Stormont

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the political situation in Stormont.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) who has co-sponsored this debate, to all those who supported my efforts to secure this debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee that gave me this opportunity.

I know that the eyes of some hon. Members—especially those who are not here—may glaze over when they see that the debate is about Northern Ireland yet again, but I do not apologise for that. This is about my home, our home, my constituency and my family, and it is as important to me as I expect each hon. Member’s constituency is to them. Yes, I am afraid it is Northern Ireland to be debated.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Don’t apologise.

[Danny Kinahan]

Thank you. In my maiden speech three months ago, and in numerous interventions, I continue to make the point that the devolved Government of Stormont does not work. Indeed, the First Minister has publicly described it as “dysfunctional”, and it could not be more so. I raise this matter today because I am fiercely proud of my home country, of being Northern Irish, both British and Irish, and in fact a large part Scottish too. I long to see my country at peace with itself.

In my maiden speech I chose as one of my key points to call for a real push for the Union and for all parts of the United Kingdom to work together, not just for Northern Ireland but for all members of the Union. I firmly believe that the majority in Northern Ireland want a Union for everybody that lives up to the core values of fairness, tolerance and freedom of speech, and embraces the spirits of enterprise and hard work that make these islands great. I enjoyed hearing the Prime Minister make the very same points in his speech in Manchester last week.

Why do I raise this issue? It is because I want all hon. Members—Labour, Liberal, Conservative, SNP and each party present in the House—to take an interest and help to move Northern Ireland to the next level of normality. We want a peaceful society where diversity is respected and cherished, and a society that has a functioning Government and Opposition, protection for minorities, and dynamic and decisive politics without a criminal element linked to it in any way. I am extremely happy and proud that my party recently made the brave decision to move into opposition in an attempt to move Stormont forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I congratulate all those who have spoken this evening. Last time I spoke from the Dispatch Box on Northern Ireland matters I was able, proudly, to congratulate Kyle Lafferty on scoring the goal that took Northern Ireland forward. Tonight, it would be wrong and remiss if I were not to mention Josh Magennis and Steven Davis, as well as Michael O’Neill and everyone at the Irish Football Association. They should be proud of their achievement. I am sure this House will be supporting the green and white army in France next year.

It is important to put on the record the position of the Opposition. There has been much welcome regarding the return of my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and we welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) to the team. There has been no change in the policy of the Labour party with regard to Northern Ireland. We reiterate, on the record, the bipartisan approach. It is vital that we place on record our unwavering commitment to the people of Northern Ireland and to the rule of law, and to reiterate the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling at the Labour party conference when he made it clear that we are fully supportive of the principle of consent as expressed in the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements.

We have heard some first-class speeches tonight. For anyone who has talked about negativism, I have to say that I have heard knowledge and I have heard people speaking from the perspective of experience. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), who secured the debate, should be given credit. He referred at one stage to a “dysfunctional quagmire”, a dramatic expression that will no doubt enter the parliamentary lexicon. It is not one I have heard before. He may be expressing his own personal concerns and fears, but there is, of course, much more to this debate than that.

We have heard from so many Members about the difficulty of moving forward from the past. None has made the case more dramatically than the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). On 30 July 1990, Ian Gow was killed. Twenty five years have passed since then. The three new commemorative shields over the door to the Aye Lobby will not have escaped the notice of the House. They represent not just Major Charles Lyell, who was the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South, but Captain Dr John Joseph Esmonde, who was the Member for North Tipperary and the famous Lieutenant Tom Kettle, that great poet from East Tyrone.

The past is all around us. The past is everywhere. We cannot ignore the past, but we have to move forward. One statement we heard tonight shows us how we are still facing terrible problems. The right hon. Member for Belfast North referred to Garda Anthony Golden, who was killed this week. Let us not forget that Garda Golden was the father of three young children. They no longer have a father. What we are talking about here tonight is not some abstract matter. This is not some political game or constitutional discussion. This really is a matter of life and death. It was rightly said that it is much more important that we talk about these issues here and in Stormont than resort to the alternative.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said that he might be rusty. I think the House owes my hon. Friend thanks and gratitude for his work from the Opposition Front Bench. He was not rusty. As ever, he was incisive. He was as sharp as a razor and absolutely to the point. We have much to learn from him and from the positivity he expressed.

In addition to trade unions, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned Washington. We should refer in these debates to the role of Dublin and the Irish Government, as well as Washington. We need all the friends we can get in resolving these matters. They have proven to be good friends.

Let us not forget the comments made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). He talked about the future, not the past. That is so important: let that be the key factor. Above all, the hon. Member for South Antrim brought this debate to the House not in a mood of despair, but, as far as I could see, in a mood of optimism. I hope we can resolve these issues.

I would like to put a couple of points to the Minister. The first is on the issue of welfare reform. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) raised these points. As he will know, Northern Ireland is not like any other part of the UK. We who have not lived through them cannot understand the effect of those traumatic and horrifying acts of terrorism and bloodshed. The post-traumatic stress and other mental health illnesses that blight and curse that community are beyond the imagination and experience of many of us on this side of the water. Does the Minister share the concerns on this side of the House that further reductions to services as a result of welfare reform threaten to enhance the cycle of generational problems of worklessness? What assistance will the Government be offering to ensure that mental health support services in particular are protected?

I reiterate the Opposition’s support for the Stormont House talks, but I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the response he has received from the various political parties regarding the proposed legislation. Why is the implementation and reconciliation group referred to not included in the legislation? Finally, what progress is being made with the talks?

I could say more—we could all say more—but I will conclude by thanking, as I think we all do, the hon. Member for South Antrim, not just for bringing this debate, but for the conciliatory, gentle, positive and hopeful way in which he did so. He referred to the greatness of the people of Northern Ireland. We all agree with that. I hope that now is the time for the people of Northern Ireland to prove that they are not just a great people with a great past, but a great people with a great present and future. That future is ours to seize. Let us do it.

Northern Ireland: Political Situation

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I sincerely thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I would like to apologise to the Secretary of State and the House for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis),the shadow Secretary of State, who has asked me to relay his apologies for not being in attendance today. He has to be in Belfast for the launch of the Heenan-Anderson commission report.

The official Opposition strongly support the UK and Irish Governments’ decision to convene all-party talks this week in an attempt to secure a positive way forward on the challenging issues raised by the murder of Kevin McGuigan Sr and its aftermath, together with implementation of the Stormont House agreement. There is no doubt that a combination of real concerns following the Chief Constable’s assessment in relation to the status of the Provisional IRA and the failure to agree a sustainable budget pose the biggest threat to political stability in Northern Ireland for many years.

We urge all parties to seek the necessary compromises and confidence-building measures that can avert the collapse of the institutions. The people of Northern Ireland have had their faith in politicians and political institutions badly damaged by the perpetual crises of the past few years. There should be no doubt that the vast majority want to see progress, and a return to a focus on issues such as jobs, education, health and opportunities for young people. It is also the case that business confidence, and therefore investment, are now being put at risk by political uncertainty. All parties in Northern Ireland must take responsibility for stepping back from the brink, and for finding a way forward.

I have some questions for the Secretary of State. In the aftermath of Kevin McGuigan’s murder, she said that the Government had always been aware of the continued existence of the Provisional IRA. Will she make clear exactly what she meant by that statement? Some have proposed the reintroduction of the Independent Monitoring Commission. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the feasibility, or the desirability, of such a measure? At what precise stage of the current financial year will the Northern Ireland budget cease to be sustainable? Are the Government now actively considering introducing emergency legislation to suspend the political institutions and return to direct rule if the current round of talks should fail? Finally, what further detail can the Secretary of State provide following her statement yesterday that the Government would now consider legislating for welfare reform and releasing funds for the civil service voluntary redundancy scheme, and what will the timeline be?

Having asked those questions, I want to place on the record the support of Opposition Members for the talks that will take place this evening, and stress our continuing and undiluted endorsement of the bipartisan approach in which we both believe.

The Secretary of State has rightly listed the challenges that face the people and the politicians of Northern Ireland, but we must never ignore the progress that has been made. These may be dark and dangerous times, but I profoundly hope, and I believe, that the good sense of all in Northern Ireland will prevail. It may be too late to hope that Kyle Lafferty’s last-minute goal in the match against Hungary last night has imbued Northern Ireland with a feelgood factor that will permeate every aspect, but surely this must be the time to reroute the march to the cliff edge and head back to sanity—and forward to the peaceful and prosperous future that we all know Northern Ireland deserves.

[Mrs Villiers]

I thank the shadow Minister for his support. Let me deal with his questions.

In relation to the existence of the provisional IRA, my assessment is the same as that of the Chief Constable, and the assessment that I have been given by security advisers during my time as Secretary of State is broadly in line with the summary given by the Chief Constable that I outlined earlier: the continued existence of some organisational structures, with no involvement in paramilitarism or terrorism, but with individual members pursuing criminality for personal gain to pursue personal agendas.

As for the IMC, it is an important issue to consider, and I think that we would want to consider it as part of the talks. It may well be the case that if an IMC-type body were set up, we would want to ask it different questions from those that were asked by the IMC; but it is, of course, a model that we should consider when proceeding with the important process of dealing with the issues related to continuing and wholly unacceptable paramilitary activities.

The hon. Gentleman asked at what point the Northern Ireland Executive would become unsustainable. I am afraid that it is already unsustainable. There are already Ministers who feel that they cannot sign off projects because of the uncertainty surrounding the future availability of funds. I think that those matters are very urgent.

I am conscious that the issue of suspension is very sensitive. I have received representations on it from the Democratic Unionist party. I understand the DUP’s concerns, but the Government do not feel that it would be right to suspend the institutions at this stage and in these circumstances. If the circumstances were to change in the future, we would of course need to look at all our options.

As for the welfare reform matters, I said that we would be prepared to legislate as a last resort, but we are not at that stage yet. My priority will be working with the parties to find a way to ensure that the welfare package in the Stormont House resolution is implemented, because it is a good deal for Northern Ireland. The voluntary redundancy scheme is expected to start its operation with the first participants leaving their roles at the end of this month.

Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-Jury Trial Provisions) Order 2015

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 General Committees

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Welcome to the Chair, Ms Vaz. It seems like many years since you and I served together as councillors in the London borough of Ealing. One of us has worn rather better than the other, and you have achieved far more than I have in the interim, but you are very welcome; it is a pleasure to serve under you.

I reiterate the Minister’s welcome for new Members to what is by far the most exciting aspect of our parliamentary life. I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Telford, the hon. Member for Kensington, whom it is a great pleasure to see again, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East and for Coventry North East, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate—how we miss his predecessor—and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. I am not sure whether I should welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central, who is a retread, but she is a very freshly minted retread.

Many people looking at this order will say, “Why must we still have non-jury trials?” The Minister rightly referred to the incidents in north Armagh over the weekend. I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that we should place on the record our appreciation for the work of the PSNI at the present time and particularly for George Hamilton and all the senior staff who were, after all, going to be drawn into a bomb explosion in Lurgan. This was one of the most cold-blooded, appalling and terrifying proposals imaginable. A bomb warning was phoned through to the Samaritans. The PSNI was then drawn to the site and another bomb was exploded. We have seen that before, in Omagh and in many other places. It is a terrifying, bloodthirsty and cold-blooded way of operating.

We should place on the record our appreciation for George Hamilton and the members of the PSNI, not just for what they did over the weekend, but for 12 July this year. Those of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland business over the years have come to dread 12 July. There was a deputation there from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the weekend of 12 July. I think everyone will accept that although it was not entirely peaceful from start to finish and there was one rather unpleasant incident that we all know about, overall this was a very different 12 July—a calmer and quieter 12 July than we have known for many years. Credit must be given to the politicians in Northern Ireland and to the PSNI.

However, the fact remains that the situation is not normal. Everything that we do in this Committee has to be a move towards normalcy—towards restoring the same standards as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is why Her Majesty’s Opposition do not object to the order. I am very grateful and would like to place it on the record that the Secretary of State gave a confidential briefing on this subject to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), towards the end of the last Parliament. We are now at the stage where I profoundly hope that we are in the last months or years of non-jury trials.

I do want to make a couple of points. When this matter went out to consultation—the Northern Ireland Office rightly conducted an extensive consultation and contacted, I think, more than 35 interested groups; people who had expressed concern—there were, rather disappointingly, only 19 responses. On the one hand, that is disappointing; on the other hand, it is rather cheering to know that it is no longer the definitive issue that it was for so many years. Of the 19 responses received by the Northern Ireland Office, 11 expressed no clear preference, five were in favour and three were opposed. On whether anything of great value can come from that, overall, the most serious comment made during the consultation process was that rather than just renewing the orders over and over again every two years, there should be proper discussion at some stage about how far forward we should go with them.

No one is denying for a minute that the intimidation of jurors is a perversion of the course of justice. I repeat what I said earlier today during debate on another statutory instrument: the Opposition will always work with the Government in a bipartisan way to improve the lot, the life and the existence of people in Northern Ireland. We will always work together. This is a matter that has unquestionably been controversial in the past, but we recognise that it is necessary.

During the consultation, the issue of the process of certification by the Director of Public Prosecutions was raised. There is still some concern about the issuing of certificates. I think that the Minister answered that by quoting the numbers, but I note that in 2013, non-jury trials accounted for 1.6% of all Crown court trials in Northern Ireland, and the provisional figure for 2014 is 2.5%. I am inclined to suspect that if the number is so minuscule, those statistics are pretty meaningless. However, I would be grateful for his assurance that he does not foresee an increase or spike in non-jury trials, because that would be worrying.

I am also reassured by the Minister’s comments about the NIO’s links with the DPP and how the certificates are being issued. That is an important way forward. I would be interested to know whether he feels that a debate on the Floor of the House, or maybe some action by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, would be appropriate.

I think that I speak for every single person in the room when I say that I want to see the end of non-jury trials. We saw the end of Diplock trials, and we remember when Diplock was brought in. We remember the extraordinary reaction and the incredible, almost universally negative response. That had to happen for reasons that we all know--, as do non-jury trials for reasons that we understand, but that is not a reason for us to accept them in perpetuity. Ultimately, it cannot be right that we in this United Kingdom cannot rely on a jury to remain free of intimidation and what is colloquially known as jury nobbling. We must have a better system than that.

The Opposition will always support the Government in all ways possible to achieve that. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to those minor points, but above all, we have no objection to the Order and we thank him for bringing it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

With regard to sub judice, and taking full respect of that, I do not have the full details of the Home Secretary’s action today, if that is what it is; all I can say is that, with respect to the secret courts, in general, these are civil court proceedings. This is where individuals come to the Government to seek damages, whether that is for Guantanamo Bay or whatever. That is why the coalition Government brought in the secret courts hearing to allow elements of damages—these are civil cases, not criminal cases. The issue of people effectively pushing Governments to produce intelligence in open courts meant that these proceedings have to be in secret, but that does not relate to the measures in this order. These measures only apply to criminal court proceedings and relate to when the DPP and the Crown prosecute people for offences, rather than when people try to claim damages in the civil courts. The legislation is entirely different. To inform both him and me better, I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Blaydon with whatever I can about the generality of what is going on, if what he says is the case.

The order relates to the criminal courts system and cases where the DPP views there to be a risk of jury intimidation and therefore decides that it is best to hold—it is only in a very few cases—trial without jury. The best way of informing that is with recent figures, which show that in 2013-14 there were 167 offences of intimidation and threat to harm witnesses and jurors, and 37 offences that were then detected by police. That rose in 2014-15 to 171 offences of intimidation and threat to harm witnesses and 44 offences that were then detected by police. That shows the threat to be real and ongoing in certain situations, and we have a duty to ensure that in the short term we do what we can to protect the administration of justice.

I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the PSNI. Last month, there was an attack on the PSNI that constituted a double attempted murder at Eglinton. The most recent attack was on Saturday. The PSNI does an amazing job, often facing the highest levels of provocation. Those of us who were there on Monday of last week witnessed some of the riots. When I used to be in riots in the ’90s in Northern Ireland, we did not have to restrain ourselves in the way that police officers do today. They stand and hold the line while being pelted with some of the most horrendous missiles—acid bombs and petrol bombs—and abuse. They stand and take that hour after hour. We should not miss the opportunity to pay tribute to the PSNI, which tries to maintain a difficult balance between two communities while at the same time going out there and doing its job when there is still a small minority of dedicated dissident republicans—and loyalists, to some extent—who are threatening their lives. The PSNI does that job to the best of its ability.

[Stephen Pound]

I seek to assist the Minister: for the avoidance of doubt or confusion, will he remind the Committee that his involvement in rioting in the ’70s was not from the perspective of a participant, but as someone wearing the uniform of the Crown?

[Mr Wallace]

I may be follicly challenged, but in the early ’70s I was about three years old. I was part of the security forces in Northern Ireland, in north and west Belfast, in the early ’90s, when I was a little older. The job they do today is amazing, and they do their best to keep policing normal and proportionate.

Unfortunately, we must renew trials without jury because of the small minority of people who use intimidation of their own communities and sectarian bigotry to make their case, and who continue to refuse to follow the peace process, to which 99.99% of the people of Northern Ireland have signed up. That is why the order is regretful but necessary.

When the hon. Member for Ealing North asked about the increase in the figures, I think he answered his own question to some extent, in that we are talking about such small numbers. The successful detection of one terrorist attack could mean five or six more people on trial this year, and if any of the four conditions I listed earlier is met, we would see an increase. This year, there has been a decline—the figure is much lower than the previous one. The difficulty is that the figures relate to very small numbers. Should there be an increase in terrorist activity, that will no doubt be linked to any future increase; should terrorist activity decrease but the PSNI and security services increase detection, we will also see an increase. The figures show either the success of PSNI detection or, unfortunately, the continuing threat because of increased activity.

I am grateful that Her Majesty’s Opposition support our proposals. The measure is short-term and not intended to be open-ended. It is different from the Diplock court system. It is about the DPP—there is no interference from politicians—satisfying themselves that the conditions have been met. The judges do not have to agree and, if people do not want it to happen, there is also a right of appeal through judicial review. If colleagues have any other questions, they should not hesitate to write to me and I shall reply. With that, I thank the Opposition for their support and commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) order 2015

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 General Committees

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I reiterate the welcome to you, Mr Nuttall, and see that you are finally joining the ranks of the establishment. It is a great pleasure to see you sitting there in dignity.

I welcome the honourable and gallant Minister to his place. I am sure that he will grow to love the brief and to love Northern Ireland as much as so many of us here do. He is welcome to the role and I assure him that on all non-controversial matters, such as the draft order, Her Majesty’s Opposition will work entirely in a bipartisan way for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. We may have differences and disagreements, but I hope that we can work together for the greater good.

I welcome the hon. Member for Castle Point to her new position of great Whip-like authority. It is a pleasure to see her here. With your permission, Mr Nuttall, I would like to welcome some of the newer Members: the hon. Members for Charnwood and for Lewes, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark—what a pleasure it is to say “my hon. Friend” there. I also welcome the hon. Members for Eastleigh, for South Antrim and for Bury St Edmunds, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.

The order is not controversial, and Her Majesty’s Opposition support it. We understand entirely that it is consequential on the changes in the electoral structures—that it was inevitable. I have just one or two minor questions, and I will understand entirely if the Minister prefers to give a written response later, but knowing his acuity, I think that he probably has the answers at his fingertips.

One question is about the review. As hon. Members know, this whole process was reviewed late last year and the assessment of that review was published in January 2015. I would be interested to know the Government’s assessment of the review—whether they feel any consequential amendments may be appropriate and whether the January 2015 review of polling places has thrown up anything that may concern us later. Hon. Members who were here the last time that we debated this issue will remember that we had a considerable discussion about nomenclature. I think that we have moved on from that, but I would be interested to know whether we should consider any issue following publication of the review in January 2015.

The second question is about a review process—an appeal process. Inevitably—it is a fact of life—even something as mundane and anodyne as a polling place or the redesignation of a polling place may prove to be difficult, depending on the exact location and on the environment and atmosphere around it. Is there an appeal process whereby political parties or aggrieved individuals can appeal to the chief electoral officer about the location? If so, has that process been used; does the Minister anticipate that it may be used; or does he feel that such a process would be otiose and is unnecessary?

Those are two minor questions, and as I said, I am perfectly prepared to take a written response later, as I do not wish to detain the Committee. For the record, I welcome the Minister and say that Her Majesty’s Opposition have no objection to this essential, sensible and serious legislation, which we support.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments and I, too, welcome those members of the Committee who are new, especially the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I fear that if his predecessor had been here, the Committee might not have been so short.

This is, of course, a housekeeping measure. It is important that we lay the ground right for the planned Assembly elections next year and therefore doing this now, with other measures due in September or October, is the right thing to do to ensure that everything is in place for the planned elections in March.

Let me move on to the two specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North. On the latter point, about a review process, I understand that anyone unhappy with designations is of course allowed to appeal to the Electoral Commission against those designations and then it can deal with those issues.

[Stephen Pound]

Have any such appeals been made?

[Mr Wallace]

Not as far as I am aware. There was one disputed polling station at the last election in the area of Dungannon, and I understand that the case is currently under review. It was about the movement of a polling station from a primary school to another centre in Dungannon. There were allegations of intimidation, which is of course a real issue in certain parts of Northern Ireland.

On the hon. Gentleman’s other point, I will write to him if there is any further information about the review that was carried out. I do not yet have the full details, but I think that it is important that there are places to go. There is the Electoral Commission to appeal to if people are unhappy, but it has indicated that everyone is happy with the change proposed today. We are simply tidying up and administering the housekeeping that is important to ensuring that the elections take place.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Obviously we do not comment too much on intelligence matters, but from intelligence and information that we receive on individuals we take into account the threat to them. We regularly review applications, and when a threat increases, or a threat against an individual is demonstrated, we seek to do what we can to protect them.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I pay tribute to the outgoing Minister, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has many friends in this House and made many friends in Northern Ireland? He is remembered with affection and respect. I welcome the new Minister, the fifth I have shadowed, to the Dispatch Box, and note that among them have been one Royal Navy surgeon and three former Army officers, all of whom wore their uniform with great distinction—much more than I did, although admittedly the opportunity for gallantry is limited for London Transport bus conductors.

Last year there were 550 twelfth of July parades and the vast majority went off peacefully. Does the Minister not agree that further reductions in the PSNI budget threaten the stability of the peace process, and will he make a statement?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

The Kingsmills tragedy was an appalling terrorist atrocity. I have met the families, and they have my deepest, deepest condolences. Every effort should continue to be made to bring to justice those responsible for this horrific episode in the troubles.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I am sure that the whole House welcomes the new architecture proposed as a result of the Stormont House agreement. Will the Secretary of State give us some indication of the time scale and, crucially, say whether it will require legislation in this House? Frankly, the victims’ families have waited too long—they need answers and they need them now.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am meeting the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties on Friday to agree an implementation plan on the Stormont House agreement. It is highly likely that we will need at least some legislation both in Westminster and in the Assembly. We will talk to the Northern Ireland Executive about the balance between the two to ensure that we get these institutions up and running as soon as possible, because current systems are not giving the right outcomes for victims, and that needs to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Villiers]

Yes I can. The Parades Commission is the lawfully constituted authority. Its determinations have the force of law. They must be obeyed and I welcome the huge efforts made over the weekend to ensure the determination in north Belfast was obeyed. I am afraid that I think we always will need some form of body to adjudicate parades where there is no local agreement, but I hope in all cases as much effort as possible is made to try to reach local agreement so there is not a further need for a determination.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister—my fourth—the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) to his position, but I confess myself saddened by the Government’s decision to downgrade the post from Minister of State. I hope this is not indicative of any diminution in the Government’s commitment to the proud people of Northern Ireland. I would also say that those on my Front Bench need be under no duty to emulate that.

While the whole House will pay tribute to outgoing Chief Constable Matt Baggott—and I hope I speak for everyone—the Secretary of State will shortly be meeting the new Chief Constable. What are the strategic priorities she will wish to establish with the new Chief Constable?

[Mrs Villiers]

I have met the new Chief Constable on a number of occasions. I commend him and his officers on the work they did over the twelfth of July. I am sure his strategic priorities will continue to be countering the lethal terrorist threat from dissident republicans, keeping Northern Ireland safe and secure from that threat, and also being absolutely serious and determined in providing community policing as close to the community as possible and cracking down on organised criminals in cities in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I find myself, oddly enough, in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That may disturb him more than it disturbs me. The Northern Irish film and television industry now has a global reputation for excellence. He referred to “Game of Thrones”. There is also Ridley Scott’s “Halo”, “The Fall” and many other productions. However, they tend to utilise talent from within the Belfast area. With youth unemployment still far higher outside Belfast than in the rest of Great Britain, what is the Minister doing to work with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and other agencies to extend the benefits throughout the north?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. At its height, “Game of Thrones” has employed up to 800 people. As we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it employs people from around the Province—Antrim, Strangford and elsewhere. The Government have introduced high-end television tax relief that has brought very real benefits to the creative industries in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We are bringing down unemployment and strengthening the economy. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to remember the state of the economy when he left office in 2010.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, welcome the fact that we are debating this important issue. Although the debate has been dominated by Northern Ireland Members, I believe that the issue should concern not just politicians from Northern Ireland, but every Member of the House. At the beginning of his speech—it was a very forensic speech, which should be welcomed—the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) almost apologised for being involved in the debate, but I believe that he as much as anyone else should be concerned about the issues arising from the Downey case.

The whole matter has been brought to the fore by the hurt caused not to people in Northern Ireland, but to people in this very city who were blown apart by an IRA bomb, and, of course, to many others. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) mentioned many constituents who had served in the Army, and also the IRA bombs that had hurt people in his constituency. This is an issue that affects Members throughout the House, because people in their constituencies, including people in this part of the United Kingdom, have been affected by the activities of those who received the amnesty letters—for that is what they are, however the Secretary of State wishes to describe them.

A second reason why all Members should be concerned is the fact that the House of Commons has been brought into disrepute. I believe that not just the last Government but the current Government have been sullied by the scheme whose outcome we saw in the recent court case. It calls into question whether the public can trust the words of those who want and ask for the responsibility of governing the country. Numerous assurances were given in the House: Members were told that the issue had to be addressed, and that when it was addressed, people would know about it. The hon. Member for Aldershot, who is no longer in the Chamber, was the only Member to suggest today that perhaps we should have known—that the information might have been there, but we had missed it. He said “We are busy people, we get e-mails and so forth”. He also quoted what had been said by the then Secretary of State, Dr Reid, in answer to a question. Dr Reid also said at that time that

“we have committed ourselves to resolving this issue but have not decided how it will be resolved”,

and added:

“When we have reached a conclusion, we will of course come back to the House.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 253.]

That did not happen.

One conclusion that was reached, of course, was to introduce the on-the-runs legislation. On at least two occasions after that was withdrawn, the then Secretary of State indicated, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), that he had no alternative proposal, despite the fact that the scheme was put in place not long afterwards.

I want to make something clear. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) said. He stated, “This was purely an administrative scheme.” I have also served in a Government Department in Northern Ireland, and the one thing I can assure the House of is that no official, off their own bat, would start an administrative scheme as sensitive as this one, with all its political ramifications, without clear political direction and political origin. It may have eventually taken on an administrative life, but it started off with a conscious decision by politicians. They were politicians who had promised that when they came to address the issue, the facts would be known to the House and—as Dr Reid said, because he realised how sensitive the issue was—to the victims. Promises were, therefore, broken.

One reason why this debate is important is that it is about confidence in this House and in the word of politicians. The Labour party was then in government, and I have listened closely to what the shadow Secretary of State has said. When he was interviewed about the matter, he talked about it having caused hurt but said—I am quoting him almost exactly—that he did not believe the Labour party had anything to apologise for. I believe it does have something to apologise for. It must apologise first to those families who now know they will never get justice because of the double jeopardy rule. It owes an apology as well to those members of the public who have been misled by promises made by successive Secretaries of State in this House, and it also owes an apology to Members of this House.

The current Government cannot escape their responsibility either. When the new Administration took over, seamlessly, there was no indication that they had inherited an administrative scheme which had trundled on. Indeed, the Secretary of State still insists that the letters are virtually meaningless. If they are virtually meaningless, why are they so important to the peace process? If they are virtually meaningless, why did Sinn Fein send scores of names to the Northern Ireland Office to get meaningless bits of paper, and why do those who received those meaningless bits of paper now feel quite happy not to be on the run any more, but to enter the United Kingdom? It just does not add up.

The Secretary of State argues that the letters are meaningless because of what may happen if new evidence comes to light. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has pointed out, we are not clear whether that is evidence on existing cases or evidence only on new cases, but this applies only if new evidence comes to light. Given the information that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has provided to the House today, we know that already there are not just connections or contacts between the Northern Ireland Office and those who would be investigating, but, as Norman Baxter said, there is extremely grave interference in the process.

We have to ask: what instructions are being given to the police? What instructions are being given to the Historical Enquiries Team? It could be, “That person has received a letter, so do not be following any new lines of inquiry, do not be opening any new cases and do not be looking any further at any allegations made about them.” I do not know whether the inquiry’s remit will cover finding out whether any of those who have received such letters have subsequently had any investigation into their cases by the HET. It would be interesting to know that, but I suspect that the answer is no. The Secretary of State may say, “If new evidence comes to light, these letters will not mean anything”, but of course if it can be ensured that no new evidence comes to light, the letters do amount to an amnesty.

If we want an indication that that might be the case, let us examine the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea)—that of Liam Averill. Why could Liam Averill not benefit from the scheme? It was because the evidence was already there—he had been serving a prison sentence. He had escaped from prison and a letter was no use to him, so he had to have the royal prerogative of mercy. If any indication were needed that the letters amount to an amnesty—to a certainty that someone will not go to jail—we need only look at the case of Liam Averill, the way in which the assurances have been given by the Secretary of State and the evidence given by the police of the interference by the Northern Ireland Office in these cases.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s flow. He and I both served for many years on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and I remember the evidence of Norman Baxter well. May I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he may have slightly heard something in the evidence that the rest of us did not hear, for the words he quoted this afternoon were rather stronger, more specific and, dare I say it, more accusatory than the words I heard? May I simply ask that he look at the transcript of that evidence again?

[Sammy Wilson]

The transcript states three words, “extremely unhealthy interest”, which I do not think anyone, unless they really wanted to, could interpret differently. Such an interest in these cases would indicate that there was interference by the NIO. An “extremely unhealthy interest” cannot mean anything else. If the interest was “unhealthy”, it surely means that the NIO was seeking to direct the inquiry in a way that a policeman felt was not right. If it was “extremely unhealthy,” it was overbearing—that is how I reach my conclusion and I do not think I am reading anything into it. I am coming to a conclusion that is borne out by the facts, one which people must come to if they are to believe that the letters mean anything.

The one thing I do know is that Sinn Fein would not have been happy with the letters if they did not mean something. I can recall around the time of the on-the-runs sitting in studios with Sinn Fein spokesmen who, without the least bit of irony, bleated on and lamented about all these poor people who were separated from their families and could not come home to see their grannies, mummies, sons and daughters because they were on the run. There was no sense of irony arising from the fact that they were on the run because they had permanently separated many people from their families by killing them. If anyone suggests that they would have been happy with a letter that did not remedy that situation, I would say that their argument is extremely weak.

This is an important issue because, by implicating the police, it has undermined the rule of law. I know that the hon. Member for Aldershot tried to put the blame totally on the police in Northern Ireland by saying that they screwed up, and that had they not screwed up this would not have happened, but I believe that it would have happened anyhow. As has been shown in the court judgment, the letter was as important as the information that was contained in it.

The police have been implicated, because they have had to produce the information. I do not know how much direction the police were given, but I would have expected them, knowing the implications of this, to have felt obliged to tell the Policing Board. Yet, anyone hearing the police when they gave evidence to the Policing Board—this was not some constable, sergeant or inspector who might not have been passed all the issues, but an assistant chief constable—could not have concluded anything other than that the police were pursuing these cases. With regard to the on-the-runs, he said.

“There is then an investigation which follows into the individual and the crimes that they may have been involved in, and then this is subsequently reported to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) where test for prosecution is met. We have been working through this process over the last number of years and it continues still to be available. So in effect, as we become aware of a name in a particular incident, we carry out a cold case review and an investigation and report that to the PPS to see then if the test for prosecution is met or any other work that may be done. The powers of arrest will exist for the original offences and there can also be Bench Warrants applied to through the courts if needs be, or if it is in relation to offences in respect of breaking out of a prison, the Prison Act also applies in respect of returning people to prison.”

That was the substance of the evidence that the police gave. There was no indication that there were some individuals for whom letters were being signed so that they could walk free—so that they could come into the jurisdiction and be sure that there would be no prosecution against them.

The rule of law and the integrity of the police—shame on those in the senior ranks who allowed themselves to be associated with this—is at stake. Many individuals in Northern Ireland are saying, “Look, I break the law, I am rightly pursued. Every avenue is used against me.” Yet here we have people who, in some cases, are guilty of mass murder walking free. For all those reasons, I believe that this has been an important debate and that the inquiry is an important inquiry. I hope that we will get to the truth of the matter about who has got these letters, whether or not investigations are still going on, whether the Northern Ireland Office is interfering in any way and stopping investigations or new leads being followed and what the implications are for the judicial process.

Let me make one last point, and then I will finish. If the Government are as appalled by this situation as they suggest—the Secretary of State has said that the letters mean nothing and it will be made clear—why did they not, once they became aware of the scheme, make the situation quite clear to the Justice Minister at least? When policing and justice were being handed over in Northern Ireland, it was kept quiet from him. Why, when there are opportunities to appeal this decision, have they not appealed? I believe that the current Government are as much a part of the political cover-up and are giving as much political cover to Sinn Fein-IRA as the previous Government did. That is why the incident is a shameful one and it merits this debate today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

This is a sombre and sobering occasion. There are few occasions in this House when words are insufficient to describe the depth and strength of emotion that runs through a debate—today’s was more a threnody than a debate—and this was one such occasion. May I, like all Members who have spoken, place on the record my deepest sympathies, and those of my party, for the victims of the Hyde park and Regent’s park bombings in 1982? Their names have been read out twice today. Their names will live for ever more. We will remember them.

May I also, as has been the convention this afternoon, praise the Backbench Business Committee and the Northern Ireland Members who made it their business to lobby for this debate on the Floor of the House? If anyone doubts for a moment how raw the emotions still are or how relevant these issues remain, they will be disabused of such notions when they hear what we have heard this afternoon. I apologise for the fact that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State was unable to stay for the whole debate; there is a funeral today that he and other Members wished to attend.

In many ways we heard two debates this afternoon. On the one hand, we heard a legalistic argument about the legal consequence of this administrative process. I should put on the record the fact that, as the shadow Secretary of State stated in his letter to the Belfast Telegraph earlier this month, our party does not recant the introduction of the on-the-run administration. We say that despite the fact that “understandable anger”, and indeed fury, has been expressed at the subsequent error in the Downey case. I think that it is important to place on the record my hon. Friend’s words when he offered an unequivocal apology for the catastrophic error made in the issuing of the letter to John Downey:

“This has once again accentuated the pain for the families which never goes away and reduces the likelihood of them ever getting truth or justice.”

I cannot add to those points.

[Lady Hermon]

Are we to understand that the Labour party is blaming the PSNI for that catastrophic error and, in fact, commending the political decision made by Mr Blair and carried through by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and subsequently by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), that it is a good and defensible position that the on-the-runs, the pals of Mr Gerry Adams who are accused of the most appalling crimes committed in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, have walked free? Is that the Opposition’s position?

[Stephen Pound]

The hon. Lady appears to be conflating two separate issues. To say that the Labour party, which was in government at the time, does not recant its position with regard to the administrative system in no way implies that people are walking free. People are not walking free. There has been no amnesty. It is crucial that we analyse and use the word “amnesty” with care. The hon. Lady, who is one of the most distinguished educators in Northern Ireland, is exact and precise about the etymology of the words she uses, but the word “amnesty” comes from the Greek word “amnestis”, which simply means forgetfulness—it has the same root as “amnesia”. In the context in which we are using it this afternoon—to mean a potential overlooking—it was so used only in the 16th century.

One of the things that we need to discover—I am sure that the Secretary of State will respond to this when she replies—is whether in the abuse of process there was a creative precedent or any sort of legality that arose from that. It is important, in view of the context and the great significance of this subject, that we are very precise in our language. The Secretary of State has said that there is no amnesty. We need to be precise about that and must certainly return to it.

In response to the hon. Lady’s suggestion, no, I am not seeking to blame the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and nor would I. I hope that she and they will accept my assertion of that fact.

[Dr McCrea]

If this was an honourable scheme or system, why was it devised behind the backs of the people of Northern Ireland, the politicians of Northern Ireland, and Members of this House; and why did only the friends of Gerry Adams get these letters, why was no loyalist included, and why did no soldier receive any letter of comfort?

[Stephen Pound]

Let me say, not for the first time, that I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s personal pain, which is felt by everyone in this House. He deserves considerable respect for the courage he has shown in continuing to raise these issues despite such pain.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman is similar to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) when she asked me about reconciling the irreconcilable in connection with the previously quoted comments by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain). In other words, on the Floor of the House this afternoon I cannot answer the question on the basis of the information that I have been given and of which we are aware. That is partly why the three inquiries are under way, and I hope that they will achieve results. I was not privy to the discussions at the time. My right hon. Friend was, and he has already made a statement. I have made a note in response to the hon. Lady’s extremely potent expression about reconciling the irreconcilable, and I will ask him for the answer, but I regret that I cannot give it on the Floor of the House this afternoon.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Stephen Pound]

However, I can give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon]

The shadow Minister will have heard me outline a case in which there is clear evidence that should be taken on board in convicting and taking to court a gentleman now residing in the Republic who carried out a murder in Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman feel, as I do, and as many of us in this House do, that where there is evidence there should be an investigation, that there should be no amnesty for anybody as long as the evidence is there, and if the case has not been tried before the courts, it is time that it was?

[Stephen Pound]

Let me say this unequivocally: absolutely, that is the law. Where there is evidence of criminality, the law must run its course. If the person is living in a foreign jurisdiction, that is an issue we have to consider. I regret the use of the expression “get out of jail free” card. No one is walking around with that in their pocket; that is not the case. I hope that these matters will come out when the House gets to consider the various reports, certainly the review led by Lady Justice Hallett.

While there are the issues of legality and fine points of law, the one thing that most people reading Hansard or listening to the debate would be struck by is the immense courage and bravery of many of the speakers who have, from their personal experience, expressed their views. I particularly praise the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for refusing to allow himself or his party to go down the nihilistic road of destruction and tear down the structures because of this issue. That is a courageous statement that would not be massively popular with every single element in his constituency, and he deserves praise and credit, as does his party, for making it.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) said—I think that this resonates with many of us, and I will never forget it—that the matter we are discussing today has undermined the peace process, not underpinned it. It is that serious. We have to realise that this is not a minor administrative issue; it is a major point that has to be considered in depth, and I very much hope that the three inquiries will do so.

I want to leave time for the Secretary of State to respond to those points. As the Prime Minister said, this is not the time to unpick the peace process. It is not the time to say, simply and in the name of expediency, that everything that has gone before should be forgotten. It cannot. We have heard from many speakers today how painful, raw and fresh the wounds still are. We cannot forget. We have to analyse and discover what went wrong, and we have to be open and honest about it. The fact that the current First Minister and Justice Minister were not privy to all the decisions is profoundly regrettable. I say no more than that, but I am sure the House will appreciate how much of an understatement that truly is.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward) for his contribution, which was extremely frank, open and helpful, and I very much hope that he will be involved in the various inquiries.

We have spent this afternoon talking above all about a time of great darkness when things happened that we regret. Every single one of us must bend every bone and strain every sinew to ensure that if we achieve nothing else in this House, it will be a move forward from that darkness into the light, where we can be open, honest and transparent, and where there is a better future for the people of that very brave part of the United Kingdom, because, frankly, they deserve no less than that.

With that in mind, I support the inquiries. I am very grateful for today’s contributions and apologise for not being able to respond in detail to some of the points that have been made. However, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath will respond—I can assure the House of that—and profoundly hope that when this matter is again ventilated on the Floor of the House we will have more information.

[Mark Durkan]

My hon. Friend says that, in the interests of truth, he will ask the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) to address the answers he gave saying that there was no scheme. At the time the right hon. Gentleman announced the withdrawal of the Bill, he said he would have to come back to the issue. That did not necessarily mean that he would come back to it in the House, but he did say that it would have to be addressed through other means. That is one of the reasons why some of us asked at subsequent talks, “What is happening about the on-the-runs?”, but we were basically told, “Shut up about it, because nobody else is worrying.”

[Stephen Pound]

If I have learned one thing in my life, it is that such language should not be used when speaking to people such as my hon. Friend or to any Member of this House, least of all Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I will certainly carry that message back. I think that the point my hon. Friend made earlier about precedent is one to which we will return, because it is of profound concern. If this document had no legal standing, did it create a precedent?

This has been a sombre and sober occasion. It is appropriate that we have been discussing matters of great moment this afternoon. I profoundly hope that the occasions on which we have to have such debates become fewer and fewer. May I thank all 15 hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate? Nothing that has been said on the Floor of the House this afternoon has been less than greatly impressive. It demands attention and will be acted upon.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

We have got a team. The team has a lot to do, but we are doing our best.

We work alongside the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in this Chamber on many issues. We work together as MPs, and the councils will also work together. I was just making the important point that we want to retain the character of Ards.

I read with interest the views of Members in the other place who questioned the ability of the Assembly to handle an issue of such size and complexity. I firmly believe that the Assembly can function and do its job as long as there are no behind-the-scenes deals by the Government. One such deal was referred to by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy). That matter rankles with us all, and it will do so until we can have a debate and sort out the whole matter. Such deals cause disruption and end up eradicating the trust that has been built up over the years.

I took part in a debate about the adult autism strategy this week. In it, I highlighted the way in which the Northern Ireland Assembly has, across the United Kingdom, led the legislative field in Europe with its Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. It is a comprehensive Act for autism that beats the legislation anywhere else in Europe. I therefore believe that allowing the size of the Assembly to be a reserved matter is only right and proper. I am sure that the Minister will respond very positively, but we now need action: the words are over; let us have action and let us have the deal done.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Inspired, as ever, by the wondrous words of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can only say that I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister, were he present, would say that he not only loves the people of North Down, but adores the people of South Down—in fact, of all the Downs—and that he would almost certainly express his adoration and passion for the whole of northern Europe, nay the globe. For the record, may I say on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition that we have immense respect and affection for the people of North Down and, if you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, especially for their elected representative, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)?

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) is not in the Chamber. He is currently gliding smoothly into Dulles airport for what used to be the St Patrick’s day celebrations, but are now the St Patrick’s fortnight celebrations. He has assured me that he will watch this debate with keen interest. I have no doubt that when the party starts in the White House, he will demur from any invitations in order to watch it on catch-up.

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As much as I am enjoying the entertainment—I allow a little scope, but I am not sure how far that scope will take me to airports around the world—I think that the hon. Lady does not wish to intervene now, and I want to hear the hon. Gentleman get to at least some of the Lords amendments.

[Stephen Pound]

An unusual feeling of amity is spreading its warm embrace over the House today, in many ways because we have discussed this matter in some detail. Certainly those who were in their lordships’ House to hear their discussions will have been impressed, as I was, by the speeches of the noble Lord McAvoy, who made his case very powerfully, and of the noble Lord Alderdice, who in a very detailed refutation of the amendment moved by the noble Lord Empey, made the case for preserving the present size—108 Members—of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is in some ways unfortunate that the Dublin statement made in August 2012 by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)—he called for a reduction in the size of the Assembly and of the Executive, and mentioned there being an Opposition—has slightly coloured today’s discussion. The then shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), said that that contribution was unhelpful, unwarranted and unnecessary.

One of the most important points made today was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). She referred to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is currently considering these very matters. It is appropriate for that process to continue, and we support the Lords amendments.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) asked whether, if there was agreement among the parties and even in that committee for a reduction to, say, four Members per constituency, anyone in this House would oppose it. I presume that Her Majesty’s faithful and loyal Opposition might go along with a widespread view expressed by Members of the Assembly and the parties.

[Stephen Pound]

The contribution made earlier by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) was extraordinarily impressive in that it was the first time I have ever heard any politician on the Floor of the House seek a diminution of powers and a reduction in the number of elected Members. The leaner and, if not meaner, then certainly cleaner and greener Executive and Assembly, as was mentioned—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I withdraw the word “greener” in that context? That was entirely a slip of the tongue, and I will arrange for something better.

The point is that the Bill very carefully circumscribes the numbers—no fewer than five, not more than six—so the definition is fairly tight. Clearly, if something results from the AERC that it wishes to bring to the House, I am sure that the Secretary of State will look at it. Our opinion would be that it is a devolved or reserved matter that should be dealt with on that basis.

In relation to other discussions about the future formation of the Executive and the Assembly, I was interested to read on the official Conservative news website ConservativeHome, which I have to say I read out of a sense of duty, rather than delight—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We should not go down that line.

[Stephen Pound]

Indeed, not Mr Deputy Speaker. A rapprochement between the Conservatives and the DUP is proposed, although in my experience the DUP is most eminently not for sale: I have never heard of such a proposal in my life.

[Mr Robathan]

I am afraid that I cannot be quite as entertaining as the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not try to be. ConservativeHome is not an official website. It is very interesting to read. I believe that it is called a blog, although I am a little out of date on such matters. People may put whatever they like on it. It is not an official website. However, we welcome support from all parties.

[Stephen Pound]

It was the word “Conservative” that fooled me, and the fact that the author of the article was a distinguished Conservative Member of the House and a former member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

We are considering the first group of their lordships’ amendments. Just as the Opposition said in the upper House, we are happy with the structure of the amendments and will not oppose them. All the contributions that we have heard today have been positive and forward-looking, and all have given us hope for the future.

If I may say so in closing, it was particularly impressive to hear the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who was so much a part of the process. He has worn well, as has the peace process. Long may both continue to flourish.

[Mr Robathan]

I will respond briefly to a couple of the points that have been made.

First, I hope that it will reassure the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) to hear that I, too, have argued endlessly for a reduction in the number of Members in this House, just as a turkey might wish for Christmas. I have always said that there are too many Members of the House of Commons. Personally, I would reduce the number to 500, although that is not my party’s current policy.

I welcome the views of the right hon. Member for Belfast East on progress—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) is also sitting in the Chamber and I can see one or two differences between the two of them. The right hon. Member for Belfast North spoke about the need for change in the political structure in Northern Ireland. All the parties in Northern Ireland realise that there needs to be change.

I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East about opposition. What is important is that the people of Northern Ireland want to see the Government in Northern Ireland held to account. We understand why the set-up came about in the Belfast agreement and we support that reason. However, I do not think that anyone believes that the current First Minister and Deputy First Minister structure will last for ever, because very few things do.

I was asked whether there was consultation with the Assembly parties. There was consultation with the parties before the Bill was amended. The clause was consulted on. The assumption in the consultation was that there would be a reduction of one Member in each constituency. That was inserted as a safeguard to ensure that a greater reduction was not steamrollered through. The smaller parties felt, rightly or wrongly, that they might be disadvantaged if there were a reduction of two Members per constituency. I think that this is a matter for the Assembly. However, the consultation was about a reduction of one Member per constituency and that was agreed to. That is why we brought forward Lords amendment 2.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North mentioned the reduction in the number of constituencies in the United Kingdom for the Westminster Parliament. I have put my cards on the table and said where I stand. I have been roundly pilloried for that from time to time by my constituents. However, because a different electoral system is employed for the Northern Ireland Assembly, such a reduction would not have the impact that he suggests. If there were a reduction in the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland, there would still be the same number of Assembly Members per constituency. There would be an overall reduction, but the same number of Members per constituency. The smaller parties would be protected because they would have the same number proportionally per constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Members for Belfast East and for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North have commented on this issue. We now look for a full response from the Minister. It is more important than ever that we rebuild the trust that has been somewhat desiccated of late.

[Stephen Pound]

Two points really need to be made. First, this is some of the most important business we have discussed on the Floor of the House. It is a matter of some shame that the Government did not introduce this group of amendments on Report in the other place, as that would have allowed a more informative and in-depth discussion. We could have spoken to it at greater length.

I wish to place on record at the outset a reiteration of the comments my noble Friend Lord McAvoy made in the other place: the Opposition do not oppose these amendments; in fact, we support them. However, I feel it is essential that we place on record one crucial and important factor. When we are talking about the institutions in Northern Ireland, we must not see them through the prism of Great Britain. Lord Alderdice referred in the other place to the size of the Assembly and said specifically that comparisons with Wales and Scotland were otiose, as there are functions and duties that fall to the Assembly in the Northern Ireland that are entirely different, and in many cases involve far harder work than would be found in Scotland or Wales. The obvious example is the land border with another country.

As all Members know, there are also huge key differences between the Northern Ireland civil service and the Westminster civil service. People who spend some time in Northern Ireland swiftly realise that civil servants in Northern Ireland have an entirely different role. They have a much higher profile partly because when there have been occasions such as the suspension of the Assembly or different governance arrangements, civil servants have taken decisions that are very often taken by Ministers. They are known far more widely; they have a higher profile. They engage with the public and they promote policies. The difference is not just practical; it is also cultural. That makes the report all the more significant.

I feel, however, that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has put his finger on an important point. There is a lacuna in the amendment regarding the nature, format, structure, content, aim, intention and extent of the report. We need to have an idea of the precise intention behind it. Will it be a tour d’horizon of the whole issue relating to the civil service commissioners? Will it cover just a specific point? Will it be an update? We need to have some idea, because this is an extremely important subject. I cannot imagine that anyone in the House will object to the issue of impartiality and the merit principle.

I said that I would be brief and, for once, I shall keep my word. These are important matters, and they perhaps need to be ventilated at length on another occasion, but for the moment we support the amendments. We seek further clarification on the nature of the report, and we underline yet again a fact that must never be forgotten— that we are talking about an entirely different sort of civil service. We must bear that in mind in making any decision on these matters. We support the amendments.

[Mr Robathan]

I am glad that everyone supports the amendments, although it was not entirely clear to me that that was the case as I listened to the debate. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has just pointed out something that I should have known—I suspect that the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) already knew it—which is that there is only one home civil service, which has one set of civil service commissioners. The Northern Ireland civil service is separate, which is why it has separate civil service commissioners. The answer to the right hon. Member for Torfaen’s earlier question is that there are no similar relationships in Scotland or Wales. This is not something I have come across before, actually.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) asked why we have the amendments. The reason is that, in the second Chamber of this Parliament, concerns were expressed—by, among others, Lord McAvoy—that insufficient safeguards and transparency had been built in. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has suggested more than once, there were concerns about trust and transparency. In response to those concerns, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will allow further consultation if anyone is concerned. I understand that their lordships wish to have a debate on the matter in their House; whether they do so or not is another matter.