Leaving the EU: Funding for Northern Ireland

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

Although I agree that we need to rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland, I do not think that it is valid to argue that we should do so by denying our access to 27 European countries’ important export markets, particularly at a time when it is difficult to secure export markets in south-east Asia.

I will not mince words or shy away from predicting the obvious: post-Brexit, the British Government will simply not be able to carry on as if it were business as usual. Despite the promises of the leave campaign, the only certainty that I foresee in the years post-Brexit is more and greater austerity as exporters, importers and employers take the hit of new tariffs and restrictions. The Chancellor indicated as much in a recent interview with the German media in which he made it clear that outside the single market, Britain will have to move away from the European social model to become something entirely different.

Are we really expected to believe that in the new social model that the Government are preparing, Northern Ireland’s structural and infrastructural funding will not be cut further? That is one absurdity too many, and the public in Northern Ireland will never buy it. The only way to protect PEACE and Interreg funding is to retain Northern Ireland’s eligibility for EU funding, whether in the north’s own right or by virtue of our relationship with the Irish Government. Even if funding could be guaranteed, I still want to impress on the Minister the importance of funding coming not only from the Irish or British Governments, but from the EU.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that EU funding for Northern Ireland is significant not only in terms of the quantum but in terms of the priorities and purposes that it is used for, because it has been able to reach parts and sectors that otherwise might not have been supported.

On the north-south issues, does my hon. Friend recognise that the north-south bodies established after the Good Friday agreement by and large discharge and dispense much of European funding, and that post-Brexit they will have to be considered for replacement? That will open up a significant element in the negotiations that are likely after the election.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful and erudite intervention. He is absolutely right, because the Good Friday agreement was high-wired not only into human rights provisions but into membership and continued membership of the European Union. North-south bodies—I can think of Tourism Ireland, which is a special EU programme body, or Interrail Ireland—could be hollowed out as a result of Brexit, thereby dismantling not only those very bodies but the processes through which funding can be dispersed.

That funding comes directly from the EU. It has brought much wealth, much income and much upgrade to our local community sector and our local infrastructure; indeed, it has been vital in regard to infrastructure. The important point is that everybody works together, right across the community, for the benefit of all. That has been one of the compelling imperatives of the European Union’s involvement in the north of Ireland.

All these issues must be stabilised and joined up into a wider strategy that has buy-in from the Executive and society. Also, and again I say this with no disrespect to the capability of Front-Bench Ministers, no British Government—regardless of the size of their majority—will be able to provide Northern Ireland with the same level of political dependability as the EU can. Policy can change quickly here and commitments made by one Chancellor today can be scrapped by another Chancellor.

We need only observe how quickly British Government orthodoxy on the benefits of the EU has transformed into British Government orthodoxy on the UK’s need to enter the global market alone. We heard some of that today, in the statement by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and we have heard it for the last seven or eight months in this House. That kind of weathervane politics might be sustainable for a wealthy region such as the south-east, where a resilient private sector is well established and there is less difficulty in securing overseas investment, but in Northern Ireland, alas, both local businesses and international investors need to know that when a programme says it will run until 2020, in reality it will run until 2020.

In the last decade, foreign direct investment has been a great success story for Northern Ireland and our economy is beginning to reap the benefits. The Government should be under no illusions: that has been possible because of EU funding, its role in supporting many communities, and in many cases by the EU financially underwriting the process of regeneration. I have first-hand knowledge of that as a former Minister for Social Development with direct responsibility for urban regeneration, which relied on a complement of European funding. An example of that regeneration was the Peace bridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).

A vote of confidence in Northern Ireland from the EU has led to votes of confidence from businesses across the world; be in no doubt about that. However, even if funding from the Treasury could match EU funding, both in scale and in reliability, there would still be questions about how the character of the projects being supported would change post-Brexit, because one of the stated aims of Interreg funding is to minimise the impact of economic and social borders within the European community. That is of huge importance to border areas such as South Down, which is in the county of Down, where decades of neglect by policy makers locked communities out of their fair share of economic progress.

I just need to look at what is happening with the southern relief road in Newry, which carries a lot of cross-border vehicular traffic from Warrenpoint port. That port is the fifth largest on the island of Ireland, one of the biggest ports in the UK and a prominent member of the British Ports Association. Warrenpoint exports and imports, and 46% of what it does comes from the south of Ireland and goes there. That process relies on European funding and so will the southern relief road, which is essential to get round the bottleneck of Newry, because that relief road is a Trans-European Transport Network.

A similar tourist project that will rely on European funding—indeed, it had already received European funding through Interreg—is the Narrow Water bridge project, an infrastructural project that brought communities in South Down and in County Louth together, as part of the peace dividend.

Outside the EU and with a British Government potentially relying on the votes of my Unionist colleagues to the right for support in the Commons, can we really be assured that future investment in the north will have the same ethos of cross-border integration? How will the increasing number of cross-border trade organisations continue to function? Does it mean the end for effective examples of co-operation, such as Tourism Ireland? That is why the European Union is important, because it is a “non-aligned” source of funding in Northern Ireland.

EU funding weakens those who would further divide the people of the north and strengthens those working towards integration and reconciliation. That has clearly been the value of Interreg and PEACE funding. Perhaps it also explains why the political parties of Northern Ireland took the positions they did ahead of the referendum. Ultimately, given that none of the Government’s 12 stated Brexit goals are incompatible with retaining the EU’s funding for Northern Ireland, why risk jeopardising the north’s economic regeneration by shifting the tectonic plates that it is founded on?

Recognising Northern Ireland’s unique constitutional settlement and the importance of the EU to that settlement would not require the British Government to compromise any commitments on either Brexit or the Union. Rather, recognition of the north’s unique constitutional position would serve as fulfilment of the principle of consent—a principle that the British Government accepted, along with the Irish Government, when all the parties in the north, except the Democratic Unionist party, signed up to the Good Friday agreement.

I am an Irish nationalist and I make no apologies for that. However, even as an Irish nationalist, I do not wish to see questions of identity in the north being further clouded and troubled by the injection of a new European dimension. Indeed, if the Prime Minister really is as committed to the Union as she claims, one must question why her Government would make the Unionist community in the north choose between their link with Britain and their membership of the world’s largest economic bloc.

The British Government must engage urgently with the Irish Government on establishing an arrangement whereby the north can maintain some form of that associate special status membership of the European Union. Ideally, trilateral work would occur, involving both Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive—if we had one—before article 50 is triggered, so that we could go to the rest of the EU with a concrete plan to preserve Northern Ireland’s special status. Given the EU’s historic support for the peace process, and the pride that Brussels rightly takes in its role in helping to bring about peace, I can only predict that such a measured plan would be well received.

The arbitrary timetable imposed by the British Prime Minister may not allow enough time for such a plan to be developed before article 50 is triggered, especially in light of the DUP and Sinn Féin collapsing the Assembly. Nevertheless, that is no excuse for the trilateral work to be put off for any longer.

I do not expect the Minister who is here today to be able to give me extensive reassurances on this issue, and I am well aware of the “omertà through clichés” that has been imposed on Government Ministers as we approach negotiations with the EU. However, I hope that he can feed back to his colleagues within Government the concerns that I have expressed, answer some of my questions, and provide me with further details in writing.

I also hope that the Northern Ireland Office will be fully included in the internal discussions that the Government are conducting, both in the Joint Ministerial Committee and at other levels, so that the institutional memory and experience of that Department is heard in the somewhat more gung-ho meeting rooms of other Departments.

Contaminated Blood and Blood Products

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Thursday 24th November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her strong campaigning zeal in relation to this subject. The contaminated blood and blood products scandal has touched the lives of many people over the past 40 years. Sadly, many people have died, leaving loved ones who had spent their lives caring for them. The scandal has not only affected those who are infected but changed the lives of their families as well. We have had many debates in the House and Westminster Hall calling for a full and final settlement for those affected, and what we see today is an improvement on what was offered to them in January, but we still have a distance to go if we are to give those people and their families the means to have a decent standard of living.

Questions remain unanswered as to why those infected blood products, which infected others, were imported from the United States—and perhaps other places—into Northern Ireland and Britain. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), is not the Minister responsible for this matter, but I hope that she can answer my questions today. I hope that she will pursue Lord Prior to ensure that we get answers. As the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, there is a collective shame surrounding this issue. It is an issue without political boundaries or barriers, because it has impacted on families throughout the UK.

I return to a point that I raised in an earlier intervention, to highlight the issues that we face in Northern Ireland. I have written to the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Michelle O’Neill, because there has not yet been an announcement on the scheme for Northern Ireland. She replied to me in early August, after the Prime Minister’s statement here in the Commons. She stated:

“I am currently considering options for the future of financial support for patients and families in the north of Ireland before making a decision.”

That is a similar answer to those that I received from her predecessors. There is no sense of urgency on their part, and no recognition or acknowledgment of the fact that this is a serious matter, which has impacted on people’s lives. I have written again to the Minister in Northern Ireland to urge her to address this matter as soon as possible, and I would appreciate it if the Under-Secretary here could raise it in any forthcoming discussions with her Northern Ireland counterpart.

An important point is that the affected people in Northern Ireland can stay in the current scheme as long as the English scheme remains unreformed, but once the new English administrator is in place—I hope it will not be Atos or Capita—the existing discretionary charities will close. That will leave my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), as well as other affected people in Northern Ireland, in great peril. We do not want that to happen. The Haemophilia Society has also raised this matter in its document.

I remind the Minister that the Irish Government took the courageous decision some years ago to accept liability for this tragedy, which has compromised the health and the immune systems of so many people, and to deliver a compensation scheme.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The House has been misinformed on this point a number of times in previous debates, and it is important to point out that the compensation scheme in the Irish Republic was established even before liability was acknowledged. The tribunal system and the compensation scheme were set up, and the subsequent acknowledgment of liability simply affected the quantum. The fact of compensation had already been established, and that is what is still missing in the UK.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He characterises the position in the Republic of Ireland, which illustrates clearly the acknowledgment that the needs of people came first, before all the other extraneous matters.

I welcome the fact that progress has been made, but there are still matters that the Government must address if they want to be responsible for the long overdue settlement that these people are entitled to and require. It is not clear what will be in place following 2020-21. People need time to plan and they should not have to worry that the scheme might deteriorate or be pulled out from under their feet. I am also concerned by the lack of clarity on support for dependants, bereaved partners and bereaved parents, both current and future.

I have spoken many times in the Chamber about constituents of mine who have been affected by contaminated blood, and they have given me permission to name them. One constituent I have known for most of my life, Brian Carberry, has to go to weekly hospital appointments. He also has associated health problems. Over a year ago, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Thankfully, he is currently in remission.

Two other constituents are twins, Martin and Seamus Sloan, who live in Kilkeel. They are both haemophiliacs and both infected. Their lives have been turned upside down. They have difficulty keeping hold of interpersonal relationships, and their immune systems have been completely compromised. That means that they are exposed to many other types of illness, and they are therefore unable to work and to provide for their families.

The strain and challenges that the families of infected people face cannot be overlooked. It is a direct result of this tragic situation. There can never really be a remedy for those whose lives have been affected, but the Government can recognise their suffering and alleviate the financial strain that they experience as a result. The Government must also try to resolve what the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire described as the legacy of collective shame that goes back across many Governments, and to bring relief to the people affected. Sadly, some of those people have passed on.

Regular payments must be in place and discretionary grants must be available to all those infected and their families. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who has been such a stout campaigner on the behalf of these individuals, I would also like some form of inquiry, but I do not want an inquiry to hold up whatever form of compensation will eventually become available. We need to find out the reasons and the causes and hold to account the people who did this to our constituents and the wider population. It must never happen again. The Government have made progress, but they must ensure a full, fair settlement that is allied to an inquiry, because that is what these people deserve, so vitally need and have long been owed. It is long overdue for those lives lost, compromised or damaged by bad health as a result of infected and contaminated blood products.

Loughinisland Murders

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

A section in the report states that the current Chief Constable has sent the specific names of junior and senior members of the then RUC about whom there are certain doubts—I put it like that—to the Police Ombudsman for investigation. As I understand it, they are currently being investigated. I want to put that on the record.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend has compellingly set out how the report shows that there was serial dereliction on the part of a police service that was meant to be the guardian of people and the peace and the upholder of law and justice, but there was not only serial dereliction. In the many years since Loughinisland, when all these concerns have been voiced and raised, there has also been serial denial by too many politicians, including Ministers. Does she hope that the Minister today will strike a different tone from the previous Secretary of State in relation to these important matters?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I agree that we want to move forward with this investigation, but we cannot begin to move forward to build a shared and inclusive society if issues from the past are not comprehensively addressed. How the Government respond to the report on the Loughinisland massacre is critical for legacy issues. The past has wider implications for public confidence and justice in Northern Ireland. The comments by the previous Secretary of State, to which he referred, insulted the people of Loughinisland, the families and the victims. I regret having to say that, but that is the position.

I look forward to a more helpful response today, but there must now be accelerated work on prosecutions, a British Government apology to the victims and survivors and their families, and provision of compensation for the victims, for those lost lives. That must be part of the urgent answer and solution to this tragedy in Loughinisland on Saturday 18 June 1994.

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I come to this debate this evening along with my two colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party as pacifists—as people who strongly believe in nuclear disarmament and firmly believe that Trident and weapons of mass destruction are used to kill people in a very indiscriminate manner. For that reason, we will be going into the No Lobby tonight.

What we are debating today is the UK’s own role as a nuclear power. In the last six years—the time I have spent in this House—I cannot recall having heard any Minister convincingly explain why the UK’s nuclear arsenal provides any deterrent not already provided by the much larger arsenals of the allies. I have yet to hear any reason why nuclear weapons make Britain safer than non-armed states like Germany, Canada and Japan. There is no genuine security argument for the UK to spend these vast sums of money on weapons that can never be used, because the elephant in the room today is that this is about status, not safety. The reason the Government want to renew these weapons is not because they make us safer; it is because Ministers are afraid that without them the UK will further cease to be a world power.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like my hon. Friend, I detect that this is about status. This is a vanity project, and the most thoughtful argument we have heard for the investment in Trident is actually that its use would be unthinkable.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his very helpful intervention. In that respect, I remember going to a talk in this House some months ago given by the former Secretary of State for Defence Lord Browne, now in the other place, who said Trident was no longer applicable because of issues to do with cyber-security and detection.

I have even heard it suggested that renewing Trident is necessary to protect the UK’s place on the UN Security Council, but for a modern democracy weapons of mass destruction are no way to hold on to our place in the world. In truth, the calls to hold on to these weapons betray an insecurity that actually weakens the UK’s standing in the world. How can the UK call on other countries to commit to non-proliferation when it tries to hold on to influence through status-symbol nuclear weapons? This is not a harmless indulgence: renewing Trident only adds to the tension between powers at a time when we should be trying to de-escalate conflict and bring understanding across the world.

That is to say nothing of the danger Trident has brought to the North channel and the Irish sea, particularly to the fishermen in my constituency who trawl in those waters. As the representative of a constituency that will face huge uncertainty as a result of the political decision that is likely to be taken here tonight, I understand the position of hon. Members whose constituencies rely on the construction of these submarines for jobs and livelihood, but there are better ways of investing in growth for their communities which do not involve nuclear weapons.

Common sense dictates that the UK will have to decommission one day; that may be this year or it may be in 30 years from now, but the economic transition away from these submarines is inevitable—it is as inevitable as the decommissioning of the nuclear plants that has already taken place, but it is likely to take longer than projected. That is why we must take the £179 billion that Trident is set to cost over the next number of years and invest it in renewing peaceful, sustainable industry in the shipbuilding and port heartlands of our islands. That is how small nations make themselves indispensable on the world stage; it is not by threats or through weapons, but through long-sighted inward investment in skills and industry, through soft power and through commitment to peace and diplomacy. That should be the objective of this Government, because that is the objective of us on these Benches. We want to see peace and harmony, and we want to see growth and development. For those reasons, I, like my two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), will be in the No Lobby tonight.

EU Referendum: Northern Ireland

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ms Ritchie]

That was a very helpful intervention, and that story has been articulated to me by farmers, and the farming community and its representatives, including the Ulster Farmers Union. They are concerned about the free movement of products, produce and people across the island of Ireland. The north’s greatest export market is the south of Ireland. It is also here in Britain, and the wider common market of the 27 countries. We all know how long it takes for an export certification to be processed. It can take several years. Just look what has happened in China. We are still awaiting a certificate in respect of Taiwan. As for the export of poultry products to China, that has not yet been resolved. The nonsense being perpetrated by the no campaign should stop, because it is scaremongering to farmers, farming communities, and particularly those whom I represent.

To go back to the Cabinet Office report, I stress that it does not say that either the British or Irish Government would want to impose custom points. It simply says that it would become necessary. It highlights how, outside the European Union, managing the border could quickly fall outside either Government’s control. No matter what the wishes of the two Governments were, the border would become a victim of differing policies between the Common Market and the exited UK.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point, because borderism would become inevitable. We are not free of it at the minute, even within the current EU context, as wedding car businesses in my constituency can testify. Once those pressures or issues arise, border controls and border differences are emphasised, and that has an impact on trade.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for a helpful and informed intervention. His constituency has a clear border with County Donegal, and he articulates a particular fear: our concern that customs posts will immediately be put up, and will carry with them a major impediment to and restrictions on trade and people’s betterment. Far from improving control of our borders, leaving the EU would make it harder for the UK to manage the only land border that it has with the Common Market. That is a risk that we cannot afford to take.

We must remember that the south of Ireland is by far the north’s biggest export market. The latest regional trade statistics produced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, released at the beginning of the month, show that a third of all exports from the north went to the south of Ireland, at a value of more than £2 billion. In the decades before the European Union made an open border possible, the hard border prevented north-south trade developing naturally, to the detriment of all communities in the north. By helping to open up the border, the European Union has enabled businesses to begin building a mature all-island economy that benefits and enriches everyone in the region.

Social Security

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I have to start by disagreeing with the very last point made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I am not here to thank the Government for introducing, by a direct-rule-style Order in Council, legislation that I opposed. The Democratic Unionist party may be happy to endorse by fiat direct rule legislation, parts of which they supposedly opposed; earlier, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was honest enough to concede that his party had supported parts of the original legislation in 2011 and 2012.

I want to correct the misrecord that has come from some of the hon. Members behind me. Whenever the legislation was going through, we, as part of due diligence, were trying to get the Assembly to address properly and anticipate the implications of the legislation that passed through this House, precisely to make sure that we could mitigate and influence it and anticipate what mitigation measures and top-ups were needed to maximise whatever bit of discretion devolution could give us. DUP Members voted the proposal down in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They said that we were scaremongering. They said, “Leave it till we see how the legislation comes through and then our Minister will be able to negotiate some mitigation.” The mitigation that their Minister produced—we have heard Members repeat it tonight—was basically the same mitigation that Lord Freud told us in February 2012 would be available, so no additional concessions were got.

We wanted additional concessions. We said in the Assembly that concessions were available and that we needed to advance further mitigation, but DUP Members stalled. Yet now they make a virtue out of saying that their Minister manfully negotiated and pulled a rabbit out of a hat on concessions that were available all along anyway.

That is a dereliction on the part of DUP Members, because they did not get anything that was not already available in February 2012. We put it on the record that it was available then, and we could and should have got more if the Assembly had combined in that effort. DUP Members decided that they had sufficient confidence in the legislation that was being put through by the coalition Government here and in themselves not to create an all-party approach. An all-party approach should always have been created. I previously understood that Sinn Féin believed in such an all-party approach, but of course that tune has changed several times in the course of this whole exercise.

Let us be very clear about the content of the order: it gives effect to the 2012 Act. It basically introduces the Northern Ireland version of the 2012 Act with tweaks and adjustments, some of which were always going to be available anyway. When we first said that we were getting these concessions in 2012, the DUP said that we were scaremongering about the Bill and that we did not need to be looking to concessions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is chuntering away, not content with making his usual intervention; he is apparently the only Member of this House who would intervene on himself. Let us be very clear: we are told here that these concessions were got by the DUP, and at home that they were got by Sinn Féin. We have to ask, “Where are the additional concessions beyond those that Lord Freud told us were available in February?”

[Ms Ritchie]

Does my hon. Friend well recall the meeting with Lord Freud in February 2012 at which he stated quite clearly that these, shall we say, mitigations would include a slightly different sanctions regime and the ability for welfare payments to be paid to claimants fortnightly rather than monthly? Does he agree that those sanctions were agreed at that time and there was perhaps an unwillingness by the DUP to bring them forward through the welfare reform legislation in the Assembly?

[Mark Durkan]

I fully concur with my hon. Friend’s memory of that meeting. Let us be clear, because we dealt with this in the previous debate as well: at the time, the DUP Minister indicated that the computer system would easily facilitate fortnightly payments, or even weekly if it came to that, and that continuing direct payments to the landlord would not be a problem. He also said that the first time he had heard about Northern Ireland’s particular issue with the bedroom tax was from us, and that his officials had not had it raised in any of their meetings with the Department for Social Development. Of course, at that stage he had had no meetings with the DSD Minister and had none planned. When we consider who was doing due diligence in relation to staking out these issues and seeking these concessions, we should remember that that was the situation.

Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ritchie]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that I disagree with his viewpoint. The SDLP tabled amendments to the Bill in the Assembly, and those revenue-neutral amendments were refused and declined by the DUP and Sinn Féin.

[Mark Durkan]

Does my hon. Friend recall that in 2011 in the Northern Ireland Assembly, when the Welfare Reform Bill was going through this House, the SDLP proposed in the Assembly that a special committee should be set up to undertake parallel scrutiny and to anticipate the implications of that Bill, so that we could have consensus and address Whitehall? That was voted down by the DUP.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend. I well recall that because I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly at the time, and I was party to that proposal. I clearly remember that we were trying to achieve consensus on the best way to ensure that the best mitigation measures were put in place. That proposal was refused by the DUP and Sinn Féin—the cosy partners in government who deliver only for themselves and not for the wider public.

I speak as a former Minister for Social Development who had direct responsibility for benefits, and I well remember introducing a household fuel payment Bill, which was separate from measures that existed in Britain. That Bill sought to address fuel poverty and ensure that people who felt it would be difficult to pay for both eating and heating—we agreed with them—did not have to make that choice. The SDLP has always stood by the people and by the principle of consensus, and it is a matter of deep regret that others did not do so. I regret that the Bill is not being dealt with in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that the power of devolution on these matters has been removed from our colleagues in the Assembly on a cross-community basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

My constituency does not have the term “south” in it, although I may have to begin by slightly depressing the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) by responding to one of the final points he made. He made some big claims about the “Fresh Start” deal, talking about how the original Stormont House deal provided for mitigation measures of £90 million a year on average, whereas the “Fresh Start” deal involves £345 million over four years. I think most people would know that four £90 millions comes to £360 million, which is slightly more than £345 million, if we are talking about the average over four years.

Many points have been raised in the debate—points that go far and wide away from the immediate subject of the Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Bill. I will have to follow others in covering some of that ground, relating to the provenance of the whole debate and the Bill.

The SDLP, has been castigated and people have said, “Oh, you never tried to build consensus on welfare reform.” As I tried to explain in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), as far back as when the original legislation was going through this House, we tried with other Assembly parties to build a consensus in the then Assembly, to anticipate what the implications would be and not to wait for the legislation to be passed through this House, with the Assembly and a Minister being faced with the need to take forward karaoke legislation that would not be to our taste or liking. We tried in late 2011 to get a special committee set up in the Assembly precisely to do that on an all-party basis and to feed into the legislation as it was coming through this House.

Among the issues that we said we wanted to address at that time was the bedroom tax. When the legislation was going through, the SDLP was the only party from Northern Ireland that spoke about the implications of the bedroom tax for Northern Ireland and said that measures were needed to deal with it. There we were; we were adopting that approach in this Chamber, and we were trying to work with other parties in the Assembly properly to address those issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said, as well addressing the issues in this Chamber, we were meeting the Minister for Welfare Reform, Lord Freud. Early in 2012, he acknowledged that many of the claims made by the hon. Member for North Antrim about allowing for flexibility and the split in universal payments were promised to us. He said that if the Assembly had a unified approach to trying to get those measures, they would be made available. We were promised that the Department for Work and Pensions would have no problem if the legislation for Northern Ireland included the direct payment of housing benefit to landlords. We were also promised that the DWP would make sure that the computer system it was bringing forward would allow for that.

Much of what is being called part of the conclusion to this good “Fresh Start” approach was always available—some of us had always worked on that basis and had always advocated it inside the Assembly, yet we were being told by DUP Members, including the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) who is unfortunately not in his place, that we were scaremongering when we expressed our concerns about the implications of this Bill.

The hon. Member for North Antrim, among others, has referred to the mitigation of sanctions, but again we fought and argued over that issue in the Assembly and in various all-party talks, trying to get agreement with all parties. We had useful discussions, not least with the DUP Minister for Social Development, about that and other matters. I do not think that anyone could say that at Stormont House 2014, the SDLP was found wanting in trying to make sure that we could reach some agreement and resolution on welfare reform.

As I have said, we subsequently ended up being castigated. Sinn Féin accused the SDLP of having sold out or caved in on welfare reform before anybody else, but the point we made in Stormont House was that we wanted to ensure that there would be mitigation and that any mitigation measures would be sustainable and within the devolved budget. That is why we indicated that we could go for a mitigation package. The First Minister told us on a Wednesday evening that officials were telling him that this “option C package”, as it was called—it was a combination of other options—would cost £93 million out of this year’s devolved budget.

The SDLP said that we wanted to see improvement in estimates in some areas, but that we could go with £100 million out of this year’s budget and the projections beyond that. The UUP wanted to see estimates improved and the Alliance had some concerns about the estimate being more than was allowed for in the budget, but said that it would go with the £93 million if it bought about a deal. Sinn Féin on that Wednesday evening said that it would not go with that. It said that it had to be “option C plus”, but it could not tell us what was in that option. It thought it would cost a lot more money. Sinn Féin representatives said that somebody somewhere in the building would be able to tell them, and they would be able to tell us.

By the Thursday evening, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister came into the Executive room where the five parties were meeting, and the First Minister informed us that he and Martin had been having conversations with each other and with officials, that they now had an agreement and that it would cost £94 million out of the budget. Once again, the SDLP position was that we wanted to see the estimates and that we would allow up to £100 million. That is what helped to bring about the fact that people saw that there was a way of solving welfare reform problems. The Stormont House agreement said that proposals would be developed and would be brought to the Assembly, but whenever the legislation came to the Assembly, it was exactly the same as the draft Bill that had existed before the Stormont House agreement. That is why the SDLP tabled amendments in the Assembly. They were not Bill-shattering amendments in any way, but they nevertheless triggered a petition of concern from the DUP, which had the effect of a veto. In any case, the amendments were voted down by both Sinn Féin and the DUP.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does my hon. Friend agree that those amendments were cost-neutral, which was clearly acknowledged by the Minister for Social Development?

[Mark Durkan]

Several of them were. Some would have had cost implications, but many were cost-neutral. That was one of the arguments that the Minister made at the time. We checked whether the British Government were consulted by the Minister or anybody else and asked whether there would be a problem if the amendments were passed, but the British Government made it clear that they were not consulted and that they had not acted against our amendments in any way. They were not saying that our amendments would have threatened to derail the Stormont House agreement or were in any way in breach of it. It was entirely the decision of Sinn Féin and the DUP to veto our amendments by the petition of concern and by voting against them.

You will not want me to anticipate the Committee stage too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the fact is that the amendments we have tabled for the Committee stage capture some of those same amendments. I ask people to read those amendments in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said because they would not derail or damage the Bill.

On the wider politics of this matter I can perhaps reach some agreement with the hon. Member for North Antrim, because they involve a strange change of position on the part of Sinn Féin. All along, Sinn Féin said that it was going to oppose welfare reform completely. All along, it said that no claimant—now or in the future—would be a penny worse off as a result of any changes. SDLP Members said that we could not subscribe to that position. We said that could not pretend that we could guarantee by any tactics, in the Assembly or here, that we could protect every last penny of benefit for any existing claimant or any new claimants into the future. We were very clear, honest and honourable about that.

Sinn Féin election posters this year were on the theme of “Stop the Tory cuts”. Some of us said that Sinn Féin was in no position to stop Tory cuts unless it was in a position to stop a Tory Government, and, as a party that does not take up its seats, that was not going to happen. It was nonsense, but that is what Sinn Féin said. We were told by Conor Murphy:

“The Tories have no mandate in the north for their cuts agenda. The local parties need to make it clear that Tory cuts to public services and the welfare state are unacceptable.”

Now, apparently, those Tory cuts to the welfare state are acceptable to Sinn Féin. Martin McGuiness told us:

“I am not prepared to preside over the austerity agenda that the British government are inflicting on our executive. My conscience would not allow me to do it.”

Well, he has got over his conscience now, and he is quite happy; perhaps he is pretending to himself that he is not presiding over it by virtue of having handed the power to Westminster. I may now receive a voice-activated intervention from the Minister, who will tell us that the power has not been handed over and that Westminster will have a parallel, or concurrent, legislative power, which Stormont will also have. There will be a power switch on both walls, but only the power switch on the Westminster wall will be activated and used for the next 13 months during which, after the Bill is passed, a series of orders and regulations will be made.

We have been told about the sunset clause. Sinn Féin seems to be allowing some people to suggest, in social media, that it is a very clever thing, and that a big line is to be drawn in the sand at the end of 2016, because many of the more nefarious and controversial aspects of the current Welfare Reform and Work Bill are meant to kick in in 2017. The sunset clause, however, will apply only to the decision-making powers that are now being taken by the Secretary of State. It will not apply to the content or effect of any of the decisions that are made by him or her. All the changes that are made in direct rule legislation here, in Orders in Council and in other instruments, will still apply in 2017 and beyond.

We have heard many references to the Assembly’s legislative consent motion. We should bear in mind that it includes the words

“approves the welfare clauses of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill as initially introduced at Westminster”.

Some of us did not approve those clauses as they were initially introduced; we argued against them, and voted against them. I recall members of the DUP expressing concerns about some of those clauses, voting against them, and voting for amendments. Unusually, the legislative consent motion did not even make provision for amendments. Other such motions have not just allowed Westminster to pass a Bill, but allowed amendments to be tabled. For some reason, this motion precluded that.

Many of us are in difficulty because we are being asked, on Second Reading, to approve matters on which we have already voiced and recorded our disapproval. That applies not just to the SDLP, but to a number of other parties. We are being told to do that because it will be the great deal that will move everything forward. Members have touched on other aspects of the deal, but my concern relates directly to the Bill.

I am certainly not saying that we should set aside the mitigations and the other measures that have been so carefully agreed to. Indeed, I think that we should have done more work on those. I also think—I raised this at Stormont House in 2014—that we need to think, collectively, about whether there is the proper demarcation between Westminster and the Assembly in relation to welfare reform.

Perhaps we should look at what has been happening in Scotland. I am not suggesting that we should adopt an exact model of the Scotland Bill, but I think we should take account of some of the issues and ideas that have flowed from those debates. I think we should look to the longer term, and ensure that we do not fall into the trap of either allowing karaoke legislation to be pushed through the Assembly as a result of “budget bullying”, or creating the potential for political crises. There is a different delineation in the scope of the devolution of welfare in Scotland. I think that we may need to examine what is happening there, given the emphasis that many Members here have placed on some of the most sensitive benefits in Northern Ireland, relating to disabilities and other long-term conditions including mental ill health.

It was part of the original Stormont House deal in 2014 that parties would be prepared to look at how wider issues of devolution—not just tax, but benefits—were being handled elsewhere, with the aim of securing a more sustainable adjustment for the future. If we want to avoid the spasmodic crises in which parties end up trying to find a brink on which to teeter every time there is disagreement about important issues such as these, we may need to do something else.

When I raised the need to ensure that we were in a better position in the future and suggested ways of dealing with the medium to longer-term issues, I did not receive much support from members of other parties. The First Minister merely said that my problem was seeing around too many corners too early, and that perhaps we should just let some things go and they would be all right when we got to them. The fact is, however, that we anticipated a great deal of difficulty with welfare reform, which is why we argued for a different approach in the Assembly all those years ago, as well as here. We have been proved right, to the extent that, if we had all taken a different course together, we might be in a better position.

The Bill gives the Secretary of State power not just to translate the rules in relation to benefits from the 2012 Act, but, as the Minister has indicated, to prepare an Order in Council to translate proposals in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The legislative consent motion refers to “the welfare clauses”. I note that the shadow Secretary of State did not receive an answer to his very fair question, which my party colleagues also asked in the Assembly last week: what exactly is meant by “the welfare clauses”? Some Members seem to believe that they do not include tax credits, but the Treasury now counts tax credits as welfare for many purposes, including the welfare cap. We have different notions of welfare, and the welfare measures in that Bill are not restricted to conventional social security benefits; they extend to tax credits as well. We have a right to more clarity, and I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will receive a clear answer to his question.

This has been a bit confusing. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Down pointed out that not all the tax credit losses would be covered by this package, we were told that tax credits were nothing to do with it because they did not constitute devolved welfare. At the same time, however, DUP Members have claimed that the mitigation on tax credits has been the significant part of the deal, and the main justification for accepting it. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it must be counted for the purpose of one side of the argument, but not for the purpose of another side.

In response to the challenge presented by the fact that some are not prepared to work for consensus, the Secretary of State may well confirm that in the Stormont House talks we made it clear that we wanted all the parties to agree that the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be invited to provide us with a quick regional analysis of the implications of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the tax credit changes. That would also test the Secretary of State’s argument at the time that the Welfare Reform and Work Bill was a good deal for Northern Ireland—she used exactly the same words she is using for this Bill for the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, before the Government were moved to say they would amend it or mitigate it in some way. On these measures, she said that we needed to take account of the changes in terms of the tax thresholds and the national living wage that would make good the loss. We were saying, “Let’s get the IFS to do this so we’re not just relying on figures from our own officials in the Department for Social Development or anywhere else.” Again, however—surprise, surprise—the SDLP put forward an idea for all the parties to go with, that was informed and would have been neutral and constructive, but it was not supported. That was not for lack of action by us to try to take a consensus approach and make sure all parties have a better-informed approach in that regard.

We were being told by the Secretary of State—Sinn Féin and the SDLP in particular were being told this—both publicly from the Dispatch Box and in the talks that there would not be a deal on the past if there was not a deal on welfare reform. It was said that welfare reform had to be settled and move forward or else there would be no progress on the past. But now we have a deal that gives us welfare reform moving forward in the way the Government want—entirely in the Government’s hands—and we do not have a deal on the past moving forward. People want to know how that came about; it is not only the victims who want to know that.

When we listen to Sinn Féin on this, it tells us, on the past, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” but then we ask them about welfare reform, and they tell us, “A bad deal is better than no deal.” It is a complete contradiction; the only consistency is Sinn Féin’s inconsistency and lack of principle. Of course Sinn Fein might well try to tell us, “Oh no, we’ve delivered on our promise,” because Gerry Adams’s big promise was, “No one will have a reduction to any benefit under the control of the Assembly or the Executive.” So how does Gerry keep his promise? He removes it from the control of the Assembly or Executive and hands it to direct rule.

We must remember that it is direct rule we are giving; it is going back to the old Order in Council position. Such measures cannot be amended—indeed, the sponsoring legislation for the system we have tonight cannot even be amended either, unfortunately, because of the way the allocation of time motion works. That is what we are stuck with; that is the choice Sinn Féin has made and it has yet to explain adequately why.

Sinn Féin does not have the protections it says it wants, therefore, and it now tries to pretend that we are in a completely new situation because of 8 July—because the Chancellor announced a Budget on 8 July that changed everything and threatened a lot more people. We all knew there was going to be a Budget on 8 July. In fairness, Sinn Fein, like ourselves, pointed out during the election, and even back last year at Stormont House, that whatever package we had, if the Tories got back into government other cuts could be sought. There was speculation: sums of £12 billion or £16 billion were mentioned. We also knew that, even if Labour returned to government, it was committed to applying the welfare cap on a UK-wide basis. So we knew there were going to be difficulties. Therefore, for Sinn Féin to pretend that a completely new situation that nobody could have predicted came about with the return of the Conservative Government and the Budget of 8 July is completely wrong.

Sinn Féin’s argument back in July was that all parties should work together in facing the Government and we should join forces with Scotland and Wales as well. When some of us looked for that approach at the recent Stormont House talks, we found there were no real takers for it, not even Sinn Féin, which had advertised itself as the main sponsor and advocate of that way forward.

People will want to know why we have come to this position, therefore. They will want to know why Sinn Féin has used the so-called threat of collapse of the institutions to collapse its own position. We have known for some time that the DUP has been in something of a roll-over mode in relation to welfare reform legislation, because the DUP position has been that once the legislation went through Westminster—[Interruption.] The DUP position has been that, once the legislation went through Westminster, we have no choice but to go along with it; that has essentially been the line it has pushed in the Assembly. It also never objected to the fine and never raised any argument against it. One would think that it was almost in on it at the beginning as a tactic. The threat of a fine was never used before in relation to welfare changes, which were not always reflected in Northern Ireland on the basis of parity, but it was used this time. But essentially, the DUP’s position has been to say, “We weren’t really for that legislation when it went through Westminster”, even though there were parts of it that they did not really oppose. DUP Members actually voted down amendments from the House of Lords, including measures to protect child benefit from the benefit cap. The DUP’s position has been to say, “We have to comply with this”, whether in the name of parity or to avoid fines. It has adopted a roll-over approach.

Stormont

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ritchie]

No, because other people want to speak.

[Mark Durkan]

Take a minute.

[Ms Ritchie]

Maybe I will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ritchie]

The SDLP wants the best possible implementation of the Stormont House agreement for all the citizens of Northern Ireland. In fact, in February in the Assembly, it was the SDLP which tabled numerous amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill. The DUP and Sinn Féin refused to support the measures. They voted down amendments that would have improved the Bill. We were able to give the Minister—[Interruption.] In many instances, the amendments were cost-neutral.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister said that they were cost-neutral.

[Ms Ritchie]

Yes, that is right.

On another aspect of the issue, Northern Ireland needs to move into a shared future that fosters tolerance and respect across the entire island. We cannot do so if we do not confront our past. The north’s past will not simply be dealt with through the passing of time. The SDLP is not happy with the proposed legislation on the past, because we believe that it is an impediment to dealing with those issues and the recovery of truth and accountability. In my constituency, six innocent men were murdered in Loughinisland in County Down on 18 June 1994. We are still waiting on information regarding the truth; we are still waiting on justice. Above all, we are waiting to find out who perpetrated those murders and why they were perpetrated. Was there state involvement and was there involvement by the Royal Ulster Constabulary? We need to find out, which is why it is crucial that the Bill dealing with the past addresses those issues.

I am in absolutely no doubt, nor is my party, that Northern Ireland has considerable economic potential. We need a rebalancing of the economy, and we need balanced regional development. There is an opportunity for reconciliation, which must deal with the past and the situation of our current citizenry, so to speak, so that we can deal with the future. We must have a prosperous future, and we must be able to unite the people of the island of Ireland in terms of a reconciled future.

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

We await with bated breath the Minister’s great revelations and technical epiphanies.

Whatever the Financial Secretary says about the complex dimensions of this, there is nothing complex about the simple logic and justice of the proposition that wholly and solely-owned mutuals and credit unions should be able to benefit from a devolved tax rate.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Assembly’s Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which he used to chair, is also supportive of the stance that he and other Northern Ireland Members are taking? It believes that mutual societies and credit unions based in Northern Ireland should be included within the Bill and able to avail themselves of the same reduced rates of corporation tax as other Northern Ireland-based organisations.

Newry HMRC Centre

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I sit on a cross-border committee organised by Newry and Mourne district council. A representative from HMRC in Newry attends its meetings and deals with illegal fuel laundering. The last meeting was some six weeks ago, and good progress has been made on that, on foot of the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the good work being carried out by HMRC in dealing with illegal fuel laundering.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As my hon. Friend knows, Foyle House in Derry, in my constituency, is also affected by the proposals. She is rightly emphasising the fact that jobs are at stake, but does she agree that the quality of services is also at stake? When other taxation services have moved out of Northern Ireland, not least those involving the administration of tax credits, many people—particularly cross-border workers—have been left with very poor services and chronic problems.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for this service, particularly in regard to cross-border working, as there is a considerable interchange of population between the north and the south. In his case, it is between Derry and Donegal; in my case, it is between Newry and Dundalk. In my area, there is a memorandum of understanding between both councils, north and south, to deal with economic issues in order to pump-prime the local economy.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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

Changing Perceptions of Northern Ireland

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

All of it.

[Ms Ritchie]

All of it.

Civilian Deaths (Ballymurphy)

Debate between Mark Durkan and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) first.

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

I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I, too, have met the Ballymurphy families in Westminster, at Stormont and in Ballymurphy. I am struck not only by their innocence but by their sheer humility and need to find justice and truth. Does my hon. Friend agree that the activities of the Parachute Regiment must be examined in connection with their use and deployment at the time in Belfast, Derry and throughout Northern Ireland?

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Wider questions must be asked of the powers that be, in both military command and political oversight, about how the Parachute Regiment was deployed in Northern Ireland in those days. Clearly, the Parachute Regiment’s behaviour in Ballymurphy should have been factored into the thinking about its future deployment. People should have had that in mind when it was decided to send the Parachute Regiment, specifically, to Derry for Bloody Sunday. Of course, the Parachute Regiment must account not just for the deaths in Derry and Ballymurphy, but for the killing of two innocent Protestants, Mr Johnston and Mr McKinnie, in September 1972 on the Shankill.