Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Debate between Nigel Mills and Mark Durkan

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

I do not think the potential conflict would be the same. Obviously, there is the issue that was considered in the talks that some of the cases that had already been dealt with by the HET are currently the subject of PSNI investigation. Whether they will be referred to the HIU or reopened by the ombudsman is a factor in that. The prospect of any potential tension around the Chief Constable’s role was among the reasons why we said that appointment by the Policing Board would be a sensible way forward.

A different issue arises in relation to the role of the reporting commission. If we take the example of the controversies last year, the panel, which was a proto make-do version of the reporting commission, had to examine issues on which the Chief Constable had rightly spoken. Obviously, there was argument and tension about that.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I think the hon. Gentleman was arguing that in future the Executive may not consist of all five parties and there will be parties in Opposition. In that situation, would it not make sense for the commission, whose job is to hold the Executive and the two Governments to account, to have its members appointed by the Assembly and the Parliaments, rather than the Executive?

[Mark Durkan]

There is a wider possibility in that, which may take us further away from what was said in the Stormont House agreement. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to ensure an all-party approach and we will address that problem in future amendments and new clauses, which I will not venture into now.

We believe that the way in which the Government have taken matters forward and the way in which the “Fresh Start” agreement has been framed do not recruit and keep engaged the span of cross-party interest that there should be both in the Assembly and beyond. It mistakenly shorthands too much to the Executive, then translates that as meaning simply First and Deputy First Ministers, with all the limitations and difficulties that that brings.

Furthermore, with the Commission appointed in that way by the Assembly, the process for doing that would become more complicated, and it is complicated enough at the Policing Board level. We think that appointment by the Justice Minister, following consultation—properly to give them their due—with the First and Deputy First Ministers, in agreement with the Executive, would be a way of reflecting some of the wider interests without creating difficulties for the Policing Board, adding to the list of appointments that it makes, and maybe creating tensions with some of its other appointment roles.

It should be recognised that the issues that have been highlighted by both the Ulster Unionist party and ourselves in respect of the appointments are not the only questions that should be asked in respect of the ill-defined role of the reporting commission, and how well that sits with the wider responsibilities that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) referred to. If we are serious about the whole community approach alongside the enforcement approach, there needs to be something much more collective and better defined than the Government have provided for in the Bill.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Debate between Nigel Mills and Mark Durkan

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. That still leaves me in a situation where it is hard to understand the purpose of the letter, if it was not meant to be something one could rely on. This gentleman was carrying this letter around with him every time he entered the UK. Why would he do that if it could be superseded at some point?

[Mark Durkan]

If we are to place any burden on what the Secretary of State has just said, does that not create a very serious danger that the case law arising from this case in future will be that anybody can claim an abuse of process based on any mistake in communication they received from a Government official at any level?

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, there is a real question about what the legal status of the letters is now. We can argue about whether they were intended to be amnesties. The question has now become: has this judgment somehow elevated their status to something that was not intended?

The end of paragraph 45 of the Downey judgment refers to a letter sent by the then Prime Minister, which said:

“The Government is committed to dealing with the difficulty as soon as possible, so that those who, if they were convicted would be eligible under the early release scheme are no longer pursued”.

That is basically saying that somebody who could have been prosecuted and would have got a two-year sentence would now no longer be pursued. I am not sure how I can construe that as just being a factual statement. It appears that the intention of the Prime Minister at the time was to give some assurance that people who had gone on the run would not be prosecuted in that situation. That strikes me as being an amnesty under any other name. As the old saying goes: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. This looks very much like it was intended to be an amnesty.