---

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and I have to say that some of his comments about the Bill do not really match the current situation. Passing the Bill will not necessarily have all the consequences for the future of Northern Ireland that he described, and, as many Members have already said, it is a hotch-potch.

It is surreal to be here today debating the enabling framework for the devolution of policing and justice, at a time when devolution of all the other, much less contentious powers is still proving extremely problematic. Not many people in Northern Ireland think that the devolution of policing and justice to politicians in the Northern Ireland Assembly is going to happen any time soon, and nor will anyone in this House who examines the situation realistically and sensibly. People take the view that any devolution that involves Sinn Fein-IRA in the administration of crucial matters such as policing and justice is out of the question.

Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Is it not fair to say that 20 years ago, the hon. Gentleman would have described Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in exactly the same terms? However, has not South Africa proved a very good example of learning, working together and forgetting the past?

Mr. Dodds: Others too have tried comparing Northern Ireland to South Africa, but it is not very
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1209
 
helpful because such comparisons are not at all accurate. We are talking about people associated with a terrorist organisation that is illegal under the law—people whom the Dublin Government indicated they would not have in their Cabinet in any capacity, let    alone in policing and justice capacities. The International Monitoring Commission report pointed out that such organisations are still actively involved in intelligence gathering and criminality. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that the people of Northern Ireland would accept for one minute that such organisations should have some involvement in the administration of policing and justice.

The hon. Member for Blaydon said that he regretted the fact that his constituents rejected devolution. One reason that he ventured for such rejection was that insufficient powers were offered, and that, had they been offered the same powers locally that we in Northern Ireland are being offered, they might have grabbed the opportunity. Well, if his constituents had been offered the prospect of gangsters connected with the Mafia and other criminals running the local police force, they might have been even more opposed to devolution than they were when they rejected it.

Mr. David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I made it clear that terrorists and criminals should not have a role in the political process.

Mr. Dodds: I accept that entirely, and it was clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech that, although he is a strong advocate of devolution, he recognises that there can be no place in a devolved democratic government for those linked to criminality and gangsterism. I hope that that view is widespread within his party, although some contributions make me doubt whether it is.

I want to discuss devolution of policing and justice, the electoral registration process and political donations. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done on the devolution of policing and justice. That has to be the understatement of the year. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, there are considerable hurdles still to be overcome, and we have to face reality. It amazes many of us who represent Northern Ireland constituencies that although we are told time and again that slots cannot be found in the parliamentary timetable for consideration of all manner of important legislation, time can be found to debate the devolution of policing and justice. Indeed, we are told that two days will be made available to debate this Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House.

Lady Hermon : I know that the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) described the Bill as something of a smokescreen, but will the hon. Gentleman kindly agree with the only Ulster Unionist in the House on one little point—that the beauty of the Bill is that it simply devolves the decision about the devolution of policing and justice to the Assembly? That means that Unionist Members of the Assembly will have a complete veto over any future devolution of policing and justice that might otherwise have been foisted on the Assembly by this Government.
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1210
 

Mr. Dodds: Of course, the triple lock that the Secretary of State referred to means that it is not just the Government who must agree to the devolution of policing and justice; the Assembly must agree to it by a cross-community vote, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must initially agree to it before proposing it to the Assembly. I should be grateful if the Minister indicated when he winds up that the latter element of the triple lock is still in his thinking. I am very happy to say to the hon. Lady that I agree that it is absolutely essential that there be a veto in respect of the Assembly's cross-community provisions, but my point is that that hardly requires a Bill at this stage. Neither now nor in the foreseeable future is there any prospect of the Assembly voting for such an eventuality, so we are spending a lot of time debating something that is unlikely to happen, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said earlier.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was actually the Democratic Unionist party that, during discussions leading up to December 2004, included such a provision in proposals for the comprehensive agreement, despite the fact that the Ulster Unionists—according to their secret document, which they have never published—wanted the devolution of policing and justice to be time-limited, and to have all-Ireland policing of various kinds as well?

Mr. Dodds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this issue, which was fully debated during the election campaign for this House not so long ago, doubtless contributed to the success of our party. We made sure that the devolution of policing and justice could happen only with the agreement of Unionists in Northern Ireland via a cross-community vote in the Assembly.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the attitude that Sinn Fein and any party that aspires not just to run policing and justice, but to be in government, must adopt. They must support the forces of law and order and the administration of justice, and demonstrate such support not just by taking seats on the Policing Board or in the district policing partnerships. We must remember that members of Sinn Fein took their places in the Northern Ireland Executive and still went about their criminality—drug dealing, racketeering, intimidation, murder and all the rest—so that they could be in government and undermine everything that good government stands for. Simply taking one's seat on the Policing Board or in a DPP is not sufficient in itself. Sinn Fein have to make it clear that they support policing on the ground in practical ways, and that they are giving a lead in their local communities. Anything short of that disqualifies that party and any other party that takes the same view from being in government and from ruling over people in any democracy.

The recent IMC report—the eighth report—was clear, despite the efforts of some to spin it for their own purposes, about the extent of ongoing criminality and of ongoing intelligence gathering about subversive activity by the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA was not alone, because there were references to loyalist organisations and dissidents. We do not wish to gloss over that or set it to one side. We accept that such activity also has to end, but—as has already been made
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1211
 
clear—we are talking about the Provisional IRA because Sinn Fein has the political numbers and the votes to enable it to aspire to government. That is why we are concentrating today and in other debates on the role of the Provisional IRA.

From the IMC report, our own sources, the Chief Constable's remarks and other information, there is no doubt that the Provisional republican movement has a long way to travel before anyone can be certain that it has moved to a permanent and irreversible position and foresworn violence and illegal activity for good. As I said in an earlier intervention, as long as it maintains an illegal terrorist organisation, that will be a strong indication to many people that it cannot yet be described as being exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. Why would one need an illegal terrorist organisation, even if it is silent, if one were truly and permanently committed to peaceful and democratic methods? That point has been well made, over and over again, by Michael McDowell, the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic, and by other political parties there.

Our party backs the changes in the Bill to the electoral registration process. The decision to move the registration deadline nearer to polling day—11 working days before—is to be welcomed. It is a positive move and brings us into line with the position in the rest of the United Kingdom. It will also encourage greater voter participation and involvement in elections. Many people in many of the communities that I represent in north Belfast turn their attention to the issue of whether they are on the electoral register only when an election is announced. By then, it is too late, and I hope that the change will help to ensure that people who want to vote and are entitled to vote can do so.

I accept that we need safeguards, one of which is that people who register so late will not be able to apply for a postal or absentee vote. There will be other restrictions, but I make a plea that they should not be too burdensome. If they are, they would negate the change. One of the problems that we had with rolling registration and getting people on to the register after the annual canvass was completed was that some people were called to interview in the electoral office. Some of those interviews were set for the middle of the day when people were at work or had other commitments. They were unable to attend and therefore did not bother to proceed with their application to be registered outside the normal annual canvass. I hope that the Minister will accept that any safeguards should be commensurate with the objective of getting as many people on to the register as possible.

The abolition of the annual canvass will save considerable expenditure and it will also mean less chance of people falling off the register by accident, simply through neglecting to renew their application. Provided the electoral office is given the resources to ensure, through the proper use of databases and so on, that those who should be on the register are on it and those who should not are removed, we should end up with a much more accurate register.

On the issue of political donations, we have no objection in principle to the Bill, which will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. We accept entirely the concerns that have been voiced by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and that is one reason why the current
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1212
 
provisions will be extended until at least 2010. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that if, come 2010, the parties in Northern Ireland are agreed that intimidation is still an issue, he will look carefully at whether to extend those provisions. That is a matter for the future.

The hon. Gentleman was right about the concerns on this issue, but one thing strikes me as odd. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), he said that it would be paramilitaries linked to political parties in Northern Ireland who would be guilty of intimidation of donors to his party. At the same time as the hon. Gentleman makes that point strongly here today, the leader of his party—and others in his party—call for parties linked to those paramilitaries to take their place in government. Indeed, we are told that we should rush ahead and call the Assembly together in six weeks. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's party would want us to vote into government those same parties with the paramilitary friends who would try to intimidate donors to his party. Sometimes, people need to take a reality check. I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman said was right. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, he is an honourable man, but how can we admit those parties into government? Surely we need to be certain that all the criminal and illegal activity is finished for good.

---