| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Organised Crime Taskforce
4. Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op): If he will make a statement on the work of the organised crime taskforce. [160820]
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The partner agencies of the organised crime task force have had considerable success in the past 12 months against organised criminal gangs in Northern Ireland, and I pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Customs, the Assets Recovery Agency and other partner agencies for their ongoing effectiveness and commitment to tackle that problem.
Mr. Bailey: I thank the Minister. She will remember that there was some concern when the Assets Recovery Agency was set up that it was underfunded and understaffed. Can she assess its impact so far and give a commitment to its having sufficient resources to reach its full potential?
Jane Kennedy: My assessment is that the Assets Recovery Agency is one of the key law enforcement agencies that have recently joined the organised crime task force and that its role will prove crucial in the coming months. It has recently been granted freezing orders in two cases for assets in excess of £500,000. The agency is dealing with 20 live cases with combined assets of about £8 million. Clearly, it is having a big impact, and we expect that to increase. I will reflect carefully on my hon. Friend's point about resources. That is something that I monitor, but the resources for the agency are a matter for the Treasury.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) (UUP): May I support the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) in his probing question and urge the Minister to keep her eye on the ball? It is important that there are enough people to work with the Assets Recovery Agency to bring the money in, and we should recognise that it will be self-financing. The Treasury should be able to help fund the required policing. What are the current links with the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic, and what are the prospects of bringing to justice the chief godfather of them all, who keeps going from north to south?
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment in the House on an individual case, but although it can take years to dismantle an organised crime group or prosecute any key individual, we do not have to wait years to see results. Indeed, we have already seen the results stemming from the work of the Assets
Recovery Agency, which is one of a number of key agencies working together. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need to develop cross-border relationships, and he may like to know that following last year's seminar between the PSNI and Garda Siochana there is an enhanced understanding of cross-border crime of precisely the type that he mentions. That will help us to build effective joint action against those criminals who use the border to their advantage.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): May I urge the Minister to ensure, in particular, that adequate arrangements are in place for information sharing between the task force in Northern Ireland and the law and order agencies south of the border? In that way, the task force can develop links with the Garda Siochana and the Criminal Assets Bureau in the south, as those organisations follow up the belief of the Irish justice Minister Mr. McDowell that Sinn Fein-IRA derive a great deal of their income from the profits of organised crime.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. A cross-border organised crime threat assessment is being prepared and will be available in the next few months. It will be used to focus resources jointly on priority cross-border criminal gangs and crime areas. Such assessments are based on the law enforcement agencies' intelligence and information, which they pool to develop the clearest possible picture of exactly what is happening.
Direct Rule
5. Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): If he will take steps to arrange for legislative proposals for England and Wales to apply to Northern Ireland during the period of the operation of direct rule. [160821]
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar): We aim to propose legislative proposals for Northern Ireland that respond, as promptly as possible, to its needs. In some cases, that will mean applying Bills here to Northern Ireland, but in other circumstances we shall need to move separately. In all cases, we shall seek to ensure that people in Northern Ireland, and hon. Members here, have the best opportunity possible to scrutinise and comment on our proposals.
Mr. Barnes : Does my right hon. Friend remember the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? The original Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland, but the then Government, under pressure, amended it so that it did. Why cannot we do the same during periods of direct rule? For example, the Pensions Bill refers in part to Northern Ireland, but can be made to apply there only by means of an unamendable Order in Council. Why cannot applicability to Northern Ireland be written on the face of the Bill?
Mr. Spellar: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his long and recently terminated membership of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, to which he made a very considerable contribution.
On the general principle that he raises, he will be aware that Northern Ireland legislation exists in many cases. If we were to specify applicability to Northern Ireland in the Pensions Bill, for example, a measure that is already very long would be even longer. That would add considerably to the pressure on parliamentary time. In addition, when the House debates legislative proposals, it often does so on the basis that the proposals and the general principles will apply to Northern Ireland as well. My hon. Friend will know that separate statutes have been passed for Northern Ireland by way of Orders in Council or regulations in respect of the disability legislation. We shall consult on new proposed legislation later this year.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): First, may I say to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) how surprised and delighted I am to see him commence his Northern Ireland tour of duty?
I am sure that the Minister shares my frustration at the resistance among some Northern Ireland parties to governing Northern Ireland, but is it right to run Northern Ireland by means of statutory instrument Committees that cannot amend legislation? Will he introduce a way to amend legislation so that hon. Members can hold the Government to account? At present, we have to watch Northern Ireland Ministers endlessly steamroller through all sorts of legislation that we have no opportunity to amend. We are therefore forced to make every decision on an all-or-nothing basis.
Mr. Spellar: I, too, extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I hope that my kind comments about his predecessor, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), and his positive contribution on the Front Bench did not contribute to his transfer into the silence of the Whips Office.
It is slightly paradoxical that the Government were last week criticised for the length of time that we were spending on consulting about our legislative proposals. [Interruption.] I understand some of the frustration described by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). That is why I made it clear that we must strike the right balance between the need to consult parties, organisations and individuals in Northern Ireland before bringing legislative proposals to the House, and the need for us to deal with and remedy the problems that those parties, organisations and individuals identify. [Interruption.] I understand, as does the House, that we must get that balance right. I do not think that the Government can be accused of steamrollering. [Interruption.]
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim) (UUP) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The noise is building up in the Chamber, which is unfair. We must be able to hear the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs).
Mr. Beggs: In spite of what the Minister has just said, he must agree that unamendable Orders in Council are the least acceptable way to legislate for the 1.7 million people in Northern Ireland. Will he assure us that Northern Ireland will benefit at the earliest possible date
from legislation allowing us to use antisocial behaviour orders so that we can share the benefits that people in Great Britain already derive from that legislation?
Mr. Spellar: Like the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), I want many of those measures to be debated in the Assembly on motions initiated by the Executive, and there will be further talks next week to create conditions in which that will become possible. I have already consulted on antisocial behaviour orders, and, as I indicated in the House last week when we were debating the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, I have compressed the consultation period on the wording of the legislation so that we can get it through the House and the other place and on to the statute book by the summer. We cannot be accused of dragging our feet, and I hope that we have the full support of the parties in the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |