---

Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP): I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I was interested in her closing remarks because she and I were on different sides of the debate when the matter was discussed in no less a body than the Ulster Unionist Council. When I, sometimes in desperation, tried to persuade the party not to go down the road of sharing power with an organisation and party that engaged in criminality, murder, holding on to illegal weapons and so on, I was sadly in a minority at the time.

I therefore welcome the conversion of the Ulster Unionist Council to a new policy position whereby it agrees with the view that the Government of Northern Ireland cannot include, in any circumstances, a political party that is linked to a terrorist organisation, that continues to engage in crime and violence and that has not completed the decommissioning of its weapons. I am glad that there is now Unionist unity on that. I sincerely welcome it because it is essential for democratic parties to stand together on the matter.

I also welcome the hon. Lady's intention to table an amendment in Committee on 50:50 recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I feel strongly about that and many of the hon. Lady's constituents, like mine, will have lost out through that discriminatory recruitment policy. Indeed, one of the hon. Lady's constituents took a case to the High Court in Belfast to challenge the discriminatory policy.

Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman remembers our debates here predicting not only resentment but injustice directly resulting from a measure that was intended to do away with injustice and unfairness. Does he agree that the lessons of the recent past suggest that our scepticism about the policy was justified?

Mr. Donaldson: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Many people recognise with hindsight that many of the policies were wrong. That is to be welcomed. However, I remind the hon. Member for North Down that the former Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, now Lord Maginnis, first suggested introducing the 50:50 recruitment policy. I was present at the meeting with the Secretary of State when he made the suggestion, much to the surprise of some of his colleagues on the delegation. I note that Lord Maginnis now opposes the policy and that one of his colleagues, Lord Laird, has presented a Bill in the other place to end such discrimination in Northern Ireland. I wish him well with that measure. We will support any amendment to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to end that discrimination against Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman needs to recall that 50:50 recruitment was proposed in the context of retaining a significant number of serving police officers. Many people might have taken a different view of the number of serving officers who were to be retained in the    PSNI if it were not for the guarantee of 50:50 recruitment of new officers. Does he not also
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1234
 
recognise that far more young Protestants are joining the service every year than before the PSNI and 50:50 recruitment were established?

Mr. Donaldson: When I heard the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) say earlier that the SDLP stood for stability, democracy and peace, I turned to one of my hon. Friends and asked what the "L" in SDLP stood for. I suspect that it now stands for "lunacy", because it would have been pure lunacy at the time to pursue a policy that reduced the RUC—now the PSNI—to just a small number of serving officers. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will know that the police commanders in his own constituency are crying out for more resources to cope with the level of crime in Londonderry, where there are more attacks on young people every week than in most other places in Northern Ireland, and where there are still no-go areas—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is ranging a little too widely. Could we now get back to debating the specific provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Donaldson: Perhaps I was ranging a little wide of the miscellaneous provisions, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while we all want a police service that represents a cross-section of the population, we disagree with the idea that one sort of discrimination—positive discrimination—can get rid of another?

Mr. Donaldson: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It matters not to my constituents whether a police officer is a Protestant, a Roman Catholic or of any other religious persuasion. What matters to them is that, when they need the police, the police are there for them. That is the key to this issue. Without wishing to stray beyond the boundaries of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say to the hon. Member for Foyle that reducing the number of police officers is no substitute for recruiting more police officers, regardless of their religion. I welcome the young Roman Catholics who have joined the PSNI, and I hope that they enjoy serving the whole community.

On the question of the date for the Assembly election, I have no difficulty with the Secretary of State taking that power. However, it says a lot about where we have got to in Northern Ireland that Sinn Fein-IRA continue to exercise a veto over political progress. That is wrong. Part of the reason behind that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said earlier, is that the SDLP in particular has given Sinn Fein that veto because it will not countenance any form of devolution that falls short of full Executive power sharing that includes Sinn Fein. That is highly regrettable and plays against the SDLP's own interests.

The reality is that there is no alternative form of devolution on offer at the moment, even though we have expressed a willingness to consider one. We made it clear in our recent proposals that we are prepared to share power with the SDLP at whatever level it chooses, right up to full Executive level. Our bottom line, however, is that we are not prepared to share power in an Executive
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1235
 
with a party that is linked to a criminal terrorist organisation, and that position will not change. The SDLP needs to understand that. Sadly, if this involves an all-or-nothing approach, the result will have to be nothing, for the SDLP and for my party. We will have no devolution if the only devolution on offer to the people of Northern Ireland includes Sinn Fein-IRA in executive positions while the IRA continues to engage in crime and terrorism. I welcome what the hon. Member for North Down said about the UUP's position on this matter. The SDLP should reflect on where we are and look again at the proposals we have made, as we are willing to look at its proposals on devolution.

Like the hon. Lady, I am a devolutionist, and I want the Assembly up and running and functioning properly as soon as possible so that it can address important issues such as education. I am glad that missing from the miscellaneous provisions Bill are the proposals contained in the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. Like the hon. Lady, I would like that important matter to be dealt with by primary legislation, but I would rather not have it dealt with by the House at all in its current form, because it will fundamentally undermine our education system in Northern Ireland.

I would like the Assembly to get to grips with the issue of education. I would like us to sit down with SDLP Members and reach a consensus on education reform, as well as dealing with other matters such as the need for investment in our infrastructure.

I welcome the Bill's provision for loans to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland. We made proposals during previous talks with the Government on the need to make more money available to the Northern Ireland Administration for infrastructure investment, which is long overdue. Indeed, there have been recent announcements by the Secretary of State and his colleagues on matters such as education and a massive investment in the infrastructure of education. I hope that he, while on the one hand improving the infrastructure of education, does not, on the other, fundamentally undermine the education system through the education reform order, which I think will do serious damage.

I want briefly to discuss the primacy of the security services in intelligence in Northern Ireland. In an intervention, I asked the Secretary of State whether he shared my concern. In principle, I see the argument in favour of integrating Northern Ireland in the overall United Kingdom intelligence system and we recognise that the threat to this country from international terrorism is as much relevant in Northern Ireland as it is elsewhere in the UK. Indeed, there is evidence that the IRA and other terrorist groups in Northern Ireland have colluded and co-operated with other international terrorist groups, and one cannot rule out the possibility of that happening in future. Nevertheless, I have concerns.

I believe that our security services are already stretched in dealing with the threat from international terrorism and I have not yet heard the Government's proposals for strengthening the security services to take on their new role in Northern Ireland.

I am also concerned about the need for protocols to be put in place to ensure that the security services pass on the intelligence that they gather to the special branch
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1236
 
of the PSNI to help it to combat the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland and also, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned earlier, pursue the issue of criminal activity.

While my party will not divide the House on this issue, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, let me say that that does not mean that there are not issues that concern us in relation to the Bill. We will take the    opportunity in Committee to table suitable amendments. We will also watch out for what the Government do. I hope that, if they are to legislate for further changes to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, they do so by way of proper, separate legislation, rather than through an amendment to this Bill, which would be constitutionally inappropriate.

9.19 pm

---