| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) strongly outlined the problem that we have with clauses 19 to 22, which deal with the devolution of justice and policing. Interventions on the Secretary of State were numerous and perceptive in that respect. These four clauses are mainly technical in nature and, one could argue, cosmetic in purpose. They may prove almost irrelevant to what is actually achieved.
It is right to stress that the devolution of justice powers has already been partly achieved. Many of the functions that were formerly exercised by the Northern Ireland Office are now being handled by the Policing Board, at times in opposition to the attitude of the Northern Ireland Office, be it in dealing with the huge challenges of the Omagh report, ensuring proper handling of intelligence by the police, or creating, for the first time ever, a human resource strategy for the police. Patten's recommendations have been at least 75 to 80 per cent. implemented.
The powers that are being sought already exist. Section 4(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 gives the Secretary of State the power to devolve justice. All that the Bill does is make some technical provisions to facilitate that. Only one of those has any real political significance—it allows the Secretary of State to make provision that d'Hondt is not to apply to filling the
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1198
justice portfolio in the event that the parties decide to adopt some other method of choosing heads of Departments, such as electing joint Ministers. However, when negotiations on the devolution of justice get under way, the parties might well decide to apply d'Hondt. The provision might therefore be completely unnecessary.
As many Members have said, it would perhaps have made more sense to consider whether legislation was needed after the parties had agreed the shape of devolution, when the full legislative implications could have been properly and fully assessed. It seems to me and my party that the only reason why it is being done beforehand is to help Sinn Fein to change its position on policing on the ground that it has won some wonderful new legislation on the devolution of policing, despite the fact that devolved policing powers are already in the existing legislation. I do not think that that will succeed, because Sinn Fein has no intention of joining the Policing Board. The Secretary of State's announcement of a new membership clearly indicates that even the Northern Ireland Office recognises that the probability of Sinn Fein joining in on policing lies at some point in the distant future, if ever.
Sinn Fein says that it needs to take control of the "securocrats"—its term—in the police through the devolution of justice. Yet again, it has missed the point, because at the same time as the Government are legislating on the devolution of justice in the Bill, they are taking away responsibility for intelligence gathering on national security from the PSNI and giving it to MI5. That has been a focal point of contention throughout several Members' contributions. The whispered justification for this is that when one has devolved justice one cannot have a devolved Justice Minister who may be of a particular political party. However, that is not the argument. The issue of who gets intelligence information—the devolved Justice Minister or the Secretary of State—is a separate issue from that of who gathers it—the PSNI or MI5. Clearly, as Patten envisaged, the PSNI will not report to the devolved Justice Minister on national security, but rather to the Secretary of State. However, also as Patten envisaged, the Chief Constable should do the reporting, not MI5.
There are several reasons for that. First, the PSNI has undergone the Patten reforms; MI5 has not. Much of the community in Northern Ireland, be it nationalist or Unionist, has no confidence in MI5 and does not identify with it. That is why it would be destabilising for it to have such an enlarged role. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, in Northern Ireland organised crime and subversive activity go hand in hand. Reference was made to the Northern bank robbery. That is why one organisation should be in the lead in monitoring the situation—the PSNI. Giving that over to MI5 carries with it the huge risk that it, like the old RUC special branch, will hog the intelligence and not share it, where it does not suit it, with the police who are responsible for prosecutions. People have got away with murder in the past as a result of that.
Thirdly, Northern Ireland has a much more accountable informer-handling regime under the PSNI following the Patten report, the Stevens report into collusion with the security forces and other activities, and the Omagh report. Taking intelligence gathering from the PSNI diminishes those changes. Moreover,
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1199
how can we have confidence that MI5 will operate by the same standards? How can we have confidence, for instance, that Torrens Knight, a convicted sectarian mass murderer, will not again be recruited by MI5? Fourthly, the Patten report explicitly stated that
"the police service must remain equipped to detect and deal with terrorist activity, and for this they will need good intelligence capability."
The regime proposed by the NIO means that Patten is being broken.
All that is being proposed at a time when it has been recently revealed that MI5 failed to pass on warnings about the Omagh bombing. Who knows whether that tragedy could have been averted had that warning been passed on? Now, I see that the head of MI5, in whom we are meant to have great confidence, has refused to meet the Omagh families, who suffered such a tragedy at that time. Is that accountability? Is that transparency? Is that Patten?
Just when we have overcome the old RUC concept of the force within a force that was the special branch, the Government seem determined to create a force outside a force. Just when nationalist confidence in the police is growing, the Government are creating a new force that will detract from and perhaps destroy that new confidence. The Government need to reconsider their proposal on MI5's role in Northern Ireland intelligence gathering. If they continue along this path, our community and the prosecution of crime will be greatly diminished.
I should like briefly to deal with some of the comments that were made in the context of the legislation on fundraising for political parties. Disapplying part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in Northern Ireland was a logical approach to a specific local problem and circumstances. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that political fundraising in Northern Ireland presents distinct challenges, different from those in England, Wales or even the Republic of Ireland.
We have not advanced far enough down the road of confidence. Members of my political party could not and would not make donations to the party if their names were published. They would be fearful for their lives and those of their families and for their businesses. There is no doubt about that—and I am talking about the present day, not past history. Circumstances are changing and Northern Ireland has moved on substantially nearly eight years after the Good Friday agreement, but the residue of a problem remains: sectarianism continues to fester and intimidation persists. In the past, individuals have been intimidated, attacked and ostracised because they are donors to and supporters of a specific political party, not only mine. I could give specific examples, but not on the Floor of the House and not to the embarrassment of the people concerned.
For those legitimate reasons, many people seek certainty that their personal details will be kept private if they donate to a political party. Given the experiences of the past, that is not too much to ask. The contributions are made to a political party and to democracy.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1200
Lady Hermon: I know that the hon. Gentleman will not disclose the names of constituents who have been intimidated—I would not ask him to do that. However, will he identify the source of the intimidation?
Mr. McGrady: The intimidation comes from the paramilitaries attached to political parties other than those represented in the House. The hon. Lady's constituency is more benign than those that most of us have the joy of representing. However, I am sure that she could find examples of such intimidation, because it is not unknown in North Down, where sectarianism has raised its head on many occasions. I make my comments in that context.
We want to acknowledge the Government's efforts to tackle the problems. I recognise that Northern Ireland cannot be given exceptional treatment for ever, but I fear that the proposal to register donors' details with the Electoral Commission when donations of more than £5,000 are made will, even with privacy provisions, deter many people from making donations. There is a further lead-in period to full compliance with the 2000 Act and we welcome that. However, we should like to believe that it was not set in stone and that, beyond October 2007 and 2010, the position would be re-examined in a practical way.
We should consider how things have developed and changed in Northern Ireland to make it safe for people who want to support democracy through democratic political parties. We should ensure that they are given the protection that they need so that they, their families and their businesses will not be danger. We have not reached that point yet. I should like to believe that before my time is over we will reach it, but it has not yet happened. We acknowledge what the Government have done and what they have taken on board. We hope that the position will be re-examined in future.
6.44 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |