---

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): I do not know whether I caught the Secretary of State's language. If I mistook what I thought he said, he will tell me. I thought he said that security rested with the police and the police ombudsman. Will he clarify that?

Mr. Hain: What I said, and it is helpful to clarify it for the right hon. Gentleman, is that security matters will remain with the Security Service, but operational matters that might or might not flow from intelligence, or advice from the Security Service, or a recommendation from the Security Service, will be for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable has supported these arrangements and the integration of the two—that is, the operational matters carried out by the PSNI and the intelligence and security matters carried out by the Security Service. Those can work very effectively together, and that is indeed planned.

Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): We understand what the Secretary of State is saying in relation to the integration of national security and dealing with the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the Security Service is already stretched by coping with the threat to national security from international terrorism. How will it manage to take on the additional role in Northern Ireland with its existing resources?

Mr. Hain: These are matters that have been worked through with the Security Service. It is a fair question, but I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not disputing the principle, which springs from the fact that we are dealing with an international terrorist phenomenon which knows no boundaries. That is demonstrated by the arrest of that individual in Belfast of all places, which was connected not with domestic terrorism, but with the international phenomenon. That is the key point.

Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): Can the Secretary of State clarify who will adjudicate on what is a matter of national security and what is strictly an operational matter for the Chief Constable? I know that the Chief Constable welcomes some of the proposed arrangements, but he is concerned about who makes that final decision? Will it be a tussle in public or in private? Who will adjudicate?

Mr. Hain: I do not envisage any tussles in public. I think that the situation will bed down quickly, as it has done in Great Britain, where there is a similar division of responsibility between the chief constable, the relevant police force and the Security Service. The change reflects the increasing normalisation of life, security and politics in Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Does the Secretary of State accept that the relationship between the security services and the police in England will not
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1170
 
necessarily be repeated in Northern Ireland, where much of the intelligence gathered will affect criminal investigations due to the close link between terrorists and criminality? How can we ensure that the flow of information about criminal activity from the intelligence services to the police in Northern Ireland is not hindered?

Mr. Hain: I have made sure that both the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Security Service are satisfied that the overlap between pure gangsterism and paramilitarism can be tackled. If I use the phrase, "pure crime", I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean, and it will continue to be combated effectively under the new arrangements.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): The Secretary of State has confused the issue. Given the complexity of intelligence gathering in Northern Ireland, intelligence gathering should surely be a unitary matter. Intelligence involves both criminal organisations and terrorist organisations, so it would be better to have one intelligence-gathering organisation, which should be the PSNI. The PSNI should communicate its intelligence on international terrorism and retain information on indigenous terrorism for prosecution. In the past, intelligence was not transferred from MI5 to the police, and people literally got away with murder as a result.

Mr. Hain: Due to the relationship between the PSNI and the Security Service, what might have happened in the past will not happen in the future other than for reasons of ordinary human failing, which could occur in any situation. When the hon. Gentleman examines the detail and discusses the matter with the Chief Constable—given his long experience on the Policing Board, where he played a valuable role, few people can do that better than him—he will be satisfied that that is the only way in which to proceed. As I have said, the measure concerns terrorism in its broadest context. In particular, we are dealing with the modern phenomenon of international terrorism of the kind which occurred in London on 7 July. Indeed, there were fingerprints—albeit isolated fingerprints—in Belfast, where the individual whom I have described was arrested.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that we will return to many of those points in Committee. Returning to today's Second Reading debate, however, can he not see that he is doing exactly what many hon. Members have always warned the Government not to do, which is to categorise terrorism in two leagues—international terrorism, which is a threat to state security, and domestic terrorism, which seems to have a more benign status? Will he assure hon. Members that paramilitary terrorism in Northern Ireland will be treated in exactly the same context as international terrorism?

Mr. Hain: I do not disagree with that proposition. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is difficult to say whether one form of terrorism is better or worse than another, because all terrorism is equally bad. All I am saying is that the modern form of terrorism that was identified in the arrest of the individual in Belfast is of an international character, and that it is as vital that the
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1171
 
Security Service is able to tackle that if it surfaces in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): A few moments ago, the Secretary of State used the phrase, "pure crime", which is slightly strange, but we all know what he meant. It is clear from the evidence that the Select Committee has received in its continuing inquiry into organised crime that there is very little that can be described as "pure crime" in Northern Ireland. I think that he has to take that on board.

Mr. Hain: The Select Committee very appropriately made that point. We have recently seen events in the    Republic of Ireland which indicate that. All paramilitary groups have criminal tentacles. It is difficult to see that some of the loyalist paramilitary groups have any political objective any more—it seems to be pure gangsterism—although it is not quite the same in the case of the dissident republicans. In answer to the question of whether dealing with day-to-day crime unrelated to paramilitary activity of the kind identified by the Select Committee would be hampered, I do not think that it would be at all. On the contrary, an enhanced capability could help in every respect.

Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): The Secretary of State said that no one had challenged the principle, but perhaps I may challenge the practicality. The strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch, and then the PSNI, was that it had intelligence-gathering networks and executive powers, and therefore worked in a joined-up way. In giving some of those powers to the security services, how does the Secretary of State hope to clarify the situation whereby very sensitive intelligence may be handed over to a police force when the Justice Minister in a Northern Ireland Assembly is from Sinn Fein? It is at those hand-over points that intelligence can sometimes break down. I urge him to consider whether, by losing executive powers in some of the intelligence network in Northern Ireland, he may be hampering counter-terrorism efforts.

Mr. Hain: I do not think that that will be the case; otherwise, neither the Chief Constable nor the Security Service would be satisfied, and neither would I. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Patten report recommended that national security should not be devolved, and we are acting consistently with that. The Patten recommendations have been hugely successful in winning cross-community support for policing, so that in many respects the PSNI is now seen as a model for the rest of the world. The issue here is a switch in primacy, which should reside with the Security Service for the reasons that I have described.

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): The Secretary of State said that the Patten report did not recommend that national security should be devolved. However, it clearly said that in areas of national security the PSNI would report to the Secretary of State, as opposed to reporting through the devolved mechanisms. It envisaged that issues of national security and intelligence policing at that level would be part of the
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1172
 
responsibility of the PSNI. The Government are going against the grain of the Patten report in insisting that there should be ulterior policing and intelligence arrangements outside the PSNI—MI5.

---