Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and hon. Friends support his amendment, and I trust that the House will accept it.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that support and endorsement and hope that the House will today accept at least the spirit, logic and compelling sense of the amendment.

As I said in my opening remarks, there is no argument from these Benches, or indeed from any of the parties in Northern Ireland, whether or not they are in the Executive or the Assembly, that large-scale financial services should be able to shift profits or any of their activities simply to net benefit from devolved corporation tax provisions. However, we want to ensure that legitimate, bona fide, not-for-profit mutualised activity is not penalised as a result of the restrictions that are rightly being included.

Credit unions and mutual building societies such as the Progressive have long-standing histories, have done nothing speculative, did not need any Government bail-out and had no questions about their books, or about anything else, so there is nothing untoward, whiffy or sniffy about any of their activities, because they were solid, prudent and sensible. There is absolutely no question but that the parties would want to see such organisations penalised and unable to benefit from the same sort of devolved tax rate that would be available to small and medium-sized enterprises. When we look at the scale of the individual credit unions—remember that they are regulated individually, not as some sort of conglomerate activity—we see that the idea that they would find themselves caught, for corporation tax purposes, in the same category as a large bank, for instance, is absolute nonsense.

However, there is a bit of a rub in this. I know that the credit unions and others have listened carefully to our proceedings on the Bill. For instance, on Second Reading the point was made that the provisions on some classes of back offices, even those working for financial services companies, could qualify for the devolved tax rate, and there seemed to be an inference that some of those lines had been drawn with particular operations in mind. For instance, Citigroup was mentioned on Second Reading, and it was suggested that we should all be assured that its jobs are protected and that that work would be subject to the devolved tax rate. That leads to a situation in which companies such as credit unions and the Progressive building society are saying, “Well, if the back office operations in Northern Ireland can qualify for the devolved tax rate, which obviously we hope will be lower, why should the back office jobs of the Progressive Building Society not qualify?”

The Progressive building society is being advised by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that only 5% of its activity might qualify for the devolved tax rate, and it has been given no reason for that, other than that it seems to be the multiplier figure in the Bill. For no reason that anyone can understand or source, it has been told that only 5% of its activity might qualify. The Government are telling other financial services that they want them to work as hard as possible to maintain a high street presence, which the Progressive building society has done, including new investment in my constituency. It just seems bizarre that it should be penalised without a thought. That is why so many hon. Members are here to support the amendment.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

First, the new clause does not seek to introduce an omnibus report in relation to all the events of Northern Ireland’s burdened past. It is not one received version that looks at all the tragedies and atrocities in Northern Ireland’s troubled history. The new clause would create the ability or capacity for the Secretary of State to commission reports on different classes, groups or possible groups of crimes. Just as many people have found the book, “Lethal Allies”, a compelling drawing together of a number of different reports, plus other evidence relating to the work of a network of loyalist activity over a period of six years, so there could well be room to say that we need a report that draws together HET and any other findings on the work of the IRA in a given area or over a given period, or of the Irish National Liberation Army, or of loyalist paramilitaries in other areas, so that people who were victims know that their experiences were not isolated cases in which they were victimised and bereaved but were part of a network or pattern at a particular time. That narrative should be brought out and should be available to people.

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

Is there not a confusion in what the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House? On the one hand, he tells us that there is a report about the HET and its fairness and ability to investigate collusion and so on which puts a question mark over it. On the other hand, he brings out the virtues of the HET, which somehow aids a “powerful” book, so-called, whenever it comes to security force collusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The HET has done some good work, but it has also done some work of very questionable quality. No less an authority than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found the HET’s work wanting in relation to the investigation of Army deaths, how they were investigated and how witnesses and potential witnesses were treated in that situation. It was a damning indictment by HMIC that the HET’s standard of performance in relation to a certain class of cases was illegal. That is not my finding, but accepting and recognising it and its seriousness does not lead me to rubbish cases in which the HET has done some good work and been able to marshal firm evidence that was of significance to families—evidence that was not shared with those families by anybody except the HET before now.

[Dr McCrea]

But how can we be sure that the reports that the hon. Gentleman says are virtuous actually are so?

[Mark Durkan]

First of all, I am not creating a class of good HET reports or bad HET reports. I am not saying that the Secretary of State must commission reports in relation to every single death on the basis of HET reports. My aim is to make good a deficiency in the work of the HET to date: its work counts solely as the private property of families, unless the families themselves choose to publish it. There is no formality in this House, for instance, whereby the Government may make an apology to a family on the back of an HET report. The Government up till now have treated that apology as a private matter, not a matter for the parliamentary record. An apology was duly given by the Ministry of Defence after a family had shared with it an HET report, but we had to go to the bother of an Adjournment debate, which I called, to get that apology voiced on the record. That shows that there is a problem in how HET reports are treated.

This is not just a point that we in the SDLP have come up with. Others have addressed it as well. There are victims groups who say that this is one of the deficiencies in relation to the HET. There is a question mark not only over the quality of the HET’s work, but over what the rest of us are doing with the HET’s work and whether the rest of us are interested in it. In the Haass talks the parties are meant to be addressing what is to be done about the past and what is being done, and it is important to acknowledge that some good work that has been done may not have been valued enough and is not well enough advertised or circulated. The measure is an attempt to improve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because we are moving into a very sensitive area. There seems to be a hierarchy of victims. Will he tell me why Robert McLernon, at 16 years of age, and Rachel McLernon, at 21 years of age, on the day she was engaged to be married, were targeted by the IRA? Should we not know that? Who is going to tell us that?

[Mark Durkan]

I absolutely believe that, in so far as anybody can tell us, we should know that. If there is ever an HET report that could tell us that, we should be told, rather than someone saying, “Oh no, it’s an HET report, so it’s the private property of the family.” The onus should not be entirely upon the family to make good that report.

The HET produced a very significant report on the Kingsmill massacre, but I do not believe that it received as much attention as it deserved. Its import was not fully registered in this House, or indeed in other places, and I believe that it should have been. Of course, the Kingsmill massacre is not the only evidence that discounts the cosy claim that has been made in the past for the IRA, and is still made to date, even on behalf of Sinn Fein, that there was nothing sectarian about the IRA campaign and that only loyalist paramilitaries carried out campaigns with an eye to a sectarian agenda. That is quite clear from a number of events, and not only those carried out by the IRA, but arguably those carried out by other republican paramilitaries at the time, when it was or was not the IRA, or when another flag of convenience was being flown, for example in the Darkley massacre.

I do not believe that it is only in relation to the murders of the Glenanne gang that we could benefit from a clear account based on sound findings from other inquiries. Remember that the power that new clause 1 would give the Secretary of State is to commission a report that draws on the findings of other bodies, not to set up a new investigative mechanism or some new roving or roaming inquiry into everything and anything. It would take the value and significance of what has already been found by other competent inquiries and investigations, so it would take what is already there in reports and marshal it together to draw value, and not just for the victims, but for wider society. I hope that idea will commend itself to the parties as they consider these and other issues in the Haass talks.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

[Dr McCrea]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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