Northern Ireland (Stormont Agreement and Implementation Plan) Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Elliott]

I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. We discussed the matter at length during the talks last year, into which all parties had input, including officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Justice. We felt that the Policing Board could be such a mechanism. I suppose that, in fairness, some people might say that it is still semi-political, and it is, but it has independent members so it can cross the political divide towards independents and lay people. That is why we felt that it was a good option for making appointments in this process, particularly given the fact that the Deputy First Minister has, by his own admission, said in the past that he was a senior member of the Provisional IRA. Obviously, there is still a question mark over whether he is still a member of the IRA army council.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that on the Policing Board there will be members such as Gerry Kelly and Caitríona Ruane who have terrorist backgrounds as well? The situation will therefore be no different from the one he is describing with the Deputy First Minister.

[Tom Elliott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree with the first aspect of it. Yes, there are members of Sinn Féin and members who were former terrorists on the Policing Board, but the difference is that it is an organisation with a much broader base. There are independents, and it is likely that there will be only one member of Sinn Féin on an appointment panel with seven, eight or even nine lay members. Obviously, as things stand, there would be just the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. There is a significant difference, I think, but I take the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that when the decision rests with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister there is a power of veto by one of the Ministers, which would not be the case if members were appointed by the Policing Board?

[Tom Elliott]

I have not seen the option of veto exercised to a great degree with other appointments, so I would have concerns about whether that would work in this case.

By and large, there was a degree of support for the historical investigations unit director possibly being appointed by the Policing Board, but if that appointment was to be made by another independent body, we would be quite happy to consider that. In fact, the Ulster Unionist party initially proposed that the decision should be made by an independent body, not the Policing Board. The proposal to use the Policing Board came from another political party and we said as a compromise that that could be an option, which seemed to engender support.

That is our view. I should have thought that it would have received broad support, but perhaps that is wrong. In general, I think it is important that we try to move away from that political appointment process into a more independent one, because clearly we are dealing with very sensitive issues and material, so it is important that we have people of the right ability and calibre. The Policing Board has a track record, I know, and although I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim about members of Sinn Féin being on the Policing Board, it has appointed the past three Chief Constables, the past three Deputy Chief Constables and a significant number of Assistant Chief Constables. Clearly, the board has done a lot of work on the appointment process for significant police officers and high-profile police officers, so I would argue that as they are well-versed in making such appointments the process might have been better and more independent if they made the decision rather than just the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, while we discuss this important Bill, and I will say now that unless the Minister gives me a satisfactory reply, I am minded to divide the Committee on amendment 6.

Amendment 6 strives radically to improve clause 8, and I cannot believe that the Minister does not think that that is necessary—the clause certainly needs to be radically improved. We have just spent at least an hour in a useful debate on the establishment of yet another commission in Northern Ireland, namely the independent reporting commission. I am delighted that under clause 2, the primary objective of that commission will be to

“promote progress towards ending paramilitary activity connected with Northern Ireland.”

It is long overdue for the people of Northern Ireland to be rid of the scourge of paramilitary activity. They will be delighted with that commission when it is established, and will have confidence in it doing a good job.

On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said something important about the Stormont House agreement, which the Minister has cited regularly in his opening remarks. She stated that that agreement

“places fresh obligations on Northern Ireland’s political representatives to work together with determination to rid society of paramilitary activity and groups.—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 70.]

I say “hear hear” to that.

As the Minister rightly explained, clause 8 introduces an undertaking that all MLAs must give before they can participate in any of the Assembly’s proceedings, and as drafted, it goes to great lengths to set out the terms of that undertaking. Among other things, it means that before an MLA can participate in any Assembly proceedings, they must pledge to support the rule of law and to challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality. Those are two of the detailed provisions in that new undertaking.

Having gone to such extraordinary lengths to draft that new undertaking to comply with the Stormont House agreement, the glaring omission—we cannot possibly allow this to get through the Committee unamended—is that no provisions refer to Standing Orders that will investigate alleged breaches of that undertaking, and no Standing Orders will impose sanctions on MLAs who are found to be guilty of such a breach. Let us hope that no MLA would ever stoop so low as to breach their own undertaking, but if such an allegation is made it must be investigated, and if the MLA is found to be guilty, there must be sanctions.

The current drafting of clause 8(1)(2) is interesting, because we are already quite happy that:

“Standing Orders shall provide for the procedure for giving the undertaking.”

We are a sovereign Parliament—how often have I heard in recent weeks that sovereignty belongs to this Parliament—and the beauty of my amendment is that it simply adds to what we already have. Standing Orders will be introduced by the Assembly to investigate alleged breaches of the undertaking by MLAs, and to impose sanctions on MLAs who are in breach of that undertaking.

When I made that suggestion on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention about sanctions:

“In terms of internal matters of discipline within the Assembly, that really is a matter for the Assembly itself to determine.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 72.]

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the only sanction in the Bill is that those who do not give the undertaking in the first place cannot participate in the Assembly? There is not even a limit on how much time can pass before they can be expelled. In the light of some of the comments recently made by Sinn Féin, which said that republicans could use violence at another time, it is important that MLAs make that undertaking in the Stormont House agreement and are kept to it. If they make subsequent statements, there should be a process for investigating that and deciding what punishment should be imposed.

[Lady Hermon]

That is absolutely correct. The glaring omission—I am repeating myself, but it is worth repetition—is that although we have introduced a new undertaking for MLAs, that is not the same as the Minister’s pledge of office. That has been extended, and the Minister rightly read out the sanctions for Ministers who breach their pledge. This undertaking is completely new for all MLAs, and it is the duty of this Committee to ensure that when the Bill leaves this place, it is fit for purpose. The Bill has been introduced to get rid of paramilitary activity and associated criminality, which has been the scourge of Northern Ireland for years and years. For goodness’ sake, let us do it right!

The beauty of my amendment is that it does not interfere with the domestic arrangements and internal workings of the Assembly. It simply ensures that Standing Orders will be introduced by the Assembly, and that there will be a process of investigation and sanctions for a breach of the undertaking. That is not interfering with the Assembly’s internal discipline. That is my amendment, and if the Minister is unable to give me a satisfactory reassurance on that issue at the end of the debate, I will push the amendment to a vote.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady accept that there could be general frustration, because the Bill requires MLAs to give an undertaking, but if they breach that undertaking and there are no sanctions, people will say, “What is the point of MLAs giving those undertakings?” If anything, it will generate more anger, rather than assuring people that those who are elected and serve in the Assembly are supporting democratic means.

[Lady Hermon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. In introducing this group, the Minister referred to the fact that we currently do not have cross-community support for various Standing Orders. It is therefore the duty of this House today to make sure that when this legislation leaves this place, it is fit for purpose, and so it must include a requirement that Standing Orders are introduced to address both sanctions and the investigation of alleged—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

May I just ask the Minister to pick up the Bill and turn to page 5? As I have mentioned, the Bill already sets the precedent here, as in clause 8 it clearly states:

“Standing orders shall provide for the procedure for giving the undertaking.”

The Bill has therefore set the precedent; we are quite prepared to oblige the Assembly to introduce Standing Orders to provide for a procedure for this undertaking. That is why my amendments are so persuasive and why I am hopeful that Her Majesty’s Opposition—I am looking to them—will be supporting me this afternoon. I know that other colleagues are going to support me on this. The precedent has already been set, it is in black and white in the Bill and my amendments simply add further Standing Orders, without any detail about the sanctions or about the investigatory procedure.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the Bill states not only that Standing Orders “shall” do some things, but that they shall not do some things, as they

“may not specify a day or period of time after which members are prohibited from giving the undertaking”?

This House is already telling the Assembly what it can and cannot put in Standing Orders, so why not include something about sanctions?

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention, as ever, from the hon. Gentleman. I am sure the Minister and the Government would not like to be accused of being inconsistent. We have to be consistent here. A consistent approach has to be taken to the eradication, once and for all, of paramilitary activity and all its criminality in Northern Ireland. The Minister will have read this Bill many times and when he carefully reads it again, he will know that the precedent has already been set. We in this House are the sovereign Parliament, thank goodness, and just as a show of sovereignty the Standing Orders are already provided for in several clauses. My amendments simply extend further Standing Orders, without any detail about the sanctions or the investigatory procedure.

On that, I will bring my remarks to a close, having warned the Minister that I will push my amendment to a vote at the end, with the help of volunteers to be Tellers.

--- Later in debate ---

Standing Orders are about the conduct of business and proceedings in the House. They are not normally about investigating things that have happened outside the House or allegations of various activities or consorting with people engaged in various activities. I am not sure that dealing with investigations and sanctions is normally the stuff of Standing Orders, so I do not think that the proposal best answers the issue. That is why we have tried to answer it differently in our amendments.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, where Standing Orders set standards, the Assembly commissioner has something to work on, so if a complaint is made about whether someone has breached the pledge, there is at least a basis on which an investigation can take place?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I fully accept that, and the clause says that Standing Orders will lay down provision on how the undertaking is made. That is why it was nonsensical of the Minister to argue that we should not set things down in the Assembly’s Standing Orders, when that is precisely what the clause will do. The hon. Member for East Antrim seems to assume that the Assembly Commissioner for Standards would deal with the complaint, so perhaps he sees merit in our amendment that would ensure that someone could receive, consider and assess a complaint. Certainly, the more that those standards are explicit either in the Bill or in Standing Orders, the better; that is fine.

Of course the Assembly Commissioner for Standards does, among other things, address standards of public life. That is one reason why we have tabled amendment 15, to make it clear that the precepts and commitments in the undertaking would in effect be read alongside the Nolan principles, as part of the general standards of public life in Northern Ireland, so that MPs and councillors would be held to that standard. Let us remember that the commissioner deals with those issues separately and that we do not want to create inconsistencies where parties face allegations that their members said one thing at a council meeting and did something else as MLAs and MPs. We would then get into all sorts of confusion about who is amenable to what standards. Let us create consistency and clarity of standards.

In previous debates, Members have raised issues about what councillors from my party have done in different instances, and we have raised instances about what other people have said or done, or who they have consorted with in other situations. This is about trying to get us all beyond that and trying to ensure that everyone in all parties knows what standards are required of them and then adheres to those standards. That is why we have tabled that series of amendments to make good serious deficiencies.

The other rich argument that came from the Minister was that he said that there should be no question of our trying to deal with breaches either of the undertaking or the pledge. In one instance, he said that, after all, the Assembly has the power to censure Ministers; but of course any attempt to censure Ministers on any grounds in the Assembly so far has ended up being vetoed under the petition of concern. He therefore points us to an alternative that is something of a dead end.

If we are serious about trying to resolve these issues and about trying to ensure that no untoward incident triggers the sort of crisis that had the institutions teetering on the brink, as they were in the later part of last year, we need to do better than the Bill, and the Minister needs to do better than come up with humbug, shallow arguments about the degree of consensus about the “Fresh Start” agreement, when it is already clear, even from what has been said from these Benches, that everyone knows that that is very limited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I will make a couple of brief remarks. I think the whole Committee wholeheartedly supports any effort to tackle paramilitarism. I think we would all agree that anyone who engages in or supports paramilitarism has no place in a democratic assembly, making and enforcing laws. I absolutely agree that all the sentiments in the oaths make sense.

Where I get a little concerned is when we start talking about investigating and sanctioning breaches. We must be careful about exactly what some of these words could involve. What we have in these undertakings are not entirely pledges not to do things. They are pledges to do things, so we get phrases such as,

“to challenge all paramilitary activity and associated criminality”.

I could be accused of breaching that undertaking because I have not sufficiently challenged something. What does challenge mean? Does it mean that I should verbally dispute the validity of something? Should I say that paramilitary activity is heinous and I have therefore met that pledge, or should I be out on the streets of Belfast, physically challenging that activity where I see it?

Equally, MLAs will undertake,

“to challenge paramilitary attempts to control communities”

and

“to work collectively with other members of the Assembly”.

I am not sure how we can have a sensible situation where someone is investigated because they have not quite worked collectively enough with other Members on something. Would that happen because they had been working independently, not collectively, and therefore that would not count, or because they had been working a bit collectively but not collectively enough? I am not sure how we go from an oath that sets out undertakings and beliefs to something that we could try to investigate and enforce.

The Oath we take in this place is to be loyal to Her Majesty the Queen and her successors, but I do not think that Members get taken to the standards board because we have not quite been loyal enough to the Queen, or because something we have said has not been entirely consistent with the Oath. There is a separate code of conduct that we have to follow where the investigation of standards applies. We would not try to follow that from an oath. I am just not sure how the Members proposing the amendments could make the investigations and sanctions link to positive activities.

[Sammy Wilson]

First, we accept that if a pledge is made, there must be some way of measuring whether or not it has been lived up to. If it has not, there must be some way, by definition, of sanctioning someone for not doing so. Examples have been provided here today of how it is quite easy to work out whether or not someone has lived up to their pledge. If, for example, they make excuses for paramilitary activity or make excuses for people who have engaged in acts of violence, they are clearly not keeping to the pledge of office.

[Nigel Mills]

I entirely agree. Where someone says or does something that clearly contravenes the undertakings they have given, we should be able to investigate it and sanctions should be available. My slight worry is that the amendments might allow a complaint to be made that somebody had not sufficiently challenged all paramilitary activity—that they had not said enough times how heinous such activity is, or they might not have taken any physical action in the community, for example. I am not sure how it can be proved or enforced when somebody has not done something. That is my point. If we wanted a code of conduct that could be followed, it would have to be clear that people were prohibited from speaking or acting in any way in support of paramilitaries.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if that were the case, the Assembly Commissioner, or whoever was making the adjudication, would be able to make a judgment about whether a complaint about the pledge of office was valid or not? It could be simply said, “Look, that is not what is meant by the pledge: it is not about the quantity; it is about whether someone should be condemned on the basis of support for paramilitary activity.”

[Nigel Mills]

I am sure that that could be said, but I am not sure whether that is set out in the amendments. We all know that such processes can be abused for partisan reasons, by people making scurrilous complaints that we know will never go anywhere, but which take up time and cause anxiety and spending.

Let me provide a further example. There is another pledge to support those who are determined to make the transition away from paramilitarism. There could be a complaint that somebody had not given sufficient support to those who wanted to move away from paramilitary activity. That would be a nonsense, because there could be many reasons why an individual might not have given that degree of support in that situation. What kind of support are they meant to be providing as an individual MLA? I think we need to be cautious about moving from a set of extremely well-meaning and well-intentioned objectives, such as enforcing acceptable pledges and undertakings, and making them into a code of conduct that I believe we would struggle to enforce sensibly in this form.