| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): We have had a wide-ranging debate. Indeed, the views expressed have ranged from that of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who believed that the Bill was long overdue, to that of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who believed that it was a dog's dinner.
Mark Durkan: A dog's breakfast.
Mr. Wilson: Breakfast, was it? Well, I think it is supper now. I think that we are all becoming dog-tired. We have reached a point at which even the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is so beaten into submission that she agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on almost anything, which I think makes history.
I want to discuss two issues. The first is the devolution of policing. There have been long discussions about that—about the reasons behind it, and about whether it is realistic. We know the attitude of representatives of Sinn Fein. The Member for Newry and Armagh (Conor Murphy) and the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), neither of whom presents himself in the House, have defended criminality along the border, and have howled because the police and the Garda had the temerity to raid farmhouses and seize lorries that had been used to launder fuel. Regardless of whether terrorism is taking place, we must ask whether people with such attitudes to police activity against organised crime are fit to be Ministers responsible for justice or policing, or indeed members of the Policing Board or of local district policing partnerships.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) was right: the SDLP and others can—what was the term that he used?—drink green beer. I do not think that he was exhorting them to drink green beer—I hope he was not, for the devil's buttermilk with an Irish tinge is fairly far down the road—but we can see how far we have to go.
The Minister spelt out a couple of the implications of devolution of policing. The first related to security and intelligence. If policing were devolved, it would be inappropriate for national intelligence to be discussed, and for a Minister at devolved level—especially one who might well have the contacts that Sinn Fein has—to have any access to national intelligence that had been gathered. I think that we should divorce the function of national intelligence-gathering from policing in Northern Ireland.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1237
Safeguards are needed, though, because of the contacts and links between terrorism and criminality. That issue has been raised time and again. Some of the intelligence gathered on terrorism may well relate to criminal activities. There must be protocols. The police in Northern Ireland must be sure that information will be passed to them indicating that such and such a terrorist, or terrorist group, is involved in criminal activity, so that they can act on that information.
There is also the issue of the ability to gather intelligence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) pointed out, it is not just a case of having the resources; it is a case of having the expertise. A large influx of people into Northern Ireland to gather intelligence might well stick out like a sore thumb. It is therefore important for the police to have an input, and I understand that that will happen.
We heard about the implications of the police finance and the policing precept. I have huge worries about that. It is estimated that within the next two years the Northern Ireland police budget will be in deficit by £70 million, because of the freezing of the amount available. We have also heard of the threat from the Northern Ireland Office that the current number of police officers will be guaranteed only until 2010, after which, if we go down the Patten road, we shall see the end of funding for about 3,200 officers. If the policing precept is seen as a way of filling the gap, that would constitute unjustifiable taxation on the people of Northern Ireland, on top of the various other additional taxes being envisaged, such as water rates, the increase in the regional rate and the handing down of services to local councils that lack finance.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) said that co-operation on energy was one form of co-operation to which no one could attribute political connotations—that it was just a question of practical common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East has made it clear that where co-operation benefits people in Northern Ireland—as did the recent security co-operation that led to raids in south Armagh—we support it. If the clause on energy and an all-Ireland energy market is going to ensure security of supply, cheaper supply, a better network and a better market, we have no difficulty with that at all. People in Northern Ireland pay more for electricity than they ought to. It is estimated that since privatisation, each household has paid about £1,200 more for its electricity than it would have paid on tariffs applying to the rest of the United Kingdom. So an all-Ireland energy market could well achieve economies of scale, but we need certain safeguards and assurances from the Minister.
The supply chain in the Irish Republic—the Energy Supply Board—does not have a good record in delivering power. In Northern Ireland, 76 minutes of supply are lost per household per year; in the Irish Republic, 162 minutes are lost. That is because of a problem with the network, and like much in the Celtic tiger, outside the greater Dublin area one finds serious inefficiencies and defects. We have to be sure that funding for the all-Ireland energy market will not be used to address the ESB's inefficiencies, especially in border areas, and that that is not the implication of the all-Ireland electricity market.
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1238
If an all-Ireland market is seen simply as a first step to giving us access to a British isles market—the Irish Republic has indicated that it wants links with the English and Welsh grids—we welcome it. Indeed, many who see this as a way of developing north-south links might be a bit disappointed if it led to a British isles link, but of course, such a link makes sense in terms of security of supply and economies of scale. If it is such a first step—as it could, and should, be—we welcome it.
There is much else in the Bill that, as my colleagues have said, we are not happy with and that we will seek to change. That said, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate, even at this late hour.
9.29 pm
Dr. William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): The Bill will extend the investigatory powers provided for in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 to Northern Ireland. Actions that aid the work of the Assets Recovery Agency in the Province will certainly be welcomed across the community. People were heartened to hear of the raid last week—in which the ARA and its counterpart in the Irish Republic, the Criminal Assets Bureau, were involved—on a farm, which straddles the border, belonging to a recent IRA chief of staff, Thomas "Slab" Murphy. According to reports in the press, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said, hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash and cheques were discovered in a hay shed, as well as laptops and hundreds of files and documents. Law-abiding citizens in the United Kingdom, especially in Northern Ireland, could not understand why those so openly flaunting their lawlessness, from both sides of the divided community, appeared for so long to be the untouchables. They seemed to be treated with kid gloves. Moves against Murphy and the criminal godfathers can only rebuild confidence in the political process and the primacy of law and order.
I was requested to allow the Front Benchers to wind up at 9.30 pm, so I shall not make any further comments. We will listen with interest to the responses to the debate, especially from the Minister, and we look forward to further discussion of the Bill in Committee.
9.31 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): It has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate, which was ably—as usual—opened by the Secretary of State. Then we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who greatly impressed both sides of the House with his assertion that there should be no devolution of policing powers to people who are criminals by night—
Mr. Donaldson: Not just by night.
Mr. Robertson: Indeed, they may not even wait until night. I am sure that the House will endorse my hon. Friend's comments on that point.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) talked about what is not in the Bill, and he raised one or two important issues. If I may, I suggest that you and your colleagues, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been correct to allow the debate to stray slightly wider to talk about
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1239
the future role of MI5, because it is relevant. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about possible exclusion from the Assembly, and the Secretary of State assured him that he did not seek to bring that about.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), with whom I have shared proceedings on so many statutory instruments, asked why the Bill will create so many more statutory instruments. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said how good it was to be debating primary legislation, and that is true, but the downside is that it will lead to many more orders. The Government say that they are intent on getting the Assembly up and running soon, but it is rather contradictory to introduce so many important matters through statutory instrument.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also talked about recording people for electoral purposes and he made a sensible suggestion. There could be an opportunity to send out forms to households, even though it is individuals who are registered, to check that the details were correct. I understand why the system is being changed, and that in Northern Ireland people have to record much more information. However, I discussed the issue in Northern Ireland last week and it appears that people could still slip through the net. The hon. Gentleman made a sensible proposal and perhaps we will discuss it in Committee.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |