---

Points of Order

4.23 pm

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During questions on the statement, two Members—the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—mentioned that they had interests to declare. I have just been to look at the Register of Members' Interests, and it is extremely unclear what interest the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex has in Iraq, because he claims to be a director of a restaurant company and of an investment company. If hon. Members say that they have an interest in a subject of such importance as the presence of British troops in Iraq, we need to know what it is and how much money they are making from it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The requirement is that hon. Members make as clear as possible to the House the relevance of their interest to the matter on which they are seeking to address the House. The hon. Gentleman has made that point and I am sure that it will be noted. I suspect that one of the difficulties is that a great many hon. Members have interests that they feel obliged to declare and we could spend a lot of the day on prefaces to questions making such interests known. However, it is helpful to be as specific as possible, so that the House is properly informed.

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House to make a further statement in response to the results of the inquest into the death of Private James Collinson at Deepcut barracks? One of Her Majesty's coroners has called for a public inquiry into the unexplained deaths of four young recruits, saying that we must

"restore . . . confidence in the recruitment and training of young soldiers whether at Deepcut or elsewhere."

Surely, therefore, we are entitled to hear the Secretary of State's views.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received such a request from the Secretary of State, although I did receive a request from the hon. Gentleman to accept an urgent question. Under the rules on such questions and given today's business, however, I felt unable to grant his request.

The Secretary of State for Defence (John Reid): May I respond to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? At our request, the coroner clarified the fact that he was not calling for a public inquiry, nor was that what he said. We all sympathise with the feelings of the family in this case and the other cases, but we have already set in motion an independent inquiry led by Nicholas Blake QC, which should report in the not-too-distant future. It behoves us all to await the outcome of that inquiry before we start to run across Nicholas Blake's decisions by announcing or seeking another inquiry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for amplifying my response.
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1166
 

Orders of the Day

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.26 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is in the nature of adversarial politics that the emphasis is on difference and the focus on disagreement and division. Few places have been more adversarial than Northern Ireland since the latter third of the last century, but finding consensus does not mean losing integrity, and moving forward towards accommodation does not mean turning away from principle. It is my firm conviction that    we can find that consensus and reach that accommodation—not an impossibly naive hope, given the years of experience since the peace process began in Northern Ireland. There is agreement on the principle of consent. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when governed locally. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when governed on the basis of fair and equitable power-sharing. There is agreement that Northern Ireland is served best when the police service has the whole community behind it because the whole community is in it. There is agreement that Northern Ireland must be free from the fear of paramilitary activity and criminality and that the rule of law must apply. There is agreement that common-sense north-south co-operation is of great mutual benefit. There is agreement that the current political impasse cannot continue.

It is crucial for Northern Ireland that 2006 be the year of progress in which Northern Ireland politicians, locally accountable and operating on an inclusive basis, once more take responsibility for the things that matter in people's daily lives. It is clear, too, that there cannot be elections to an Assembly that does not exist. Members of the Legislative Assembly cannot continue to be paid salaries and allowances while the Assembly stands idle and there is no prospect of its restoration. No one can seriously contest either assertion and, to be fair, no one has done so. As the House will know, both Prime Ministers are focused on the way forward. With the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Irish Government, I have been talking with the parties in a series of meetings. We are all determined that devolution should be restored to the people of Northern Ireland, and I know that that determination is shared by the House.

Before I move on to the detail of the Bill, I wish to inform the House that I have today announced the reconstitution of the Northern Ireland Policing Board with effect from 1 April 2006. The cross-community board is one of the great successes flowing from the Patten recommendations. I pay tribute to all the current members, particularly the hon. Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for their considerable contribution to the Policing Board over the past four and half years. The Bill covers a number of policy objectives which, for the
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1167
 
most part, have a single unifying theme—preparing Northern Ireland for the many and various challenges that lie ahead, particularly the fact that there should be no legislative obstacles in the way of devolution. The Bill will chiefly allow maximum flexibility in the arrangements for the future devolution of policing and justice functions to the Assembly, as was envisaged at the time that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 was passed.

Ultimately, responsibility for policing and justice in Northern Ireland should lie with Northern Ireland Ministers, accountable to a local Assembly elected by the people of Northern Ireland. That was envisaged in the Belfast agreement and the structure of the devolution settlement set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Our Government have repeated on many occasions their clear commitment to devolve those functions when the time is right. An effective, independent and impartial criminal justice system is fundamental to a properly functioning society. Before the Government can devolve their responsibilities, we must be satisfied that the system will function effectively and that arrangements are in place to ensure, for example, the continued independence of the judiciary and prosecution system and the effective administration of justice.

The independence and impartiality of the prosecution system and the judiciary are fundamental principles of the UK justice system. The existing legislation places a duty on Northern Ireland Ministers to uphold that. In addition, I intend to put forward concordats between our Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, to be agreed before the devolution of policing and justice, setting out the core principles of the independence and impartiality of the Northern Ireland judiciary and the public prosecution service.

The Bill does not devolve policing and justice. Instead, it supports the framework that we need to put in place to devolve policing and justice by order when—not before—the circumstances are right to do so. That was the intention of the 1998 Act. Section 4 of that Act gives me the power to transfer any reserved matter to make it the responsibility of the Assembly, subject to certain important safeguards. Those safeguards remain, and nothing in the Bill undermines them. Most importantly, the Assembly must agree that the time is right for policing and justice to be devolved and must vote for it on a cross-community basis. That is set out clearly in section 4 of the 1998 Act and nothing in the Bill alters that position. The Assembly must also agree what arrangements it wants to put in place to receive the new functions—whether to have one ministerial Department or two, for example. The Government must be convinced that the proposed arrangements are robust, workable and broadly supported by the parties.

Finally, when the time comes, the order that effects the transfer of functions will need to be agreed in Parliament. There is more work to be done before we reach that point. On 16 February, alongside the Bill, I published a discussion paper that set out what the Government believe is a sensible and pragmatic framework for policing and justice in Northern Ireland. As I said then, the document is not a blueprint, but a basis for discussion. We look forward to beginning those discussions, especially with all the Northern Ireland political parties.
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1168
 

In preparing for the devolution of policing and justice, it will be particularly important to ensure that the Assembly and Executive have all the tools that they need to manage the functions transferred to them. One of those tools is an arrangement whereby the Assembly will raise money specifically for policing. The policing precept in England, Scotland and Wales allows money for policing to be raised from council tax. In my constituency of Neath, for example, the precept is £126.42. We believe that it will be useful for the Assembly to have a similar power to raise additional money for policing in Northern Ireland from the regional rate. As that power can be created by an amendment to the Northern Ireland rates legislation, it does not require provision in the Bill. We will legislate for the detail of the precept in planned amendments to the Northern Ireland rates legislation. The power in clause 22 of the Bill will ensure that those changes to rates legislation cannot be amended by a future Assembly, although the level at which the precept is levied, or whether it should be zero-rated, will be matters for the Assembly. I emphasise that that will be additional money to provide enhanced levels of policing to meet Northern Ireland policing priorities and the Assembly will not have to use the power unless it wishes to do so. Equally, if it does not, there may be implications for other spending.

I know that some hon. Members have expressed concern that we will undermine national security by devolving responsibility for policing and justice. Others have suggested that the switch in primacy for national security matters from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Security Service represents a sinister plot to undermine policing in Northern Ireland. Both sets of fears are completely without foundation.

Constitutionally, central Government have responsibility for national security, whether relating to international or domestic terrorism. We cannot and will not abdicate that responsibility. Integrating the Security Service's lead and the police's operational response in the way proposed will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, where the Security Service has had lead responsibility since 1992.

Let us be clear about what this change will mean in practice. The Security Service has no executive policing responsibilities, even in countering threats to national security. Such responsibilities rest now and will remain with the police, under the oversight of the Policing Board and the police ombudsman. In future, although the Security Service will gather intelligence and provide the strategic direction, it will be the police's role to mount related policing operations.

The main reason is that we cannot address national security on a regional basis anywhere in the United Kingdom. Events have demonstrated that it is vital to provide a consistent and co-ordinated response right across the United Kingdom. International terrorists do not confine their activities to the mainland of the United Kingdom. The recent arrest in Belfast and subsequent conviction of Abbas Boutrab for terrorist-related offences of the kind associated mostly with al-Qaeda shows that. We should all be aware that modern terrorism is an international phenomenon from which Northern Ireland needs to be protected. The changes that will take place during 2007 constitute a part of the
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1169
 
fight against international terrorism, and they are another vital step in preparing Northern Ireland for the challenges ahead.

---