free trade agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is no good shouting from the Opposition Benches. Labour Members had the opportunity to reform the Lords, and they were the ones who stopped it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Q9. The Prime Minister says that the G8 and his attendance at the investment conference advertised his commitment to Northern Ireland and its economy. However, his Whitehall is busy removing jobs from Northern Ireland in the Driver and Vehicle Agency and now also in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with the proposal to close offices in Newry and Enniskillen and halve the office in my constituency of Foyle. How does the removal of jobs by Whitehall contribute to balancing both the economy in Northern Ireland and that region?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes his point. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will meet him to talk about the HMRC issues. As for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Department for Transport is still considering the results of its consultation. Let me make this point. Employment in Northern Ireland has risen by 32,000 since the election, and he knows, as I do, that the real long-term answer for the economy in Northern Ireland is a private sector revival. The public sector is very large in Northern Ireland. We need more small and medium-sized enterprises and more investment in Northern Ireland, and we need those jobs to come, which is what the G8 and the investment conference were all about.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I bring another accent to the debate and to our tribute to Nelson Mandela. Obviously, people in Ireland—north and south—supported the Anti-Apartheid Movement, inspired by men like Kader Asmal, who helped to found the movement here in London and then founded it in Ireland when he moved there. I spoke about him in my maiden speech in this House in 2005, which was in an Africa debate.

Unfortunately, not everyone in Ireland had the same view. In Northern Ireland, people tended to pick and choose their views according to party lines and whose side they were on at home. If we rose above such squabbles, we found that people in the Anti-Apartheid Movement, who were inspirational themselves, were inspired by Nelson Mandela and by the many people who were leading the struggle for democracy in South Africa, whether they were in jail or body-swerving the system, avoiding jail and organising in many different ways.

All sorts of arguments and debates were raging here in the 1980s. I worked for my predecessor, John Hume, as a researcher in Westminster, and I also spent time working in Teddy Kennedy’s office in the States. I know exactly what all the arguments were about why sanctions would not work or should not be put in place, and the argument that the geopolitical order required us to tolerate the apartheid regime. Even while the Government here were officially condemning it, they were not interfering with it in any way.

I also recall that there was a threatened split in the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Ireland in the mid-’80s. Sinn Fein had started contesting elections and so on, and it joined the Anti-Apartheid Movement on a corporate basis. Several significant people then left, such as Garret FitzGerald. John Hume addressed a rally in Dublin, and it was one of the few times he publicly disagreed with Garret FitzGerald. He said that no differences to do with Irish politics should in any way detract from combined and united solidarity in repudiating the iniquity that was apartheid. Both at that rally and in debates in the House, John Hume made the point that we needed sanctions not just as a badge of moral indignation, and not just to put an economic bite on a regime that needed its collar felt, but in solidarity with the struggle for democracy in South Africa. After John Hume made that speech, Kader Asmal, who subsequently told Nelson Mandela that I helped to write it, made a point of getting it sent to South Africa and taken to Nelson Mandela in prison. Kader Asmal said that he thought it was the first time that a parliamentarian had put it that way.

As a member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement—I represented the Union of Students in Ireland and then my party—I found myself in the unusual position of importing something into pre-democratic South Africa in the early 1990s. It was two collapsible aluminium polling booths that were made in my constituency, to be used as part of a training exercise by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. I was one of an international faculty helping in that exercise, in which regional and local ANC activists were being prepared for what may be involved in elections, so that they could organise themselves. They were obviously seething during the transition, because there were talks about talks, and there was a question of whether there would be all-party talks or a constituent assembly, and other difficulties of process followed. Nelson Mandela and his fellow leaders had to keep people together through all those troubles, difficulties and frustrations, and that was one exercise to help achieve that. As well as the polling booths, which were used when we split into two groups and toured the country, at the request of the Americans I also brought unused books of ballot papers from Ireland, north and south.

During those mock arrangements, I witnessed many people who had had lifelong involvement in the struggle for democracy going through their first act of queuing up at a polling station and voting, on an Irish ballot paper. Even though it was a mock election, they were crying. Like the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who was so struck when the actual election came and he saw the queues of people lining up for the real vote, I saw how important it was.

I met Nelson Mandela and, as I said, Kader Asmal, who became the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in the Government of national unity and then Minister of Education in the first ANC Government. Nelson Mandela came to speak to all the political parties from Northern Ireland, which were in South Africa to learn lessons and get an insight from the South African process. It was not the first time we had done that—there had been previous trips—but it was the first time that all the parties were on one trip. We could not all share the same transport, because at that stage Unionist parties still said that they would not be in the same room or on the same transport as Sinn Fein. Even when we were taken on a visit to a local beach, at Africa’s most southerly point, apartheid South Africa’s laws unfortunately had to be reinstated and there was separation. I was at the event with Kader Asmal, who was seething at the idea that we were separated and imposing limits on ourselves, but he told me that Nelson Mandela had said to him, “It is not up to us to impose our standards on them. We can give them our example, and they will find their way.” I thought that was particularly rich.

The initial idea was that Nelson Mandela would speak to certain parties in one room, or one session, and then to other parties including Sinn Fein, or to Sinn Fein on its own, in another room or another session. A splendid solution was reached when people realised the architecture of the centre meant that they could remove two glass sliding walls so that some of us were under the roof while Nelson Mandela addressed us and others were outside—not under the same roof. That is how Unionist blushes were spared, but at least Nelson Mandela, as the elected President of South Africa, was allowed the dignity of saying the same thing to all of us at the same time.

Nelson Mandela gave us many key messages and lessons at that event. There were the familiar ones, such as the fact that we had to negotiate peace with our enemies, not our friends, but there were also points about not only needing to be sure about the integrity of our choice but needing to allow space for the integrity of other choices. He said that it was not enough just to get into talks—mutual engagement was not the target; mutual adjustment was the real, hard test. He also made it clear that, when finding new ground, it is much easier to make common ground than when we fight over the old ground and the old issues, identities and labels.

Many Members have paid tribute to people in England who stood against apartheid, but I want to make particular reference to the Dunnes Stores workers whose strike in 1984 did so much to galvanise opposition to apartheid in Ireland and beyond. I particularly wish to name Mary Manning, Karen Gearon, Alma Russell and Liz Deasy. In recent days, there has been popular demand in Ireland that whatever national delegation goes to South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s funeral and the other ceremonies, those Dunnes Stores workers should be part of it. They represent the real spirit of the struggle against apartheid.

Nelson Mandela’s famous opening words at his trial were:

“I am the First Accused.”

Today we remember him as the “first admired”. We hope that we can look forward to his being the “first emulated” in other areas where people are suffering from injustice and conflict, and from the violations that result from unaccountable power, but it is not only in those areas that he should be emulated. We need to remember that as well as indicting the iniquity and inequity of the apartheid system, he indicted the world order as we know it, a world order in which power and wealth are vested in the hands of a privileged minority. If we want to take part in the emulation of Nelson Mandela, we should not just expect things of other people who live in difficult circumstances; we should rise to the challenge, and deal with the apartheid nature of the world economic order that still exists.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In following the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), let me say that I am surprised that he did not rest his rebuttal of the arguments about amendment 76 on clause 4, which clearly shows that the register—in the way it deals with persons—would cover those exact points. However, that does not fully allay the concerns we should have when we see the Government’s amendments to what is already a highly flawed Bill, not least Government amendments 92 to 95 to schedule 1, about which I am sure we will hear from the Government.

Like others, I do not want to take up too much time now, given the range of issues that we need to reach in order to deal with the layers of inadequacy and evasion that are, to my mind, deliberately built into the Bill. The Government who told us that lobbying was the next big scandal have basically come up with the narrowest of nets to deal with professional lobbying, restricting it not to professional lobbying as we all know and understand it—lobbying as we see it practised in and around the parliamentary estate and elsewhere in public life, at various levels of government—but to a narrow definition of “consultant lobbying”.

We have a net that is deliberately narrow, made up of holes that are deliberately wide. That is why I welcome the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which would ensure a wider net with smaller holes. If Parliament achieves that, we will have done something for our credibility, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said. However, if we remain with the Bill as provided by the Government, or if we amend it in the way they have proposed, Parliament will be open not just to ridicule, but to suspicion. Why would we go along with a glaringly inadequate Bill? Why would we fail to respond to the representations that have come from so many people in the business who will not be affected—I am sure that some will be happily unaffected—but are bemused at what the Government have produced in part 1?

I know that we looked at the Bill more widely on Second Reading, Mr Caton, but I hope it is in order to make the argument in the debate about this group of amendments and part 1 that it is hard for people not to be suspicious when they see the lobbying to be registered so narrowly defined in part 1, and the issues to be covered in part 2 so widely scoped. As many hon. Members who have spoken have pointed out, none of the lobbying scandals that have happened in recent years—not even those during the life of this Parliament—would have been ameliorated or mitigated in any way by the scope of this Bill. Instead of pretending that it will solve the next big scandal, let us be clear: it would not have addressed any of the big, small or medium scandals that we have seen in the last few years. That has to be a matter of design on the part of the Government. They cannot have missed all those points just as a matter of haphazard chance and sloppy drafting. To my mind, the scoping in part 1 is deliberately evasive.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

The Government have already said that they are trying to fix a specific issue relating to a gap in transparency. I do not think I got an answer from the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), so can the hon. Gentleman explain how many people he thinks will be required to register under the amendments we are discussing? Does he believe that MPs should also make a declaration whenever they meet a lobbyist, be they in-house, or from a trade union or a charity?

[Mark Durkan]

As other hon. Members have said, we do need a lobbying Bill, but we needed more consultation and proper pre-legislative scrutiny precisely to determine how many people would be caught and whether they should be comfortably caught under this Bill.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Under the current proposals, only two of the nearly 1,000 meetings would have been captured. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a completely nonsensical approach?

[Mark Durkan]

What my hon. Friend describes absolutely trivialises the claims that the Government are making for this Bill, especially when we consider what bearing it would have on the amount of lobbying of the Government and what would be registered. If we consider the Bill in terms of transparency, the slight, little bit of translucence that will emerge at the very edge of the current lobbying business is hardly what would pass for transparency in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Mrs Main]

If some of those meetings are not captured, the only thing open to hon. Members is parliamentary questions and so on, yet quite often the response we get says that the cost of finding out whether somebody met someone else would be disproportionate. That is a problem. Once we get past that gatekeeper, we have no opportunity to explore what conversations were had or what impact they might have had.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The point of transparency and registration is about being able to say that, if all such engagement is absolutely above board and matter of fact, there is nothing to hide and nothing to worry about. When the picture is created, or when it can be canvassed by some, that there is something untoward about such contacts and representations—that they are an attempt to get undue influence in pursuit of a particular vested interest—the whole public policy system and Parliament suffer. That is what happens when those suspicions abound. We are trying to protect ourselves and the public understanding and trust of Government and parliamentary processes by ensuring we have a more meaningful Bill.

That is why the amendments before us are important, not least amendment 48—which, as we know from the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, will probably be put to a vote—and the Opposition amendments, beginning with amendment 2, which basically take to task the Bill’s deliberately narrow definition of “consultant lobbying” by replacing it with a wider term, “professional lobbying”. This group of amendments also contains amendment 161, which stands in my name, which also tries to add more definition to the type and character of lobbying that we want the Bill to capture. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon said that there are issues with lobbying activity that is clearly carried on in firms and on behalf of firms. Such lobbying is a dedicated, professional wing of activity on the part of corporations, and it should be captured in any appropriate Bill.

[Chris Bryant]

Not least in broadcasting, which is one of the most lobbyacious parts of society, and for a very good reason—a lot of broadcasting depends on legislation. However, broadcasting firms hardly ever employ third-party consultants; rather, they always use their own, normally enormous in-house operation. Also, those lobbyists would not bother going to see the permanent secretary, because the permanent secretary would not be bright enough to understand the technicalities. Instead, they would go to the junior officials in the Department who do. None of that would be captured by this Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will not be tempted to wander away from the issues that we are meant to be dealing with in this group of amendments, but he is right to point out some of the flaws that exist elsewhere in part 1 of the Bill and to the wholesale escape by corporate lobbyists working on behalf of various bodies. Whether those lobbyists are working on behalf of allegedly public bodies, private commercial bodies or much larger international conglomerates, they should not be able to escape the scope of the Bill as lightly and handily as they are going to do. As the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon has pointed out, the Bill is framed in such a way that some people will simply be able to recast their business in order completely to escape being touched by the legislation.

[Helen Goodman]

Let me illustrate that point. I have just looked at my diary for this week. It contains six meetings with people from corporate bodies or trade associations, and six with people from what we might loosely call the voluntary sector. None of the first six would be caught by the provisions in the Bill, but all the second six would. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that is absolutely ridiculous?

[Mark Durkan]

I do. At risk of receiving a caution from the Chair, I must agree that my hon. Friend is contrasting the inadequate provisions in part 1 of the Bill with the egregious and excessive provisions in part 2. Many of us suspect that those charities, voluntary organisations and public advocacy campaign groups that will find themselves in line of danger under part 2 are being used as a human shield to protect those that should have been targeted in part 1 but have deliberately been given free licence and allowed to escape. This part of the Bill, particularly in the light of some of the Government amendments, will say to those who might be sitting on the next big scandal, “Carry on regardless. Carry on happily. We don’t want to touch you, and we have deliberately framed this legislation so that it will not touch you.”

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

As a former lobbyist and an honorary fellow of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, I have to say that it is actually worse than that. Unless the Government accept amendment 52, which would make it necessary for management consultancies, lawyers and accountant to register, lobbying will become much less transparent as a direct result of the Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very pertinent point.

This is why so many people are dissatisfied with the Bill, including bona fide, honest-to-goodness, up-front lobbyists who want to be able to conduct their business on good terms. They need to know that the register exists to ensure that they can conduct their business not only on good terms but on equal terms with anyone else who is competing to provide similar services, peddling similar influence and perhaps having an even greater effect on Government decisions on policy, on the framing of legislation, on programmes or on projects.

I hope that we will come to the amendments that try to address other problems relating to the Bill, but I am speaking in support of those Opposition amendments that are properly seeking to change the definitions relating to consultant lobbying. My own amendment 161 would ensure that the Bill covered more people involved in commercial lobbying who provide either full-time or significant part-time lobbying services on behalf of what the Government call non-lobbying or mainly non-lobbying businesses, and that they too would need to register. Such a provision would protect those who meet those lobbyists, be they MPs, members of Select Committees, Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries, permanent secretaries or senior civil servants. I would like all of them to be scoped into the Bill, rather than it simply focusing on Ministers and permanent secretaries. They would all be better protected if the legislation were better cast.

I am sorry that the Government have scrambled the Bill in this way. If we do not take the time now to get it right, many people will have to pay the price later. Some people will deservedly find themselves caught up in a scandal, but others who do not deserve it will also find themselves in that predicament, because we are deliberately leaving twilight zones in which people will bump into things that they did not realise were there. People might be told that certain things are okay under the legislation—just as people were told that certain things were okay under the expenses rules—only for a different assessment to be made following public scrutiny. We must be vigilant about the standards we are setting for ourselves and others. That means that we need to support the Opposition amendments, and particularly those tabled by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.

I fully respect the points made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) about new clause 5, but I have problems with some of the details of the proposal, and not least with its implications for charities and other bodies. It also sticks to the narrow definition of consultant lobbying, even if it completely recasts that definition by what it subsequently goes on to propose. I understand that she tabled the new clause to make a point, and she has made a valid point very well. She has indicated that she will not press the new clause to a Division, and I will not press my amendment to a vote either.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

This has been a fascinating debate, and I shall not repeat the points that have already been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and other colleagues across the Committee. I want to bring some of my own experience to the Chamber. Fundamentally, what is wrong with this part of the Bill is that it does not reflect any kind of understanding of the lobbying industry, of which I am a proud ex-member.

The lobbying industry has changed dramatically since I first joined it in 1998. I worked for a consultancy that, if it existed today, would be caught by the Bill’s provisions because it was a dedicated Government relations lobbying agency. However, the industry has changed and most public affairs firms are now part of wider communications groups, on which the Bill will have no impact. I worked in the industry between 1998 and 2003, and it gave me a fantastic opportunity to learn many things and to engage in the political process.

We should be clear that the lobbying industry is important to a fair and democratic society. It is also important to us as Members of Parliament, in that it can help to inform and educate us on incredibly technical issues. We should not always view the industry with deep, dark suspicion. The only point in the debate that I have disagreed with so far was the description of lobbyists as mendacious and as performing some kind of dark arts. That is incredibly unfair, because most lobbyists are highly professional and very proud of what they do. They want transparency in their industry, and they want a level playing field. The Bill delivers neither. If anything, it could make the industry more opaque, and it will certainly not produce a more level playing field.

I would like to give the House an example from my own experience. Between 2005 and 2010, I was head of public affairs for Aviva. It was known as Norwich Union when I joined it, but it subsequently changed its name. We had a large lobbying team here in the UK and in Europe. As I look around the Chamber, I can see many people whom I, as head of public affairs, probably would have lobbied.

My lobbying team would not have been covered by the provisions in the Bill. We employed a major City law firm to provide specific counsel on legislative issues. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon has pointed out, such lawyers will not be covered by the Bill either. We also employed a consultancy that provided public affairs advice and was part of a wider group; it, too, would not be included in the Bill. We worked closely, too, with trade associations, which again would not be included. If we paid for research by a think-tank and lobbied on the outcome, that, too, would not be included in the Bill.

It is therefore quite clear that this part of the Bill needs to be taken off the table and looked at again, particularly in respect of expanding the definitions. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Opposition Front-Bench team’s amendment, as does the Association of Professional Political Consultants, because it wants a level playing field. Those of us who have worked in the industry consider ourselves professional lobbyists, not just consultant lobbyists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such is the paucity of the drafting of the Bill—cobbled together, I think, at the last minute—that the real danger is that even the people who the Government think do consultant lobbying do not do it in the terms of the Bill, and will therefore be excluded from the register. The Government may think that 350 organisations will be covered, but I think that that is a very dubious, dodgy number. I think that it is more likely to be 35 or three and a half or even three.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Mr Cox]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and then to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, although he was unkind enough not to give way to me a second time.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about not just the existing paucity of the definition in the Bill, but about the tautology that we are being asked to introduce in the form of the circular definition in amendment 84. Would it not be more honest for the Government simply to propose that the Bill should define a consultant lobbyist as anyone who places an entry in the section of the Yellow Pages that is headed “Consultant Lobbyists”, and that those who do not so define themselves should be exempt?

[Chris Bryant]

I think that that would be slightly to treat the legislation with contempt—so I am right up there with the hon. Gentleman.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

I want to come to the Attorney-General’s advice. My right hon. and learned Friend is an exceptional lawyer, and therefore I have the temerity to question one aspect of what he says. The third of his conditions to be met for humanitarian action is that

“the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need”.

I believe that he needed to spell out an additional point that there must be a reasonable chance of success. Therefore, the legality of this action, in my view, depends entirely on the precise action proposed, and that we do not yet know. That is why the Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that we need to have a further vote in the House once it is clearer what action is proposed.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about a possible new doctrine of war as punishment informed by the fact that senior American political sources only last weekend talked in terms of retribution as the basis for taking action against Syria, and that was repeated by a Minister here as well? If the international community takes action on Syria on the basis of retribution as the defining motive, does that not send a very dangerous message and set a dubious standard for the wider middle east?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Well, possibly, although there is a question, if there is a new doctrine, about how far it extends. Why was it not used with Mugabe? Why was it not used with Pol Pot earlier? That is why I question the Attorney-General’s advice, with temerity and diffidence, as I say.

What are the objectives of any military strike? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the objective was to deter and degrade future chemical weapons use. As I understand it, a country that can make a non-stick frying pan can make chemical weapons. Personally, I have found it very difficult to find any country that can make a non-stick frying pan. Nevertheless, if Syria could simply recreate any weapons that we destroy, where would we have got by attacking the chemical weapons? What is the risk of collateral damage? What is the risk of hitting the chemical weapons that we are trying to prevent from being deployed? We need further information on that.

Next is the evidence. I am certainly in a minority in this country and probably in a minority in the House in saying that I personally believed Tony Blair when he said that he believed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I am certainly in a minority in the country when I say that I still believe that he was telling the truth as he believed it to be, but I think that he exaggerated the influence of—[Interruption.] I know, I am naive and a silly young thing, but I still believe that he exaggerated the influence and importance of intelligence. I do not think that we have yet got to the bottom of the precise limitations of what intelligence can tell us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

“Full stop, end of story.” Those five glib words were the best assurance that the Prime Minister was able to offer the House today against all the concerns being expressed about the risks of wider consequences of rash military intervention. It might be okay for the Prime Minister to negotiate the sophistry of the different sensitivities and anxieties in this House about whether or not there is a precise legal justification for military intervention in the current situation, but it certainly will not answer the exigencies of the situation that will open up once the machinations of intervention commence and once the exigencies of conflict are engaged, not just within Syria but potentially in the wider middle east.

Nor will that answer the serious issues that will arise—the Prime Minister seemed to comfort himself with that—potentially radicalising a whole new generation of Muslims, not just here but in other parts of the world, as they see again a western-driven intervention in this situation, but the west failing to act on continuing excesses and violations against the Palestinians, including the use of chemical weapons, which everybody knows were used. The opposition then came in the form of US vetoes, which many people in this House seemed complicit and comfortable with. Today we are hearing the rightful indignant condemnation of Russian and Chinese vetoes that have already been exercised in relation to Syria and more of which we are expecting soon.

The Prime Minister told us that he and the National Security Council are assured that research shows that the Muslim population here will not be antagonised, because they will understand the precise legal justification—that intervention was purely a response to this use of chemical weapons and nothing else. Even if people believe that that is the mood of many people now, will it remain the mood once the wider difficulties are created, and once the military intervention finds itself embedded in an ever more difficult and ever-changing situation?

It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that the intervention is purely on the basis of the use of chemical weapons, not to impact upon the wider civil war in Syria and not to get involved in any other complications in the wider middle east. The fact is that our rightful outrage which might motivate military intervention does not excuse us from having moral responsibility for any outcomes that might flow from that intervention.

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem is that the legal justification is the humanitarian crisis? Even without chemical weapons, there is still a humanitarian crisis. How would we justify stopping action?

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. colleague for that point. Those of us who have concerns about the Government’s position are not saying that there should be no action. Clearly, action is needed on a humanitarian basis, but the idea that that can best be expressed in military intervention in support of the headlong rush that is coming from the States in the name of retribution, and the idea that retribution should become the going rate for military action in the middle east in circumstances where we are usually trying to counsel the various players and interests in the middle east against their natural impulses for retribution, seems to me to be a very rash proposition.

We have to ask ourselves the questions that the Prime Minister failed to answer today: what then and what when? If we are to see the limited intervention that the Prime Minister seems to expect, will it be some keyhole surgery-type strike which will have no wider implications and leave no wider scars or difficulties? If it does not work, what then? If there is reaction by Assad or by others in the area and there are wider difficulties, what will happen? Does the Prime Minister’s limited intervention—“No, I’m smoking, not inhaling. Our interventions are one thing and we are not involved in anything else”—stand? It will not be able to stand.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

I have had extensive discussions with the banks, Treasury Ministers and the Finance Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive. That informs an important part of the work stream that we will take forward as part of the economic package.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Secretary of State will agree that, because of the shape of the Northern Ireland economy, public contracts represent a significant part of the market opportunity for our private sector. Does she therefore agree that any implications of sleaze or partisan hands being greased in relation to public contracts or any other governmental decisions that could favour the private sector should be investigated to the full?

[Mrs Villiers]

These are devolved matters. It is, of course, for the Assembly to investigate any allegations made along those lines. It is not for me as Secretary of State to intervene in those allegations. I am sure the Assembly and Executive will deal with them in an appropriate manner.

G8

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, if Britain wanted to leave the European Union, we could do so and we could then make trade deals with every country in the world. Obviously that path is open to us. The argument that I would make is that, as part of the European Union—the world’s largest single market—we have the opportunity to drive some quite good deals. Clearly we sometimes have to make compromises with EU partners with whom we might not agree, but I would argue that, on balance, membership of the single market brings clear benefits, as does the negotiating heft that we have. The whole point is that we are going to be able to debate and discuss this, not least in the run-up to a referendum by the end of 2017.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Prime Minister will understand that some of us are still seeking assurance that the outcomes from the G8 summit will be as thoroughly welcome and significant as its arrival in Northern Ireland. The Lough Erne declaration contains 10 points, which contain 13 “shoulds” and not a single “shall”. The “G8 action plan principles to prevent the misuse of companies and legal arrangements” provides eight principles containing 17 “shoulds”, one “could” and no “shall”. The provisions will be subject to a process of self-reporting against individual action plans. The UK individual action plan, which was helpfully published here yesterday, sets out 10 points offering standards, most of which should or could have been reached under existing laws and Financial Action Task Force requirements. What confidence can we have that the Prime Minister will ensure that the commitments made yesterday will go the distance?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a journey, and the question is: how far down the road are we? I would argue that we have taken some serious steps down that road by setting out clearly what needs to be done on beneficial ownership, on automatic exchange of information and on international tax standards. If we look at what Britain has done—with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for instance—we can see real progress. Is there a lot more to do? Yes. Do we need international reporting on it? Yes. Has the G8 lifted this issue? Frankly, tax transparency and beneficial ownership were academic issues that were discussed in lofty academic circles, but they are now kitchen table issues that are being discussed by the G8 leaders, who have pledged to take action on them.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Inquiry)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to health care professionals in Cornwall. I am particularly grateful to them, as they delivered my daughter two and a half years ago. I am ever grateful for the brilliant service that they performed for me, and it was a very caring environment too. The CQC has the resources it needs. It is a new organisation and has faced many challenges. A big reform of it is under way. Being asked to scrutinise everything from the dentist’s waiting room to the largest hospital in the land is challenging, and we need to work on the organisation and make sure that it can deliver what we need.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I commend the Prime Minister for his words and work on the issue. In the culture that he seeks, it is important that hospital chaplains and chaplaincy networks know what observer standing they might have and how and where they should channel any pastoral concerns or compliments that they have. On his important proposal for the chief inspector of hospitals, can the Prime Minister tell us whether that telling new faculty would be available to the devolved hospital services as well?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the role of chaplains. If those who are closely involved with hospitals see anything going wrong, they should feel a duty to speak out. That could be groups of hospital friends or chaplains. With reference to the devolved Administrations, I expect there are similar issues in terms of culture, which Francis examines, and in terms of complacency and putting patient care above targets, and I am sure that they, too, will want to learn the lessons from the report.