Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I have to be honest that the slightly left-handed amendment I tabled in Committee could have introduced its own difficulties, as the Minister pointed out at the time. This less left-handed—I apologise to any cuiteogs in the House—amendment addresses the salient point in respect of credit unions and also takes in for the first time a point that I had overlooked in Committee: the position of a mutual building society based wholly and solely in Northern Ireland, such as the Progressive. This wider amendment, which thankfully has been seconded by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), is therefore designed to cater to both circumstances.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

It is important to recognise—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree—that the point of that exclusion was to prevent the kind of brass-plating whereby companies simply moved their headquarters to Northern Ireland without moving any economic activity or jobs. That is not the case with either credit unions or mutuals such as the Progressive, because they are based in Northern Ireland and work there, creating employment and investment.

[Mark Durkan]

I take that point fully. That is why I am so glad that the hon. Member has seconded the amendment and spoken so strongly to its main purpose.

Historical Child Abuse Allegations

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. Regardless of the Secretary of State’s statement yesterday, Sir Anthony is still entirely reliant on the voluntary co-operation of Whitehall Departments and MI5, which is simply not good enough given their record on this matter. Even the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in yesterday’s statement, did not promise full co-operation, but the “fullest possible co-operation”—a caveat that will chill those who recall previous doomed attempts to investigate this scandal.

A number of former military intelligence officers have recently come forward to indicate publicly that they possess information that would be of interest to an inquiry with regard to Kincora and also to indicate their willingness to give evidence, including on the alleged blocking of police and Army investigations by secret services at the time. At least one of them has indicated that he was unable to disclose some information to an earlier inquiry because it would have been deemed a breach of his obligations under the Official Secrets Act.

This specific aspect goes far beyond mere “co-operation” with the devolved inquiry; it is utterly naive to believe that former members of the security and intelligence services would volunteer to give evidence if they could face prosecution, so it is imperative that the UK Government authorise disclosure of all relevant information held in order to examine and fully address the persistent allegations surrounding Kincora. That will require a temporary and limited suspension of the Official Secrets Act.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Two years ago, I pointed out to the Home Secretary, as I did again last week, that it is imperative that the national inquiry panel should deal with this issue, and that it will take the Home Secretary to make it clear that the security services and all their former agents have full cover in presenting every piece of information they have.

[Naomi Long]

I totally concur. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the task requires not simply words of co-operation, but practical assistance and prioritisation at the UK level. I shall explain why.

The child abuse that has recently come to light in Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, to name but a few, is a national scandal; so, too, is Kincora. The fact that Kincora was located in Northern Ireland and that the allegations concerned a period during the troubles should not be a hindrance to the investigation of these crimes or to any subsequent cover-up by Government agencies. They are linked to Kincora by the allegation of MI5 involvement in cover-up.

Let me read a quote from an article written by Colin Wallace as recently as today. I recommend that people read his article in full. It can be found in “Spinwatch” and it is titled “Kincora—A need for transparency”. It says:

“The common denominator in both the Cyril Smith case and in the Kincora scandal is MI5. It would appear that in both England and Northern Ireland MI5 prevented the police and/or the Army from taking action against those who were systematically sexually abusing children. Surely this obvious link between MI5’s apparent role in covering up abuse in both England and Northern Ireland should be investigated by a single inquiry and not two separate inquiries. Also, any meaningful inquiry must have the power to demand the full disclosure of all relevant official documents and records and to subpoena witnesses to give evidence under oath. In the past, successive Government Ministers have promised that they would initiate thorough inquiries into Kincora, but on each occasion those inquiries were undermined by having their terms of reference watered down.”

National Crime Agency

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

When the legislation to set up the National Crime Agency went through this House, I was one of the Northern Ireland MPs who actually participated in those debates. Many of the others who have spoken today came nowhere near those debates. I made it clear then that the Bill’s provisions for the NCA would cause problems for Northern Ireland because they did not take account of the Patten architecture of policing. I also made it clear that we were not raising those points in order to try to prevent the NCA or anything else from coming into being. The basis of our argument was that more needed to be done to make sure that any new addition or change to policing architecture in Northern Ireland should be entirely compatible with the Patten prospectus. That was the point we made.

The issue before the House at that time related to references to the fact that the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland had agreed various things and that they would have to be satisfied with various things. It centred entirely on the Minister of Justice—that is where the focus was—not on the Policing Board, the Chief Constable or anything else. That is not a criticism of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland, because, as I said at the time, he was caught in a situation whereby Whitehall, which dealt with the issue, was able to talk to him but he was not able to talk to the Policing Board or anyone else in advance of the legislation. Therefore, the first the Policing Board knew about the legislation—indeed, the first some senior people in the PSNI knew about the legislation—was when it emerged in this place.

There is a lesson there: such sensitive issues should not be conducted in that way in future. A devolved Minister should not find himself locked in like that. Since then, the Minister has, rightly and helpfully, engaged with a number of the concerns that we and others—not just we and Sinn Fein—have.

I should also point out that when the whole idea of the NCA was brought up, the Labour party had issues with whether it would properly and adequately replace SOCA. Those are valid concerns. It is not the case that people were stepping in the way to try to stop the NCA. Moreover, Jim Gamble, who has offered distinguished service as a police officer in Northern Ireland and to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, had serious reservations and misgivings about how the NCA’s work would be carried forward overall. He is on the record as agreeing on several of the issues raised by the SDLP on questions of accountability and—

[Naomi Long]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because I did not intervene on any Northern Ireland Members. I heard an awful lot about us on all sorts of questions, and I want to deal with those points and to set the issues in context.

Hon. Members have suggested that the SDLP has wilfully set out to stop the NCA and is still somehow vetoing it. We pointed out issues that needed to be addressed and could have been addressed when we considered the legislation. Many people then dismissed those issues, saying, “It’s impossible. You can’t have the National Crime Agency make anything available to the Policing Board. You can’t have it working with the Chief Constable in such a way. They can’t operate differently in Northern Ireland from how they operate anywhere else.” Lo and behold, we now have proposals for those things to happen, but those who wasted time in dismissing our concerns—saying that they could not be met, but were impossible and specious—now accuse us of having a vacuous position. The fact is that if our views had then been properly pursued and followed by others, we might not now be in the impasse that we have been in for too long.

I want to make a point about child protection. Hon. Members have referred to the recent Assembly legislation on human trafficking. When I sat on the Public Bill Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill, I was at pains to make sure that the legislation in this House was in a better state so that it was properly compatible with the Northern Ireland legislation and there were no jurisdictional or other gaps. That included ensuring that the new anti-slavery commissioner—a UK appointment; potentially a British appointment—could, under the legislation in this House, review and make recommendations on matters in devolved areas if the devolved Administrations opted any of their services into the scope of the anti-slavery commissioner’s work. It is not therefore the case that the SDLP has said that nothing at British or UK level can be applied or that we will have no part of it.

It has been suggested that the SDLP is somehow reluctant to do things on policing that Sinn Fein does not do. Let us be very clear: we committed to Patten. We went on the Policing Board, and we drove the delivery of Patten when Sinn Fein refused to do so and attacked us for our position on policing in council chambers and at every political level. We did not need Sinn Fein then. Even before that, we supported the creation of the Assets Recovery Agency, which Sinn Fein completely opposed, and we supported its work when it was attacked and demonised by Sinn Fein. When SOCA was created, we had concerns that it might not carry forward the good work being done in Northern Ireland by the Assets Recovery Agency, and some hon. Members from other parties shared those concerns. They were not opposed to the existence of SOCA; like us, they had concerns about whether the work would be properly carried forward. People can raise concerns about agencies such as the NCA without being opposed to good law enforcement.

There is no question of our needing to know where Sinn Fein is going before we take a position on the NCA or on anything else. Equally, we differed from Sinn Fein on another aspect of policing. Annex E of the St Andrew’s agreement covered the provisions that basically allowed MI5 to get around the accountability mechanisms provided in Patten. It ensured that what happened with the Mount Vernon gang report by the previous police ombudsman could not happen again, and that no question that touched on or took in aspects of national security and the performance of MI5 could be examined by the police ombudsman. We opposed annex E at the time, and we were the ones who were isolated. We therefore have no problem in differing with Sinn Fein on policing issues. We have done it regularly. We have, however, been absolutely consistent in opposing—

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I am not speaking for the Chief Constable; I am speaking to the new clause. I have said that many of us believe that the HET has been seriously injured, and that the viability of it serving its purpose in future, and its reliability, have been fundamentally wounded. I know that many people on the Northern Ireland Policing Board have that view as well. As to whether the Chief Constable has come to that view, we will have to see. The new clause does not legislate for a new body; it simply allows us to ensure that if a new body were created, that would not negate good work already done by the HET, and good work done, and sound reports produced, by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

The new clause would ensure that reports can be commissioned not just on individual cases and events, but on evident lessons or patterns in findings relating to different cases and events. Anne Cadwallader, on behalf of the Pat Finucane Centre, has been able to bring out glaring and compelling points relating to the Glenanne gang and its work: the connections between many different killings; the repeated use of various weapons; the likely involvement of some people; and issues of collusion and complicity in all that. That approach should be available for other cases, too. It is not just about being able to tell that narrative about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries; there are compelling narratives that need to be told about the activities of republican paramilitaries as well.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The new clause has been tabled while talks are under way with Haass and so on, and there is a process that deals with issues from the past. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the new clause puts the cart before the horse, or does he think that it complies with that general process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I have no resistance to any inquiries about any allegations of collusion that there might be against Garda Siochana or anybody else. In relation to the point that is often made by the DUP about the possible involvement of members of the Irish Government in arming the Provisional IRA initially, I have no problem with an investigation of that or anything else. I point out that members of the Irish Government were sacked at the time and former Ministers stood trial alongside others, so it is not as though the issue passed without moment at the time.

The Berry papers brought those issues out again, in much the same way as the Pat Finucane Centre was able to find in the national archives in Kew many documents that provide a strong back-light on the murderous machinations of the Glenanne gang. In Irish Government records, including the Berry papers, which were perused by significant elements of the media some years ago, there is also significant back-lighting of what happened in and around the arms trial.

I want to return to the point of new clause 1. It is not to prescribe that there shall be one sweeping narrative in relation to all issues in the past, or to refuse any, but to say that where there have been various investigations or reports, whether by a public inquiry, the HET, the police ombudsman, or any other investigative means—the Ballymurphy families, for example, are talking about having something like the Hillsborough independent panel look at their case—if there were common strands to be brought out in relation to different cases, the Secretary of State could commission a report that would do that.

[Naomi Long]

I understand the merit in the proposal, but is the HET, for example, the right basis for the kind of reports that the hon. Gentleman seeks? The purpose of the investigation, for example of the HET, is to look at the matter with a view to the prosecution of those guilty of offences. The understanding and the narrative that forms the backdrop to those events are not necessarily the job of the HET, but are a more complex mix. I want to probe whether the hon. Gentleman believes that those are the right bases for this kind of narrative-building report.

[Mark Durkan]

I believe that they potentially are. If one has been privileged to have a HET report shared with one by a family, one has only to read it to see that it may be pointing less towards any possible prosecution, than bringing out significant information about the background events and circumstances. The first time that many families found out that their loved ones were murdered by the same weapons was when they read the HET reports that dealt with murders by the Glenanne gang. No one ever told them that before. They were never told that as a result of RUC investigations or any other revelations, or comments or observations made by Ministers about the nature or network of crimes or murders. None of that information was ever shared with those families until they received it from the HET, and until the Pat Finucane Centre literally brought them together as victims of the same weapons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman might have some basis for saying that if there was any truth in it, which, of course, there is not, not least because we deliberately set the petition of concern threshold at 30 because at that time we thought there was no chance of a party reaching the 30s. That was one of the reasons why the 30 threshold was there; there were concerns about how freely this could be used and that it might block things up.

The need for the petition of concern to be significant was emphasised not just by the threshold but by the special committee procedure to show whether there was a prima facie case on either equality or human rights grounds. The petition of concern was not to be used just for the convenience of a party that wanted to stop something. The fact is, however, that petitions of concern have been used to veto Bills that addressed the question of dual mandates between local government and the Assembly, which is a completely undue use. A petition of concern was also used to veto any question of a binding or significant vote in relation to censure of a Minister; it was never meant to be used in that sort of way.

The fact of a petition of concern being used, or being threatened to be used, by different parties prevents issues from being tabled. The whole point of the petition of concern was not to stop things being tabled, but to ensure that when they were tabled they were duly frisked and tested in respect of sensitive considerations such as human rights and equality. New clause 2 simply tries to get the Assembly out of the rut it is currently in, where vetoes are used far too often in a way that not only negates outcomes but prevents debate.

Amendment 4 seeks to ensure consistency with what was intended and envisaged in the Good Friday agreement and in the provisions that became section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, which provides for equality duties and duties of public bodies in respect of good relations. On a number of occasions in recent years there has been a move to say that the good relations duty could sometimes trump the equality duty, so that a public body might not come through with a measure on equality grounds based on objective need because somebody else might feel it would upset good relations. We have seen that arise in relation to the Irish language, and there have been suggestions of its arising in relation to the provision and siting of social housing as well. The amendment seeks to clarify the balance and relationship between the good relations duty and the equality duty.

[Naomi Long]

But surely what the amendment does is not clarify the balance between the two, but in fact give one supremacy over the other? The reality is that in a divided society where there are competing rights and tensions in respect of those rights it is essential to strike a balance. Instead of simply giving equality the upper hand on all occasions, we must ensure that equality and good relations are balanced in decision-making processes.

[Mark Durkan]

That is why the amendment seeks to translate into Northern Ireland legislation something that the House legislated on for Great Britain in the Equality Act 2010, by specifying the relationship between good relations and equality based on objective need. We cannot use the question of good relations to justify a decision that fails to exercise an equality duty based on objective need.

When we discussed this matter upstairs in the Bill Committee, I pointed out that my proposal would not have the converse effect that a public body could not introduce a measure with an eye to good relations unless it also met the requirement of equality based on objective need. The new clause would not, for example, prevent the sort of thing that happened in my constituency in relation to the Fountain estate. There was widespread support for creating a new school there, even though it would not have fulfilled any of the criteria on the Department of Education’s lists relating to qualifying for capital spending on a new school. Similar issues arose there over school transport. Because of the particular circumstances of the estate and the community, however, and because of the ambition to uphold the ethos of a shared city, it was agreed that it should happen for reasons of good relations and community support, even though the proposals did not fulfil any of the Department’s investment criteria relating to need.

The new clause would not prevent such a project from going ahead in the future. It would, however, prevent someone from using concerns about good relations or agitating to advertise tensions in relations as a way of preventing a measure from going forward on the basis of equality based on objective need, whether in relation to language or to any other public programme or investment, such as in social housing.

I am simply trying to correct the confusion that is now building up, and to remove the undue tension that is being created by the two important aspects represented in section 75 and that relate to the commitments in the Good Friday agreement. On that basis, I commend new clause 2 and amendment 4 to the House.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Naomi Long]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Naomi Long]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

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

[Naomi Long]

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Naomi Long]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

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

[Naomi Long]

I think—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mark Durkan]

I am not aware that we tried any such thing. I certainly never agreed to any such moves, not least when I was Deputy First Minister. When my fellow leader suggested that there were things that we could do to ensure better political patronage, I made it very clear that I was not for doing any such thing, regardless of what the NIO wanted to do. I used to spend much time in disagreement with NIO Ministers who had wheezes that they were working out with the First Minister. I did not go along with any of the Jonathan Powell, John Reid, David Trimble, Tony Blair wheezes on further ensconcing the position of the then leader of the Ulster Unionist party. It seemed to me that messing about with the institutions and playing those sorts of games was not the way to do things, either for that party or for the process and institutions that we had.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

[Naomi Long]

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

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

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Naomi Long]

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

[Mark Durkan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

The reluctance is not a reluctance to see the National Crime Agency operate or make a due contribution to the fighting and the reducing of crime in Northern Ireland, and crime that reaches into or out of Northern Ireland and affects other territories. The hon. Gentleman mentioned SOCA. When SOCA was first proposed, his party and mine had reservations about it, but many of those reservations were concerned with whether it would mean the loss of the valuable work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau. We wondered whether level 1 crime would be dealt with by the PSNI and level 3 would be dealt with by SOCA, and whether criminals knew that if they kept their criminal activity within level 2, there would be no one to deal with it.

Many issues arose in relation to SOCA, not just the issue of whether UK policing would affect Northern Ireland. We were seriously worried, for instance, about SOCA’s role in relation to the role of MI5. The notion of what is classified as national security, and of what a Government treat as national security, seems to be something of a movable feast in terms of the level of crime operations that are deemed to be within MI5’s sphere of influence. We were trying to clarify all those matters, and the same applies here. We need to know about any additional policing element.

The Bill with which we were originally presented provided for constabulary powers to be given to National Crime Agency officers in Northern Ireland, and we needed to know how they would be aligned with the constabulary powers of the PSNI. The Bill also provided for NCA special constables in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman would have been very surprised if, four and a half decades on from all the working and striving to get rid of the B-specials, nationalist parties did not question legislation providing for new special constables. Those are exactly the sort of provisions that people want to address in a sensible way.

[Naomi Long]

I do not doubt for a minute that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about wanting the NCA to operate in a way that respects the devolved settlement and secures the progress that has been made in policing are genuine, but he has referred on a number of occasions to the original draft Bill, and considerable changes have been made to it to get to where we are today—leaving aside the fact that we are not going to delete all references to Northern Ireland. Huge progress has been made on constables and their status, answering to the ombudsman and other issues. Therefore, will he outline the remaining concerns that need to be addressed, so we can get over the line?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady’s point about the discussions and modifications that have already been made proves that many of us have raised valid concerns. When they are validly accommodated, we accept that, and we will want to raise any further outstanding concerns.

What would have happened if we had not raised our misgivings? For a long time people were saying, “That’s just an SDLP hobby-horse.” For instance, it was certainly said that I was still hung up on all the stuff about MI5 and so forth. It was said that we had too much emotional and intellectual capital invested in the Patten reforms, and that we had a hang-up. Latterly, Sinn Fein seemed to realise some of the issues as well, but it is not a matter of them trying to outflank us, or us trying outflank them. We, as parties, have a duty.

We have made our own contributions and decisions about the new policing dispensation. If we are saying that assurances are in place and policing in Northern Ireland both now and in the future is different from the historical policing dispensation, we have to show that that will continue to be the case, and that it is not being got around by the lateral legislation and policing arrangements being produced by the Government here.

We have the NCA taking over from SOCA. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we agreed with, and came to terms with, some of the SOCA arrangements and the safeguards in relation to it. Then the NCA came along, and it cannot be the case that parties will just say, “Whatever other changes you at Westminster want, and whatever you’re having yourself, we’ll just take it and we won’t look at what difference it makes to us.” We need to be reassured.

Time should have been taken to address this matter. This is not a criticism of the Minister or anyone else; it might be to do with how legislative consent motions are handled, and how we get better joined-up scrutiny between a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland and Westminster so we are not left in the current clumsy situation, which is not just the case in relation to this Bill. Sometimes, legislative consent motions come before the Assembly long after a Bill has passed through this place. Introducing such motions earlier might give the Assembly more influence on the form of the legislation or the sensitivities that need to be taken into account. There are lessons to be learned at the procedural level for all of us, therefore.

I am not trying to point a finger at the devolved Minister or anybody else. As others have said, however, these issues were raised with Northern Ireland Office Ministers early last year, and they were asked, “What are you doing through conversations with the Home Office and devolved interests to make sure these issues are being well accommodated?” They did not seem to know, or to want to know, what we were talking about.

Security in Northern Ireland

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my point, which I have made to people in the Northern Ireland Prison Service and to others, about my interventions and involvement and many other people’s, too. That is the point that we have been making; we want to see that argument disarmed.

Similarly, when people raised serious health questions about the circumstances of prisoners such as Marian Price and latterly Gerry McGeough, we were trying to ensure that those issues were properly addressed. Any sentences duly imposed must be served, but, as with any prisoner, if any issue gives rise to thoughts about their release, it should at least be considered.

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he is making and realise that he does so with great passion, but if we are going to disarm those who try to use the prison situation as a recruiting ground for dissident republicans, would it not be helpful if the SDLP, rather than making the case that such an approach is almost valid, stood with the Justice Minister and others to say that the processes are in place, that health assessments for those prisoners are received and that the proper actions are being taken, disabusing them of the notion in that way?

[Mark Durkan]

I can assure the hon. Lady that in any of the conversations I have, I disarm people of any prejudice they might have. Any assurance I can give them about the attitude of the Prison Service, the Minister, the overall regime or anything else, I give them. It is equally important that representatives reflect the issues and concerns they hear from families, however.

There is also a point to make about where the dissidents are and where they hope to be. In my constituency, I see a number of different brands of dissident, but the one thing they have all been able to do in recent years is to get more young people to pick up their leaflets at events and to leave with some of their literature. We have had different brands of dissident. Some, such as those in RAAD—Republican Action Against Drugs—were seen for a number of years as policing dissidents, rather than political dissidents, as they did not disagree with the overall political project. Now they are disagreeing with the overall political project. They are finding each other and getting together, so there is some drift or mission creep among dissidents and we should not underestimate that.

Just as the dissidents are getting together, we as democrats should show that we stand together in our political institutions. Whatever political differences we might air in the Assembly, in the Chamber today or anywhere else, they must see us standing shoulder to shoulder behind the democratic opportunities mandated by the Irish people north and south, unionist and nationalist. We do not pretend that our problems are all behind us; the opportunities are all ahead of us and we can seize them by working and standing together.

Centenaries (UK and Ireland)

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Naomi Long]

I agree entirely. Celebrating may not always be appropriate. It may be a case of marking or commemorating some of the events, which are still very emotive. That is an important point.

Handled well, the coming decade has the potential to allow us to explore our past together, aiding understanding through education and discussion, and helping us to learn from our past and to consider how we can create and shape stronger and better relationships and enhance community relations. By contrast, if handled poorly, it has the potential to be a highly charged and fractious period, marked by deepening antagonism and division in society, and playing to and reinforcing centuries-old divisions rather than focusing on future progress.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Although it will be impossible to achieve or express a received version of our history in relation to all these events, it is of course right that we should be responsible in dealing with the centenaries. However, particularly as the decade progresses, we will also be hitting significant 50th anniversaries, which might be much more contentious in the north. Surely that adds to the point about getting the treatment of the centenaries right, in a measured and responsible way.

[Naomi Long]

I agree entirely. The degree of maturity displayed over the coming 10 years will set the tone for the handling of events that are lived history for many of us who grew up in Northern Ireland during the troubles. That is an important point. People will of course have their own perspectives on the past and, indeed, differing aspirations for the future, and the free expression of that cultural diversity is a cornerstone of any normal liberal democracy. Different parts of the community will inevitably wish to place differing emphasis on selected events, and the right to do so should be respected.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Naomi Long]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Let me finish my point. Lord Pannick also cited the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, which said:

“the origins and content of this Bill owe more to short-term considerations than to a mature assessment of enduring constitutional principles or sustained public demand.”

I think their lordships were right. I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and then to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is slightly my hon. Friend.

Civilian Deaths (Ballymurphy)

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I believe that it could. The state adopted the view at the time that what the Royal Military Police established in its inquiries with the soldiers who carried out the actions would be the official, received version of events. So long as the state does not specifically repudiate that version of events, it will be left hanging there. That is one of the reasons why the families want to see that version properly probed and resolved, not just for themselves, but because there are surely wider questions for us all about how the state could conduct itself in that way and ignore the serious questions that arose as a result.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on bringing up the matter in a debate in Westminster. As Lord Mayor of Belfast, I had the opportunity last year, and even before that, to meet the families of the victims. Does he agree with me that in both Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday—the two incidents have to be looked at as related—the pain of loss was compounded by the fact that those who were victims of a crime were effectively treated as though they were in some way guilty?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady has put her finger on an important point. I do not talk about the victims of Ballymurphy or Bloody Sunday as if they were the only people who suffered grievously and need truth and justice, because there are many other victims of other forces or self-styled forces who are also due that. However, one thing that sets the victims of Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday apart is that they were denied the promises, albeit hollow promises, made by the state at the time that no stone would be left unturned in the pursuit of justice. The state and its political establishment denied them the sense of solidarity that other victims were given. They were accorded no sympathy or recognition of their innocence. Their innocence was impugned, because the suggestion was that they had somehow conspired to bring death on themselves or others.

That is one of the reasons why the other victims who not only received mortal injuries but found themselves in the twilight zone of state condemnation are due vindication and proper affirmation of their innocence through independent international assessment, and that is also why someone must be held responsible and why responsibility must be taken. That is important, not least in the light of the important and positive statements that the Prime Minister made when the Saville report was published, and in the light of those important findings themselves. The Prime Minister said several times on that day, and it was repeated on the day of the Saville statement and when the report was debated last month, that the Government take responsibility. It is important that the families of the victims of Ballymurphy hear someone take responsibility for those events.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Durkan and Naomi Long

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I will give the example of referendums conducted in the south of Ireland. The Referendum Commission has clearly gained some experience in how to manage the dissemination of information and how to deal with the various claims that emerge from different campaigns—and it has had to do that authoritatively and effectively. There are lessons to be learned from the Irish experience about how this referendum can be conducted. I would have a difficulty with putting absolute control over the Electoral Commission’s role in the hands of either campaign.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point of allowing the Electoral Commission to issue information about the systems under consideration in the referendum is to ensure that those who wish to vote in that referendum have access to impartial information about the options available to them, not to partial information from either the yes or the no campaign?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady is right. That has certainly been the experience in the south of Ireland, where the Referendum Commission has played precisely that role and had to reprimand some individuals for claims—whether exaggerated arguments or not fully factual explanations—made on behalf of yes and no campaigns. It is appropriate that somebody be charged with providing neutral information, rather than the fairly colourful and possibly extreme suggestions that will come from both the yes and no campaigns. Those who are very committed might tend to be over the top in some of the material they produce. Certainly that has been the case in some referendums in the south, which is why the Referendum Commission there was developed and given this sort of role, and it is why the Electoral Commission will have to play the same role here. However, we have to be careful not to put the Electoral Commission in a difficult position in respect of the approval that it must secure in relation to anything that is issued, although campaigns obviously are—and should be—free to make their case.