Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 November.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Guardsman Christopher Davies of 1st Battalion the Irish Guards, who died on Wednesday 17 November in Afghanistan. He was the 100th British soldier to die this year, a reminder of the high price we are paying for the vital work that is being done. Christopher was an utterly professional and highly respected soldier and we send our deepest condolences to his families and his loved ones.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Michael Connarty]

I associate myself and my colleagues with the condolences that the Prime Minister passed on and I also express sympathies to the families of those involved in the New Zealand mining disaster, two of whom come from Scotland.

Does the Prime Minister share my concerns that, although good restaurants pass on 100% of tips to their staff, some are using bogus tronc or kitty schemes to avoid paying national insurance while ripping off up to 14% of their staff’s tips? Will he personally stand up for fair tips and agree to meet me and a delegation of hospitality workers to discuss the need for the promised one-year review of the operation of the law on tips?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to mention the tragic accident at the New Zealand mine. What has happened is immensely sad. I spoke to the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, this morning and I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the 29 miners who lost their lives and with their families—particularly Peter Rodger from Perth and Malcolm Campbell from St Andrews. I know that our high commission and the consular officials are in touch with their families and doing everything to help at what must be an impossibly difficult time.

The hon. Gentleman has been a long-standing campaigner on the issue of tips and has done some excellent work on it. It is right that tips should be distributed to staff and should not be used to top up the minimum wage. They should not be diverted in any way. The law is very clear: tips must not be used to back up the minimum wage and enforcement officers should take action to ensure that that does not happen. The hon. Gentleman should meet Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers and they can look at the important code of practice that was produced and ensure that the hospitality industry is meeting it.

Departmental Business Plans

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

These business plans are a vastly superior document to the annual reports. Of course, there will continue to be the publication of the accounts of each Department, but I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me the indelicacy if I say that on some occasions the previous Government’s annual reports from particular Departments contained a load of guff. One could not tell what the thing was about. I remember in opposition desperately struggling to find out what particular Departments were doing, and all I could get was a load of jargon. In these reports, one will be able to see the information—we are going to this, we will do it by this time, and this is the effect that we expect it will have. That is a jolly useful thing.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the Minister will have to go back to his drawing board for me. It would appear that he is so close to the ground that his horizon is very short indeed, and he might want to raise the stakes. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), in local government there is the power to vote people out on close-to-the-ground programmes. What has he put in this plan to give local government real power to deliver, apart from a promised freeze in their council tax?

[Mr Letwin]

I have such good news for the hon. Gentleman that it might lead to his crossing the Floor. Everything that he could desire is about to come in the localism Bill. We are going to give local government eye-watering increases in power that are stipulated in these proposals and that will be seen when the localism Bill is introduced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consistently argue and vote with us as we transfer powers of competence and powers of retention of business rates, as we transfer powers over planning to local neighbourhoods, as we transfer powers to keep council tax and as we transfer a series of additional powers to new mayors. The hon. Gentleman will have a dream day when he comes to grips with the localism Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is travelling the world and learning so much. We learned a few weeks ago that even Cuba is making reductions in public spending, so I think this puts the modern Labour party somewhere between China and Cuba—but I am not quite sure where.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q7. Following a meeting with the Northern Ireland human rights commissioners yesterday, it is clear that this Government intend to breach the spirit and the letter of the Good Friday and the St Andrews agreements by refusing to bring in a Human Rights Act specifically for Northern Ireland, as recommended by the commission and supported recently by more than 80% of the Protestant and Catholic communities. How can the Prime Minister possibly excuse this betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will look at that carefully; I know that it has been discussed. It is a difficult issue and there are some problems that we need to resolve, but I will look at it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I hope that it can become accepted between all parties in the House that we have five-yearly reviews. There is a provision for similar reviews in America. Given all the things that have happened since 1998—Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and 9/11—I think that future generations will find it very hard to understand why there has been no defence review.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Earlier, the Prime Minister sounded the death knell for Kinloss as an RAF station, but he did not respond to the question about Lossiemouth. Will he tell the House and the people of Scotland, all of whom are interested in this, what the future is for Lossiemouth and for RAF recruitment in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I said that we are going to look at all the bases and see clearly what impact there is on Kinloss and Lossiemouth from the announcements about what the RAF’s lay-down is going to be. Clearly, there will be opportunities as British forces come home from Germany, so we will look at all bases and see what can be done. As I said in the statement, it is important that we consult all the communities who have given so much support to our forces over many years and that we do not rush these things.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is working extremely hard on that issue. We all want the same thing, which is to ensure that Britain benefits as a provider of great education courses, universities and colleges that can attract talented people from around the world. But at the same time, we all know that there have been too many bogus colleges and too many bogus students coming here not really to study but to work or for other reasons, and we have to crack down on that. That is what my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister is trying to do, and I am sure he will be in contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) to ensure that that is the outcome of the policy.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Q12. I want to help the Prime Minister to reconsider the fact that we are not signing up to the directive on human trafficking, which, as he may understand, I know a little about. As a consequence, we rely on sections 57 and 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That means that we cannot, for example, pursue or have any jurisdiction over someone who is normally a resident of the UK but is not a UK national, who is involved in human trafficking. More importantly, we cannot have jurisdiction when a UK resident in another EU country is trafficked by a non—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think we have got the drift of it.

Superannuation Bill

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I am grateful for that comment, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will truncate my remarks as best I can. Perhaps it is just an irony that the PCS is the single union that held up the agreement and a representative of the PCS held up the debate for 21 minutes after being implored to speak for only eight minutes. I reflect on that.

The Public Administration Committee, which I chair, recently took evidence from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the principal civil service unions about the provisions of the Bill and the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the dispute about ongoing compensation for civil servants who are forced to leave their jobs or voluntarily accept redundancy. The hope then was that the parties would reach a negotiated settlement, but regrettably that settlement has not been reached.

It is appropriate at this stage to remind ourselves of why we are having this debate. We are here because there was no agreement. The agreement reached with the five other unions by the previous Government was challenged in the courts, and we finished up with the courts ruling that the compensation payable represents legally enforceable rights. That was never the intention of the original legislation, and that is why we have this Bill. We are not undoing previous legislation; we are undoing the work of the courts on previous legislation. In my view, it is about the culture of judicial review and judicial activism that we now live in. It is unfortunate but it is where we are.

Let us have no illusions about why this is necessary from an economic viewpoint. We are facing the worst public expenditure crisis since the 1930s. It is inconceivable that compensation arrangements that were reached as part of voluntary arrangements between Government Departments and civil servants, and have become legally enforceable by accident, should be respected as though they were contracts entered into and signed in blood. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) said about these arrangements. They were intended to be flexible and negotiable, and the Bill is attempting to restore that position, albeit now putting in place a statutory baseline that is harsh—let us have no illusions about that. It is sobering to reflect how harsh these arrangements are in comparison with the existing arrangements.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I hesitate to give way because we are very short of time, but I will do so briefly.

[Michael Connarty]

This is obviously a very brief Bill, and the hon. Gentleman will have read it; I have read it also. Could he tell me where it says that this is in any way negotiable and flexible?

[Mr Jenkin]

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. The Government have made it clear that they want a negotiated settlement, and that they are not prepared to talk about the terms of that settlement in this debate. Obviously, however, what we enact here provides a legally enforceable baseline that ultimately is not negotiable—the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The point is that the Government have made it absolutely clear that they want a negotiated settlement. With five of the six unions having negotiated in good faith, I hope that the PCS will also do so, whether or not the Bill passes on to the statute book and comes into force.

The need to reform the civil service compensation scheme is well understood. In fact, all the evidence that we received from the trade union representatives conceded that we need to deal with it as a matter of urgency in the current economic climate. This short Bill is simply a reflection of the accumulated mess that successive Governments and successive decisions in the courts have got us into. If there is one thing I regret, it is that there is not more understanding from the official Opposition of the mess that they were in on this same subject and that we cannot present more of a united front, but that is the prerogative of opposition and our democratic process, and I respect that.

I have two particular concerns about the Bill, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them when he winds up. The first is technical and raises an important issue of principle. Clause 2 provides for early termination or an extension of the 12-month applicability of the legislation. Of course, sunset clauses are not unknown, and in many respects they are welcome provisions because they provide an opportunity to declutter the statute book. However, this Bill is unusual in providing what one might call a “sunrise” clause whereby, if desired, the legislation can be revived by an order under the affirmative resolution procedure in this House. The only similar provision was made in relation to section 13 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. I worry that the matters in this Bill are hardly in the same category, and that the ability of this House properly to control the law is being excessively compromised for nothing more than the managerial convenience of the Government. Can the Minister explain what the special circumstances are that justify such a provision in this case?

Secondly, I should like to focus on the possibility of a further legal challenge to the provisions of the Bill given the High Court’s decision to quash the earlier agreement. In his judgment, Mr Justice Sales took the view that compensation payments under the scheme should be taken to be accrued rights in the same way as pension entitlements. In his answers to me about the Bill’s compatibility with the European convention on human rights, the Minister for the Cabinet Office was, if I may say so, not entirely persuasive that he had addressed the legal point made by the unions and potentially to be made in a future action. The PCS argues that the Bill is unlawful because it offends against the principles of the ECHR, namely that the legitimate expectations about compensation rates that the current state scheme gives rise to, are legally possessions of which individuals cannot be deprived.

In the explanatory notes, the Government declare the Bill’s compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 because payments under the civil service compensation scheme cannot be considered to be a possession. In any case, they say, even if they were to be considered possessions, since the cap on compensation rates does not apply until a redundancy notice is issued or a voluntary departure is agreed—that is, after the Bill has come into force—it does not therefore amount to the deprivation of an existing possession. That is all very elegantly argued, and no doubt the Government have had the benefit of legal advice, but if the Bill is enacted and subsequently challenged in the courts, the consequences could be extremely significant. Even if the challenge were not successful, if it went to the European Court of Human Rights for a determination, the delay and dislocation would be considerable. How sure is the Minister that the rights generated by the legitimate expectation of civil servants about their terms and conditions with regard to redundancy payments will not be regarded as possessions?

I understand that there is case law in the ECHR suggesting that mere claims to possessions are capable of being interpreted as property rights when there is sufficient basis in national law, for example when there is settled case law in the domestic courts confirming that. Precisely that confirmation was provided in the case that was adjudicated in May. Is the Minister confident that, even if the accrued rights are considered possessions, the Government are justified in interfering with those rights in the wider public interest, and therefore lawfully able to do so? In short, is he satisfied that the unions will not have a claim against him for not exercising his discretion in a fair and proper manner in failing to recognise existing entitlements?

That is an important matter, not some arcane point. A legal challenge could run for a very long time in Strasbourg, perhaps for years, and if the Government lost having gone ahead with job reductions on the terms set out in the Bill, it would potentially saddle the public purse with a huge liability at some future date, to say nothing of the subsequent complications in trying to repay individuals long after the event. I point out that Governments of both parties have a long history of wishful thinking when it comes to such cases. I speculate that it appears that the easier course in the short term is often to risk defeat in the courts sometime in the distant future rather than to confront the legal realities and their implications immediately. That is not conducive to better governance and decision making, and if it continues to happen under this new Administration there will perhaps be a case for the Public Administration Committee to launch an inquiry into why the Government’s legal advice has so often proved deficient in such cases. I place the Government on notice about that.

Subject to those qualifications, I support the Bill and will vote for it. What Ministers do will be taken as a reflection of the regard in which the civil service is held, and that will have an effect on the morale of the public service at a time of great uncertainty and change, and therefore on this Government’s relationship with civil servants. Nobody listening to this debate can be under any illusion about the seriousness of the measures that we are discussing and the impact that they will have on people’s lives. I commend many of those who have spoken from both sides of the House for alerting us to those concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

We heard today that the people whom the Public and Commercial Services Union represents—the majority of people who work in the civil service—did not agree that the previous Government’s approach was the right one at that stage. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees with the union, it had the right to go to court and did so, and secured a ruling in its favour. We must recognise and accept that. I was surprised to hear other hon. Members suggest that the ruling by the court was something that we should simply dismiss, and I would hope that that is not in fact what they are saying.

Given the need for brevity, I will focus on one particular point and that is the device that is being used to push this Bill through. I am very concerned that the Bill has been laid as a money Bill. I am a new Member and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong or if I have misunderstood what a money Bill has traditionally been used to do, but my understanding is that the Parliament Act 1911 defines a money Bill and charges the Speaker with certifying whether a Bill is a money Bill. Previously, money Bills have been used to protect revenue and to raise tax, but never before has a money Bill been used in a situation like this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) who suggested that the use of a money Bill in these circumstances could be seen as an abuse of parliamentary procedure, and certainly many of the people who have spoken to me about this feel that is indeed the case. It is an abuse of that procedure to try to speed a Bill through Parliament without the proper scrutiny and, as the Minister has already accepted, to use a blunt instrument to try to force something on to the negotiating table.

If we look at the detail of the Bill, although it is very short we see that the degree to which it is unworkable in the long term is implicit in its provisions. The sunset clause, which means that the Bill will expire after 12 months, can be repealed at any time and can only be extended for a further period of six months by secondary legislation, and that is a real cause for concern. On the one hand, the Minister said that we have to negotiate but we cannot negotiate in public. However, at the same time, he is very publicly using this blunt instrument to try to force the unions into a particular position without providing any of the detail that Members on both sides of the House have sought today—

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend is, as usual, shy about telling people that she is a former Minister in the Scottish Parliament and probably knows more about this than most Back Benchers. She also points out that the Bill has a sunset clause, but it is more like a sunrise clause. It is a blunt instrument fashioned to be picked up again and again when the Government do not have the capacity to negotiate and to be used to attack people in the public sector whenever they wish to do so. All that will be required is a statutory instrument off the Floor of the House, without anyone seeing what they are up to.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s complimentary remarks. In fact, I am a former Justice Minister. Far be it from me as a former Minister to suggest that people should be suspicious about very short pieces of primary legislation that give greater powers to secondary legislation that can then be picked up and laid without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Having had to work on legislation in another Parliament, I recognise that the concerns expressed by hon. Members are well made in this case.

The Bill puts the Speaker in a difficult and unfair position, because he has to decide whether it should be certified as a money Bill when in fact it is about industrial relations and people should be redoubling their efforts to put the previous deal back on the table and to ensure that all the trade unions are involved in the negotiation. Parliamentary procedures should not be abused in this way.

Given that brevity is required, I shall not seek to rehearse points that other hon. Members have made. However, when we are talking about the low-paid and given all the warm words that we heard earlier about the desire to protect the lowest grades in the civil service, I do not think it is good enough that Ministers cannot identify what “low paid” means in those terms and how many people will be affected. It is incumbent on the Minister who winds up the debate to give us more information on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate under your speakership, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall concentrate on the issue of fairness, which has come up again and again today. It is central to the Bill, and an extremely important factor. We are debating a sobering situation, and the Bill is a response in part to the enormous fiscal deficit that we need to tackle. It is clear that the negotiations and the Bill will have an impact on many thousands of civil servants who have worked extremely hard for the good of their country. Like many other Members, I pay tribute to the excellent work of the British civil service, and I echo the view of the Minister that it is the jewel in the crown of our constitution.

That is why it is so important that we consider the consequence for fairness as the negotiations go forward and the Bill goes through. That view has been reflected in speeches from both sides of the House today. I shall address the issue of fairness in three different ways. First, we must consider the fairness of these measures, given what else is going to have to happen if we are to tackle the deficit. Secondly, we must consider fairness across society and the economy. Thirdly, we must take into account fairness within the civil service in terms of working practices, and the consequences of the current system for some of those working practices.

The enormous fiscal deficit has overshadowed many of the debates in the Chamber since the election. We on the Government Benches argue that dealing with the deficit is a fair and progressive thing to do. In the short term, failure to do so would lead to higher mortgage rates and interest rates as well as create the risk of a catastrophic economic failure, which we do not want to do. It would also be unfair to burden our children and grandchildren with levels of debt that we had failed to deal with. It is therefore fair and progressive to deal with the deficit. It is important, when considering all the different aspects of that process, to think about the Bill in that context.

How can it be fair to defend a system, as Labour Members have done, in which payments of more than £500,000 have been made to certain individuals at a time when we are having to take other measures—as Labour Members would have had to do, were they still in office—to deal with the deficit? How can it be fair that the average redundancy package in some Departments has been more than £100,000 for the past three years? In an earlier intervention, I gave the example of the Department of Health, in which the average redundancy package last year was £122,000.

When this country is tackling its deficit, it is difficult to say that it is fair to make such enormous redundancy pay-offs. The argument has been put by Labour Members that there are only a few of them so it does not really matter. However, we as a country are going through a difficult process, and having extremely unfair examples of public spending like that only makes it even more difficult. We cannot argue that simply because there is not an enormous quantity of such payouts, they do not matter. They do matter and reforming the system is crucial, as the Opposition Front Benchers seem to recognise, but Labour Back Benchers too often do not.

[Michael Connarty]

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is still quoting the figure of £100,000 when one of his hon. Friends who spoke earlier provided him with the true average of £60,000. He ignores reality again and again. Some people get huge payouts, and some Labour Members have argued against them for the last 10 years but we could not convince our own Government to deal with these people. If the hon. Gentleman’s logic had been applied after the second world war, the huge deficit this country would have had to carry would have meant no rebuilding and our people living in poverty for the next 50 years. The hon. Gentleman may be lucid, but he is certainly wrong.

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman answers his own question when he says that the previous Government did nothing about the problem over the last 10 years. As for this new argument I am hearing expressed by Labour Members, that we had a large deficit in 1945—yes, we did, but we also had large cuts in 1945 and not least to the military because we had just won a war. There are no such easy reductions now because of the mess left by the Labour party—[Interruption.] I will take no lessons from what the hon. Gentleman shouts out from a sedentary position. At one point in the last three years, £8 billion was spent on redundancy payouts. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is willing to defend very high payouts, but we seem to be getting a reaction on the Labour side against any change to anything. It is a great pity that Labour Members do not engage in the process of trying to deal with the deficit as we Conservative Members do.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I have three strong concerns about the Bill: the date of the referendum vote; the fact that there is not a proportional election system on the ballot paper; and the means of reducing the number of Members of Parliament, which will affect Wales more significantly than any other part of the United Kingdom.

Plaid Cymru has long advocated voting reform for elections to this House, so we welcome the fact that a new UK Government have put the issue on the agenda. As currently drafted, however, the Bill will be a massive missed opportunity. If there is to be a referendum, it should be on whether we take the more radical step of adopting the single transferable vote for elections and having a genuinely proportional system. In Committee, we will support amendments to achieve that, and we will expect support from those MPs who in February supported such an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.

We are concerned about the date for the referendum indicated in the Bill, as it would clash directly with elections for the devolved Parliaments. Two separate reports, from Gould and Arbuthnott, pointed to the difficulties with holding multiple elections on the same day. There is no reason why the voting reform referendum needs to be held on the same day as elections to form the Celtic Governments. It is, at best, insensitive for the UK Government to proceed with 5 May 2011 as the date. It would make much more sense to hold the referendum on part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 on that date, which was ruled out by both UK coalition governing parties.

We will argue that a new date should be set on which no other election is taking place, to avoid the accusation that the Government in London are riding roughshod over the interests and concerns of the devolved countries.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am heartened by the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Will he support the amendment tabled tonight on behalf of the Labour party in Scotland?

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait; our voting intentions will be made clear.

We have many concerns about the impact of constituency changes on Wales. Wales, more than any other part of the UK, will be seriously affected by the proposed changes. As many right hon. and hon. Members from my country have pointed out, Wales will probably have about 30 seats following the changes—a cut of 10 seats or 25%, compared with 5.5% in England, 9% in Scotland and 17% in Northern Ireland. We do not agree with those changes, which will strongly affect the Welsh voice at Westminster. We will table an amendment to prevent such a massive loss of representation.

G8 and G20 Summits

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and the concern that we should have about the economy is not the fiscal tightening that needs to happen, but to ensure that the banks are lending and that monetary policy is working effectively. Of course, monetary policy is not just interest rates—the price of money—but we also have to think about the quantity of money, which is bank lending. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget made a number of improvements to the credit lending schemes. I think that we can look to see whether there is even more that should be done, but let me repeat that the key thing that we were trying to do at the G20 was not to enforce credit rules now that would restrict lending, but to put in place the measures for the long term that will stop the catastrophe that we suffered in 2008 and 2009. That is the key. In Europe, we are stress testing the banks to ensure that they have adequate capital. Again, that is important: we need to ensure the soundness of the banking system, because that is part of the key to recovery.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister mentioned that he had four useful bipartite meetings. Did he meet Juan Manuel Santos—the President-elect of Colombia—or did he indicate that he would meet him when he goes on tour? He is a gentleman who, as Defence Minister, dressed his troops as members of the International Committee of the Red Cross, carried out the extra-judicial murders of 2,000 innocent civilians and bombed Ecuador, where there is, I believe, a murder warrant out for him. Did the Prime Minister, or will he, raise those issues on behalf of concerned people in the UK who follow them very closely?

[The Prime Minister]

I did not meet the President-elect; I did meet the current President, President Uribe, who was at the G8 session on tackling corruption and the drugs trade, where there was a presentation from him and I had a conversation with him. I will take away the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and reflect on them when I have the conversation—I am sure that I will—with the President when he is not just the President-elect but the President.

Saville Inquiry

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place in the House. He is right: this is not, as he said, a war crimes tribunal—that would be an appalling thing to say—but an inquiry into what happened. It is an inquiry to get to the truth of the events of that day and the events surrounding it. I meant what I said about no more costly open-minded inquiries. We should not have more open-ended and costly inquiries. I want to support the work of the Historical Enquiries Team. That is the right way to go about things. Of course, we can never say never about any other form of inquiry, however big or small, but my strong intention is to use the Historical Enquiries Team process to get to the bottom of the events of the past. That is the right way to go about things.

I know that this is probably unparliamentary, but may I welcome the other Ian Paisley, who is in the Gallery and whom we remember so fondly sitting in this House? Let me just say this. Everyone has had to take big risks for peace in Northern Ireland, and no more so than the Big Man, as they like to call him. We should all recognise that people in this process have known so many victims of terrorism and so much suffering, and everyone has had to take risks and make movements in order to bring the peace process about, and that will continue to be true. Even today, as we remember the painful memories of the past, we still have to say, “Yes, I remember those things—I don’t forget them for a second—but that doesn’t mean we don’t work together for a shared future for Northern Ireland.”

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I wish particularly to thank the Prime Minister for his frank apology on behalf of the Government and the people of this country. I think that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will accept that that will in some way be a salve for the people in the Bloody Sunday incident and the families of the dead. However, does the Prime Minister accept that unless people can see the names and know the people who carried out the acts, for many of the families there may not be a way of putting the incident behind them, as I found out from my contact with the families of those who were killed in McGurk’s bar? I hope that he will consider that, not in terms of what will happen with the prosecutions or anything else, but because people must know who carried out those acts.

Finally, will the Prime Minister look in the longer term at the role of the intelligence forces in possibly preconditioning people in the armed forces for what happened on Bloody Sunday? Those dark forces are clearly at work in the British Army, and we must not allow them to hide.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description of “dark forces” in the armed forces. The report is clear that there was no conspiracy—there was no premeditation, there was no plan, and it is not right to say that there was. He should read the summary of the report and what it says about not just the politicians, but the senior officers who were involved. That is important.

Let me address the hon. Gentleman’s other point. As for the anonymity of the soldiers, that was part of the Saville process and what was agreed in order that the evidence should be given and the truth should be got at. Let me say this about apologies, because I know that some people are—in some ways, I think, rightly—cynical about politicians standing up and apologising for things that happened when they were five years old. I do not do so in any way lightly; it just seems to me that it is clear that what happened was wrong—that what the soldiers did was wrong—and that the Government should take responsibility. The Government of that day are no longer around, so it falls to the Government of this day to make that apology. I do not believe in casting back into history and endlessly doing that, but on this occasion it is absolutely clear that it is the right thing to do.