Northern Ireland

Debate between Stephen Lloyd and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like other Members, I want to say how pleased I am to be here today under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I obviously cannot agree with all the terms and tone of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), but I share his strong sense of solidarity with those gathered today in sombre commemoration of the terrible Shankill bombing. Equally, we will all lend our solidarity to those families who go through next week’s anniversary of the Greysteel attack, and all the others who lost loved ones, sometimes in lonely deaths that are not remembered in the commemorations of the landmark atrocities of the troubles, because they, too, have their feelings touched or stirred by commemorations such as today’s and by debates such as this. I also concur with him completely on the need to repudiate any pretence that some sort of claim about a just war can be made in relation to the IRA campaign, or indeed any other campaign of republican violence over recent decades.

It is supposed to be a Russian proverb that to dwell on the past is to lose an eye, but to forget the past is to lose both eyes. That is why we must properly acknowledge and address issues of the past. It is not enough, as some people sometimes suggest, to draw a line under the past and move on, or just to find some glib form of closure. Too many people are burdened by the past, carrying hurt and feelings that are all too present. They cannot just decide that they are well adjusted victims and move on when they are confronted with denial about what actually happened to them and about the nature of the crimes committed against them, their loved ones or their community. In those circumstances, we cannot treat victims as though some are well adjusted and some are badly adjusted because of where they are on the reconciliation scale according to some commentator or other.

We have to confront the past properly if it is not to be repeated. We currently have a group of dissidents who are basically happy to say that they are continuing the methods and principles of struggle pursued by the Provisional IRA. Thankfully, many of those who were involved in the Provisional IRA now choose to repudiate and reject the violence pursued by these dissidents, but it is important that current and future generations know the truth about the nature of the Provisional IRA campaign. Those who were involved in the Provisional IRA cannot give themselves some sort of moral superiority over the violence carried out by today’s dissidents, which is targeted in the same vicious and reckless way.

Other hon. Members—I want to acknowledge the opening statement by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) in particular—talked about the breakdown of victims in that sense, but it was also important that he read out the names, particularly the names of those whose deaths are being commemorated today, so that we remember not only the numbers, but the “whoness” of those people. They were loved and loving members of families and communities. That needs to be remembered as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) referred to the fact that the Pat Finucane Centre will soon publish a book called “Lethal Allies” by Anne Cadwallader, which looks at some very dark aspects of the troubles. It relates to a number of cases—10 in particular—that have been investigated by the Historical Enquiries Team, but the reports have never been made public because the HET reports are offered as the private property of the families. That is a weakness that I think we need to address. I agree with the point the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) made, picking up from Amnesty International. That is one of the reasons why I tabled amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to give the Secretary of State new powers and new responsibilities to do more to consolidate the value of the HET’s work and draw on its work. It should not just be left to the Pat Finucane Centre or somebody else who happens to have had the reports shared with them. That is something that we, as a Parliament, should take more responsibility for. The truth about many of those deaths and murders is coming out now in different ways, but the fact is that here in this House untruths were told about many of those deaths and murders. The claims of my colleagues Seamus Mallon, John Hume, Joe Hendron and Eddie McGrady about the dirty war, and our concerns about intelligence not being properly shared or used, about people not being apprehended and about collusion, were all denied. But the truth shone through in the De Silva report on the Finucane murder and it will shine through in the book I mentioned as well.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South said, some of the victims were targeted by loyalist gangs, which included some members who served concurrently in the security forces. Those victims were targeted not because they were involved in the IRA or anything else, but because they were obviously seen as uppity Fenians—they had been associated with the civil rights movement, were involved in the SDLP, were buying property and developing businesses, so they were put down. It is clear that the people specifically targeted in their homes and cars came into that class. Others, of course—including members of the security forces themselves—were more randomly targeted.

Other Members have paid tribute to members of the security forces. Let us remember that some of those lost their lives in attacks that could have been prevented had intelligence been shared and acted on. However, there was a warped game going on, in which some inside the security forces—particularly in the intelligence services—put the long war intelligence game ahead of the immediate protection of the lives of civilians and members of the security forces.

Collusion was not just something whereby agents of the state allowed loyalist attacks to happen; they also allowed republican attacks and servants of the state and people in the community to be killed. That truth needs to be told. If we do not have the truth about the dirty war, we will be settling for a dirty peace. If we do not have the truth about the viciousness and nastiness of all the violence that took place from all the paramilitaries, we will be selling future generations a false narrative about the experience of the past.

I was amazed to be told by a young man in my own city that the IRA only ever killed so-called “legitimate targets”—only those in the security forces and only in the high heat of active service incidents. That, of course, is completely untrue. It is one of the reasons why we need a proper truth process about the past to spell things out. Will we get the truth from the victim makers? No, but we need at least to gather and consolidate the truth from the victims. They need to know that their truth will be remembered and acknowledged. They must not die with the burden of remembrance heavy on their shoulders, as it is for too many of them.

We have to resolve the issue with a proper framework for dealing with the past. It will not be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it will mean that we politicians have to face up to our failures on this issue. Ever since the Good Friday agreement, every time there were talks and an impasse, both my party and I made proposals about the need to address the past. We were constantly faced with evasion, both from the two Governments and from other parties.

As I was told by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the Secretary of State at the time, the reason why there was nothing in the 2003 talks in Hillsborough for victims and the past was that both Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist party were absolutely clear that there should not be. The past was not to be touched and there was to be nothing for victims in that deal, which was meant to be a breakthrough.

There was a good speech from the Opposition Front Bench today, but we need to remember that the last Government produced the most insulting effort on the past that anyone could have—the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. We were told by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), that the Bill was about bringing closure, but it would have given all sorts of secret immunity certificates to all sorts of people. In fact, the only people who might have been prosecuted or sent to jail for any past crimes in Northern Ireland would have been any journalists or victims who reported or speculated on those who might have got one of those certificates, who might have been at a tribunal and what might have been involved. That was a gross insult.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I would like to hear more from my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Haass initiative is absolutely crucial, and that if all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government dropped the ball, that would be another blow and another impasse?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that the Haass process really does give us another chance. At least the parties are gathered together and we are engaged in a process. Previously we have been arguing about whether there should be a process or the shape of it. People resiled from the very good recommendations in Eames Bradley, and I think that the Haass process will look at those. The HET has already done good work in a lot of areas, but it has not been consolidated and built up. A lot of good and strong recommendations in Eames Bradley need to be revised and revisited.

There is also very good work going on in the cultural sector. I think of Theatre of Witness, which has done so much to portray the true stories and experiences of people, whether loyalists, republicans, innocent victims, members of the security forces, prison staff, or whoever. Those true stories are all brought together compellingly, not in any controlled or contrived balance but in a very powerful and emotional way. That is a strong way of helping to discharge us from the past so that people can see truth instead of injustice and reconciliation instead of retribution.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Debate between Stephen Lloyd and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It has been a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). They made very thoughtful contributions, and I appreciate being able to listen to them.

I entirely appreciate, from my own family experience, the challenges as to why there had to be anonymity in Northern Ireland for so many years. I entirely support that, for the reasons that others have mentioned. I have a great deal of sympathy for amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Belfast East, which refers to a £7,500 threshold and has a provision giving people 18 months or so to make whatever substantial donations they make. A lot of thought has gone into the amendment, and in many respects I instinctively understand and appreciate it. The right hon. Member for Belfast North argued for allowing the Secretary of State to have flexibility up until October, because, sadly, the reality in Northern Ireland is that even though there have been enormous advances, things can change on a sixpence. The arguments are therefore very finely tuned.

A key part of normalisation is to make everything as equitable as possible between Northern Ireland and the UK. I fully understand the reasons for the length of time that the process has been given. I think that we are being very sensible in drawing to a close on this. If the Government cannot accept amendment 2, will the Minister categorically assure me that come October 2014 they would be absolutely cognisant of the fact that if another inappropriate excuse for a delay were implemented, it would be a very sad day for this House and for Northern Ireland? I suppose that some eagle-eyed observers will recognise that I am struggling slightly with this and reading between the lines. I would welcome our having equalisation come October 2014. That transparency is vital, and it is the next and final stage. I urge the Minister to make it very clear that while we retain the discretion up until 2014, our default position is to move towards normalisation expeditiously.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On amendments 7 and 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), I sympathise with the argument that if we stick unquestioningly to the date of October 2014 there is a danger that the same excuse will be given that the security situation does not permit us to move to more transparent arrangements. It is as if the date has been picked almost as a gesture to pseudo-transparency and the hon. Lady is testing that by proposing that it be brought forward. I sympathise with that, but January 2014 would be cutting it a bit fine, given that I assume the Bill will only get to the Lords this autumn.

I believe, however, that there is a case for bringing the date forward from October 2014. Bills are often enacted at the beginning of the financial year and I see no reason why that should not also be the case with this Bill. Members might point out that there are elections due next year, but I would have thought that a starting date of the beginning of the financial year would adequately and competently address the problem. I certainly do not think that the starting date should be after next year’s two intended elections, because that would make it look as though we were legislating with them in mind and almost allowing last orders for donations.

If January were the only date available before October, I would support amendments 7 and 8. I ask the Minister to consider bringing the date forward, because it looks as though the date of October has been set with next year’s elections in mind. Many people are also concerned that, come October, the can will be kicked down the road yet again.

Amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the hon. Member for Belfast East, seeks to ensure that the real commencement date for transparency is made absolutely clear and unambiguous. We heard on Second Reading, and the Minister has told us in an intervention today, that there is no intention retrospectively to reveal donations, even those made in recent years. A signal has to be sent, however, that there will be a date from which a record of all donations can be revealed when the circumstances allow it. That needs to be made clear and explicit. That is what amendment 2 calls for and I support it, because I do not think the public believe political parties when we tell them that transparency, definition and certainty are not possible and that we cannot give them an unambiguous commencement date for transparency. Amendment 2 goes someway to addressing that deficit in public credence.

As I indicated on Second Reading, I am sensitive to the many risks and threats that people may have experienced because of their involvement in Northern Ireland politics, whether as a candidate, the family member of a candidate, an activist, a member or a donor. However, there comes a point when the public feel that the arguments about security are overdone and are an excuse for secrecy. They are not sure whether secrecy is in the interests of the parties or whether it truly ensures the safety of the donors.