| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I found myself in considerable agreement with much of what he said. That is an unusual event, so I want to put it on record, but there will be differences that will distinguish us later on.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the Bill for being of a miscellaneous nature, but I disagree with him on that point. Even if we have a miscellaneous Bill, it is umpteen times better that we have primary legislation for Northern Ireland instead of a wretched Order in Council. It is absolutely shameful that, during the protracted period of the suspension of the Assembly, the Government have repeatedly used Orders in Council to legislate for 1.7 million decent people who are part of the United Kingdom. It is an unusual novelty—a red letter
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1230
day—that we are here this evening, discussing primary legislation. It is a welcome change, although unfortunately I do not think it represents a change of policy or a change of mind by the Northern Ireland Office team. Primary legislation is necessary, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, because the Bill amends so much else of a primary nature.
I concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about decommissioning. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State skimmed over the extension in clause 23 of a period of amnesty from 2007 to 2010. I say that with great bitterness and I know I sound bitter. I am bitter and jaundiced, particularly towards loyalist paramilitaries. I say that because it was those with paramilitary connections who murdered a young constituent of mine, Lisa Dorrian, over a year ago. On 20 February 2005, she disappeared from a caravan site and she has been disappeared ever since. It is a horrible term to use, but it is accurate. Her family do not have a body to bury, they do not have a grave and they have not had a funeral.
Those with loyalist paramilitary connections engender my wrath on account of that case and on account of many of the ghastly murders that they have carried out—for example, Jim Gray last summer, and four other grisly murders throughout the summer as a result of internal feuding. It is not internal housekeeping. It is someone's husband, son or brother. It is contemptible. I say that as criticism of the extension of the amnesty period to 2010. I hope that the Minister will have a quiet word with the Secretary of State some time after the debate and remind the Secretary of State of what he said not that long ago.
On Wednesday 21 September 2005, the Secretary of State—I do not blame the Minister—said:
"The choice for loyalist paramilitaries is clear: play the political role that you claim as your motive, or face the rigour of the law as the mafia organisations into which you seem to have degenerated. You will not be allowed to terrorise your own community."
Those words were welcome across Northern Ireland. People believed that the Secretary of State meant them. If, as the Government repeatedly tell us, and as the hon. Member for Belfast, East and others have mentioned, referring to the report of de Chastelain's Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the republican movement has completed such a significant act of decommissioning—I happen to believe it has and I respect the integrity of the Rev. Harold Good, and of Andrew Sens and his colleagues on the commission—if that is accurate, we are looking at the decommissioning of loyalist weaponry.
Why in heaven's name have the Government offered an extension? In light of the Secretary of State's words about loyalists facing the rigour of the law, why are we contemplating an extension of the amnesty period to 2010? As my father would say—metaphorically speaking, of course—"You should keep their feet to the fire." The pressure should remain on loyalist paramilitaries.
Another interesting aspect of this miscellaneous Bill that the Secretary of State did not even mention is the reference to the change in the status of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to bring that office into line with chief constables throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. For whatever reason, there has been an anomaly for years.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1231
For example, if a breach of health and safety legislation occurs, all chief constables, except the Chief Constable of what was the Royal Ulster Constabulary and is now the PSNI, are treated as a corporation sole. That treatment is not available to the Chief Constable, who is personally liable if a breach of health and safety legislation occurs and who must appear in court, which takes up a lot of valuable time and effort. That situation has forced the most senior police officer in the PSNI to sit for hours in court. Will the Minister explain why it has taken so long to bring the Chief Constable into line with other chief constables throughout the United Kingdom by treating them as a corporation sole?
Mr. Hanson: When the hon. Lady made that point in a Committee considering another piece of legislation, I made a commitment to introduce this provision. As I said at the time, the situation was the result of an oversight, and I am pleased that she is pleased that we have introduced the provision.
Lady Hermon: The Minister has not explained why the anomaly existed for such a long time.
May I place on the record my gratitude, and that of the family of Lisa Dorrian, to the recently retired assistant chief constable, Sam Kinkaid, who headed a painstaking and extensive investigation into the disappearance and murder of Lisa Dorrian, and did a great deal in difficult circumstances?
The Bill also covers donations to political parties, which other hon. Members have mentioned. I have a particular interest in that matter, because I sit on the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. Far be it from me to disagree with the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady), for Belfast, East and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but when the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently visited Dublin—it was our first foray overseas, which was interesting—I was particularly struck by the evidence from members of the Garda and of the public, who repeatedly referred to the undermining of the confidence in Sinn Fein of the public in the Republic of Ireland following the Northern bank robbery. The theft of £26.5 million from the Northern bank in Belfast had a significant impact on the public in the Republic of Ireland, in that people suddenly realised that the democratic political process in the Republic of Ireland can be undermined when political parties obtain funding from a variety of sources.
I do not like the private funding of political parties and believe in state funding of political parties. Various hon. Members referred to the intimidation of donors, and intimidation is a criminal offence. In Northern Ireland, there is intimidation and extortion, and windows get broken when someone is told to make a contribution by paramilitaries. When the Chief Constable of the PSNI gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in public session, he pleaded for people to come together and report efforts by paramilitaries to use intimidation to try achieve their ends.
I am worried about the extension of the period of quietness as regards political parties reporting to the Electoral Commission on political donations. Not only that, but it will be a criminal offence, punishable by up
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1232
to six months in prison, for a serving or past member, or member of staff, of the Electoral Commission, to disclose any information about a political donation that is reported to them, right up until 2010. This Government have told everyone that they want to be open, transparent and accountable. Indeed, they introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If a serving or past member of the commission gets a request for information under that Act, will it be a criminal offence for them to disclose it? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) says that it will. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that when he winds up, if it is to be kept secret for such a long time.
One of the wonders of the Bill is that its long title includes provision to amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Given that we are discussing the devolution of policing and justice, perhaps one such amendment could try to get rid of the hideous and immoral procedure of 50:50 recruitment to the police service. It was part of the agreement that I voted for in 1998 that there be equality of opportunity irrespective of political opinion or religious belief, yet the Government legislated to legalise religious discrimination in recruitment to the police, thereby standing the agreement on its head. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from parties across Northern Ireland will enjoy tabling amendments for discussion in Committee and on Report. The Bill deals with miscellaneous provisions, so let us use it to amend those parts of the legislation that has been passed in recent years that we loathe and detest.
This is a red letter day not only because we are discussing primary legislation instead of a wretched Order in Council but, for me, because I am one of those who loathe and detest direct rule. That is not a reflection on those who hold the ministerial posts at the present time. The five direct rule Ministers might be nice individuals in their own right but, since every single one of them is a member of the Labour party, which does not organise or field candidates in Northern Ireland, they are completely unaccountable to the people of Northern Ireland. The sooner direct rule is ended and devolution restored, the happier I will be. All that the Bill does is to devolve to the Assembly the decisions that it will make. When, not if, we have an Assembly again, although it certainly will not be tomorrow, it will not be next month, and it may not be next year, I should like to think that the 108 Assembly Members—of whom I am not one, as I am a rare breed indeed: one woman with one job—will be mature enough to seize the opportunity. That requires the Unionist Members of the Legislative Assembly to decide whether devolution of policing and justice is appropriate and timely and whether, for example, members of Sinn Fein, who wish to have seats on the Executive, have ended their criminality and severed all ties with paramilitary activity. Until they do, Unionist MLAs will not agree to devolve policing and justice.
It is therefore a red letter day for extending what can be devolved to the Assembly. I welcome that, but those in Sinn Fein and the republican movement who want policing and justice to be devolved cannot have their cake and eat it. They must join the real world with the rest of us and put all paramilitary activity and criminality behind them. Then we can face the future together. I want that to happen for the next generation, instead of constantly looking over my shoulder.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1233
9.5 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |