---

Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): I understand why the Government have introduced the Bill and I understand their justification that we must
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1217
 
maintain the momentum of the peace process so that there is lasting peace, but we must be careful that the momentum does not become a rush. Far too often recently, the Government have used maintaining that momentum as an excuse to overlook some of the failures of parties such as Sinn Fein in the peace process. The Government could implement some of the measures in the Bill quickly, but that may not ensure that justice is done and that the process is thorough. I urge the Minister to take that on board. Momentum is one thing, rush is another.

One of the main issues that has been raised throughout the debate is the devolving of policing and justice, which is important. The background is that following the Patten report, certain elements in Northern Ireland were keen to get their hands on parts of the policing service. We should not kid ourselves: the jewel in the crown for Sinn Fein has always been to try to get hold of elements of special branch and the informer network, which decimated the party and helped to force it to the negotiating table. Sinn Fein constantly pushes for that, but it is extremely important that we protect the men and women who gave information that led to the   conviction of many men and women who had committed mass murder.

The Government's solution, and their stated aim, is to remove those elements from the policing service and include them in the security services. One of their justifications for the proposal to remove those people from under the umbrella of the PSNI is that it would reflect uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is not technically correct. Obviously, SO12 in the Metropolitan police is involved in informer and agent handling. The security services have primacy, but they do not necessarily carry out operational actions.

The uniformity argument is also undermined by the fact that on the mainland the two organisations report to two Ministers in the same Government. We could end up with the security services reporting to a UK Minister and the Police Service of Northern Ireland reporting to a Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with conflict between the two lines of responsibility. I am sure that whoever the Justice Minister was, they would like to be informed of security service operations, especially when they entered the realm of police executive action. Therein lies a problem: when would members of the security service want to tell the justice Minister about an operation that involved somebody of their own political persuasion—for example, Sinn Fein?

I urge the Minister to work out the details. One option is, as in the Patten report, to keep the security services in the PSNI, but have them reporting to the Secretary of State. Another option is to consider special provision to allow the security services to have some form of executive power in Northern Ireland. Those are just off-the-cuff suggestions, but these are important details. The strength of the RUC and PSNI special branch was the fact that cases went from intelligence to evidence to conviction in the same organisation. That is one reason those cases were successful.

Mr. Hanson: For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House, I refer him to the discussion paper that we published on devolving policing and
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1218
 
criminal justice in Northern Ireland. It sets out a range of issues about some of the questions that he is raising. We want debate; we want discussion; we want continued engagement on how to proceed in the event of the triple lock of the Assembly, the Government and this House supporting such devolution.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but some of the answers given by the Secretary of State, such as the uniformity argument, could be defeated in debate. We are often in danger of creating two-tier terrorism: there is international terrorism and there is little, local Irish terrorism, with the IRA as a bunch of boyos who throw a few petrol bombs and are very different from al-Qaeda or the Islamic community. The IRA raised funds and entered into arrangements with Mr. Gaddafi. He is now Mr. Blair's friend, but certainly when I was in Northern Ireland he was helping to supply the IRA with weapons. The IRA has international reach—it trained with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and even managed a bird-watching tour to Colombia only a couple of years ago—and it is more sophisticated than some other terrorists.

The idea that we can treat one group of terrorists differently from another is wrong. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman was very clear on that. Many of us, including the party of government, have always accepted that a crime is a crime is a crime. It is not a little local difficulty with a terrorist or a prisoner of war; it is a crime. My worry is that in having this fudge, in an attempt to sustain momentum, we set a precedent by creating two tiers of terrorists.

It is very clear that members of the SDLP, for example, are democrats. They have always fought in the hardest environments to uphold the democratic principle. There has been no fudging. Sinn Fein has, on the one hand, entered into democracy and, on the other, spied at Stormont. It will not take ownership of, participate in or even recognise the Northern Ireland Policing Board. That is the crux of the matter: Sinn Fein has, like any other democrat in Northern Ireland, to recognise its duty to policing. We saw Sinn Fein-IRA's idea of justice following the murder in the Short Strand, when in a statement with regard to the murderers it said, "We'll kill them if you want." That is not my type of justice. We should ask them whether they are going to take ownership of this process, which means playing a proper role in the Policing Board.

Not so long ago I attended a dinner with a number of serving police officers and licensed released terrorists—I think that that is probably the right term—including one loyalist and one republican terrorist. The opinions that they expressed are not rare, but I was shocked. I asked one whether he thought that he had done anything wrong in murdering someone and his answer was "No." I asked the other what he felt, and he said, "Well, I have learnt so far in the peace process that violence should not be the first option, only the last." That was a man who was released on licence. We have to understand that that attitude, that violence is always there and always an option, still prevails.

When Sinn Fein takes ownership of policing and says, "No more," and perhaps disbands the IRA, that option will be ruled out, certainly for a long period. I would hope that it would be ruled out for ever, but if one studies Irish history one knows that ceasefires have
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1219
 
come and gone, and we had the border campaign before that. That may be why some of us are sometimes cynical about this process, although we wish it well.

The Bill also deals with donations. Again we have a two-tier element, in that one party in the process is treated slightly differently from another. It is interesting that, under Irish law—a 1997 Act amended in 2001—an Irish citizen, even one living in the United States, can donate money to Sinn Fein. In the five years from 1997 to 2002, Friends of Sinn Fein USA donated $1 million to Sinn Fein's coffers. That can happen under Irish law because one has only to be an Irish citizen, an Irish corporate body or an extension of a political party based in Ireland. Friends of Sinn Fein, therefore, is allowed to donate, and under new regulations in Ireland it will not have to declare its donation unless it is part of a political campaign. If it is funding Sinn Fein activities other than those in elections, it does not have to be declared.

If we want a fair democratic process, in both the south and the north of Ireland, we cannot have different rules for different groups of people. I am sure that there are well-intentioned Irish citizens in the south who donate to the Unionist cause; I do not know how many. There was certainly an attempt to march in Dublin recently. The situation seems to favour one group or party, and that unfairness leads to a feeling of injustice that we are all trying to rule out.

It is rather ironic, perhaps, that currently the biggest single donor to Sinn Fein-IRA is Her Majesty's Government, with the fudge on Short money that we saw not so long ago and allowances being given by this House to a party that does not sit in this House. That is perverse. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) referred to the ANC under apartheid in South Africa. I am afraid that the South Africans would think us barking mad for giving so much funding to one particular party at this moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and I sat on a Statutory Instrument Committee only six weeks ago discussing the extension of the amnesty for decommissioning. We debated the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). Rather discourteously, at no stage did he say that, never mind us all having to agree to an amnesty for one more year, this Bill, which I am sure had already been drafted or was in the process of being drafted, would sneak under the wire the extension of the amnesty to 2010.

The Secretary of State referred to the ninth report of the International Monitoring Commission. It says that all in the garden is rosy, but it comes with a health warning that that could change at any moment. If it is all going so well, why do we need a three-year extension? [Interruption.] The Minister of State says from a sedentary position that it is for loyalists. I am sorry, but the loyalists should have the same chance as everyone else. They should be told, "There's your amnesty. There's your chance." Most people have tried to decommission. How many years do they want? Loyalist or nationalist, they should get their chance, and that is it. The fact that we are returning yet again with another concession and another allowance for people who are
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1220
 
murders and terrorists just says one thing to me: in the guts of it, what we are seeing is yet again another exception.

Anyone who has spent time in Northern Ireland knows—people need not be born and bred Ulstermen to know—that such injustices reflect in history and build up a head of steam. All that I am trying to achieve in the debate and in my opposition sometimes to the process that we currently face is to show that, if we are not truthful with the people of Northern Ireland and if we are not clear that everyone gets the same rights, we will end up going back all the way to square one. That would be a tragedy.

I find it rather ironic that the policing of firearms and explosives may be handed to a future Minister of Justice, especially as some of the people involved are probably experts, as some hon. Members have said, and certainly may have been sponsored by the makers of Semtex in their time. I hope that we think again—twice. The Minister has said that there is a triple lock. The Assembly must agree, Ministers must agree, and indeed, I believe that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must agree. All those things are possible, and we must be careful not to oil the lock so much that it slips open with the most gentle pushing.

Too many locks make things more complicated. Why do we not just have a simple lock? Unless people renounce terrorism and violence and disband their terrorist organisations, they should not get to play the game. That is not difficult; three locks or a combination lock are not needed. Why do we not make things more simple and fair to everyone? In Committee and throughout the Bill's proceedings in the House, I shall do my best to ensure that everyone is treated the same in the Bill.

I hope that the Minister will assure us in summing up the debate about those individuals who may transfer from their current policing roles as a result of the changes and say what will happen to their terms and conditions and their status or protection. I hope that we are all treated the same, whether we are members of the United Kingdom or Irish or, indeed, members of Ulster or Northern Ireland. The Bill must uphold that in every aspect of its miscellaneous provisions, of which I agree that there are many.

I agree with the SDLP Members, especially the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) in his opening remarks, about anonymity for donations. The reality is that people are intimidated and threatened and their political activities are curtailed. I should like to think that that was not so, but I want the SDLP, not Sinn Fein-IRA, to represent the nationalist cause. That is why I go along with the protections for donors or anyone else in the current regime. We should not forget that the parties must still present their election expenses and their donations—they are just kept confidential—and it is important that any extension may happen in three years time. I will go along with the SDLP's cries for protection because we must live in the real world.

Finally, it is important the Bill should affect everyone in the same way, and it should not contain peculiar exemptions that will lead to an increase, not a decrease, in injustice.
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1221
 

8.13 pm

---