Clause
43
Free
legal aid in magistrates’
courts
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
(Bridget Prentice):
I hope not to detain the Committee too
long. However, it might be helpful to its members, or at least to my
hon. Friend the Minister, if I briefly speak about the legal aid
provisions.
The purpose of clause 43 is to
provide resident magistrates—a reference I will use for the
benefit of discussing this clause only—with maximum flexibility
in granting publicly funded legal representation. The current situation
is that a person charged with a scheduled offence before the
magistrates court must apply to the High Court for bail. The legal aid
available for that High Court application is entirely separate from the
legally aided representation assigned to the accused by the court for
the preparation of his
defence.
Under the
clause, all defendants in custody will be able to apply at the earliest
opportunity to the magistrates court for bail. Their bail application
with therefore be made under the legislation governing publicly funded
representation at magistrates court level. The will allow the resident
magistrates to target publicly funded legal aid towards the specific
legal need of those legally aided defendants. For example, if a
resident magistrate took the view that counsel would not be required
for the duration of the magistrates court proceedings, but that the
accused might benefit from advice for the purposes of, say, a bail
application, the clause would allow
that.
It may be useful
to make it clear that the clause is not to do with restricting legal
aid for any financial reason. The intention is to make matters simpler
and clearer for both the defendant and the magistrate concerning the
application of legal aid. On that basis, I commend the clause to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 43
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
44
Altering
title of resident
magistrate
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Bridget
Prentice:
I do not want to detain the Committee long on
this clause, although I am glad of the opportunity to say one thing.
For those who have not read “The Irish R.M.” by
Somerville and Ross, I commend it to them, because we shall be changing
the title “resident magistrate”, and I suspect that this
will be our last opportunity to discuss such magistrates as an entity.
I commend the clause to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 44
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
45
Private
Security
Industry
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Lembit
Öpik:
Will the Minister say whether regulation of
the private security industry will extend to the whole United Kingdom
as a result of the
legislation?
Paul
Goggins:
My understanding is that the provisions on
regulation of the private security industry that apply in England will
be extended to
Scotland later this year—in October, I think. They will
subsequently be extended to Northern Ireland through the powers taken
under the Bill, though the legislation does not specify a particular
date. We shall introduce them as soon as is practicable, but we have to
take account of the fact that the Security Industry Authority has
considerable work to do, so we must ensure that we choose the
appropriate time.
Lembit
Öpik:
I am grateful for that clarification. Does
that mean that once implementation has occurred throughout the United
Kingdom, the regulations pertaining to the private security industry
will be the same across the
country?
Paul
Goggins:
I confirm that that is the case. The key change
in Northern Ireland will be that each individual worker in the industry
will have to be the subject of proper checks in relation to criminal
records. It will also—importantly—be necessary for them
to have undergone adequate and proper training. The current system
simply involves licensing of companies, without reference to individual
operators within those
companies.
I do not
know whether clauses 45 and 46 and the connected schedule will arouse
much debate this afternoon, although I suspect that there is much
common ground in the Committee. The measure is important in dealing
with organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland. The need to
tackle extortion and the type of private security that is criminal is
important to the future of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that the
Bill contains the measures and to be speaking in firm support of them.
I hope that the Committee gives them its full
support.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 45
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
5 agreed
to.
Clauses 46
and 47 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6 agreed
to.
Clause 48
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
49
Extent
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Lady
Hermon:
I will not detain the Committee, but I need some
clarification on an issue that may be of some interest to you, Sir
Nicholas, as a proud representative of an English constituency. Why do
the provisions that enable the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
extend to England, Wales and even Scotland, which has its own judicial
system? The clause makes it clear that the powers of the commission,
which will be significantly increased under clauses 13 to 19, extend to
England, Wales and
Scotland.
Will the
Minister give some justification for the far-reaching extension of the
powers of the commission? Were any hon. Members from constituencies
outside Northern Ireland sounded out about this? Did the commission
seek the extension?
Will he give examples of situations in which the commission will need
the powers? Clause 13 gives the commission the power to institute
proceedings of its own volition, if a victim or potential victim is
involved. Does that
mean that residents of England, Scotland or Wales, who might not
necessarily be British nationals, can avail themselves of the right
given to them by the extension in clause 49 to oblige the Northern
Ireland Human Rights Commission to take judicial proceedings on their
behalf, even though they do not fall within the jurisdiction of
Northern Ireland? The commission has not justified to my satisfaction
such an enormous extension of its powers to the rest of the United
Kingdom.
Mr.
Robertson:
I support the hon. Lady’s remarks, but I
make the point that it is unsatisfactory to deal with issues under
statutory instruments that apply only to Northern Ireland, not least
because such measures are not
amendable.
We have
mentioned the fact that certain elements of the Bill could be dealt
with by statutory instrument. Will the Minister confirm that a
Committee to consider Northern Ireland legislation could not consider
matters extending to Scotland, for
example?
3.45
pm
Paul
Goggins:
You were not present, Sir Nicholas, for our
earlier discussions about the Human Rights Commission, but even so I
think that you would rule me out of order if I were to go into all the
arguments that we have had in previous debates. However, there is a
simple response to hon. Members’ questions. The Human Rights
Commission was established under UK-wide legislation, so the amendments
must apply on the same basis, which is why the provision has been
included in clause
49.
Mr.
Robertson:
Perhaps I should have raised this as a point of
order, as it is not really the Minister’s responsibility, but I
hope you will allow me to make the point, Sir Nicholas. The Bill is
entitled the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill, and it is
important to ensure that the Public Bill Committee accurately reflects
the possible relevance of the Bill to, in this case, Scottish
Members.
Paul
Goggins:
As the hon. Gentleman has suggested, I think that
that is more a matter of House procedures generally than something to
be considered in relation to the Bill. I was pleased to hear him say
for the first time in our deliberations that something might not be the
responsibility of the
Minister.
Lady
Hermon:
I shall be content if the Minister will deal with
the outstanding questions. Did the Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission press for the provisions? I find the Minister’s
justification extraordinary, since the Northern Ireland Act 1998
established the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in order to
implement the Belfast agreement, which was signed on Good Friday. I did
not think that the provisions extended to the entire UK,
but there we are—we learn something every day. I live in Northern
Ireland and I respect the commission’s jurisdiction. Will the
Minister confirm, for the benefit of hon. Members who represent
constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales, that anyone in the
jurisdiction of the United Kingdom can now ask the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission to take a case to court on their
behalf?
Paul
Goggins:
I hope that I can allay the hon. Lady’s
fears. First, no one has pressed for the provisions. We have to make
them for legislative reasons, not because an external body has pushed
for them. The key point, which I hope will reassure her, is that
although the legislation in question is UK-wide—we need to amend
it because of the changes that we are making in Committee—the
provisions do not apply outside Northern Ireland. For example, the
power to enter institutions applies only in Northern Ireland. The
matter is simply legislative: because the legislation is UK-wide, we
have to amend the UK-wide legislation, but the powers relate only to
Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 49
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to
stand part of the
Bill.
New
Clause
2
Complaints
and misconduct relating to the Security Service in Northern
Ireland
‘(1) In the Police
(Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c.
32)—
(a) after section
60ZA
insert—
“60ZB The
Security Service
(1) An
agreement for the establishment in relation to members of the staff of
the Security Service of procedures corresponding or similar to any of
those established by virtue of this Part may, with the approval of the
Secretary of State, be made between the Ombudsman and the Security
Service.
(2) Where no such
procedures are in force in relation to the Security Service, the
Secretary of State may by order establish such
procedures.
(3) An agreement
under this section may at any time be varied or terminated with the
approval of the Secretary of
State.
(4) Before making an
order under this section the Secretary of State shall
consult—
(a) the
Ombudsman; and
(b) the Security
Service.
(5) Nothing in any
other statutory provision shall prevent the Security Service from
carrying into effect procedures established by virtue of this
section.
(6) No such procedures
shall have effect in relation to anything done by a member of the staff
of the Security Service outside Northern Ireland or in relation to
terrorism not connected to Northern Ireland.”;
and
(b) in section 61(5)
(reports), at the end of paragraph (c) insert “;
and
(d) if the report concerns
the Security Service, to the Security
Service.”.’.—[Mark
Durkan.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mark
Durkan:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
I should explain
to hon. Members that we modelled the new clause on section 55 of the
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, which gives the office of
the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland relevant powers over Serious
Organised Crime Agency staff in Northern Ireland. At present, as per
Patten, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has primacy in matters
of national security, and the police ombudsman has the power to
investigate complaints regarding its handling of such matters. That
accountability has helped enormously to build confidence in the new
beginning for
policing. Again and
again, the police ombudsman has investigated complaints that have gone
to the heart of national security, concerning issues such as the Omagh
investigation and Stormontgate, and the Government have yet to raise
any serious complaint. No one has even attempted publicly to argue that
it has been a bad thing. The sky has not fallen because the police
ombudsman’s office has had that reach into activities and
information relating to national security; far from it, because the
office’s function has been one of the pillars of confidence in
the new beginning for
policing.
On Monday,
the truth will emerge again with the police ombudsman’s report
into the murder of Raymond McCord. It is widely expected that the
report will show, among other things, that an RUC informer murdered
again and again—Catholics, Protestants, civilians,
paramilitaries and even a minister of religion—and that it was
allowed to go on. That is the reality of what has happened in Northern
Ireland—collusion and complicity. If the matter had involved MI5
work, we might not have found out about it, and if it were to happen in
future under the Government’s proposed regime, we would not find
out about it. Under current plans, MI5 will deal with much of the work
related to domestic terrorism.
A lie is being sold, and some
foolish people have bought it, that MI5’s role in the future of
Northern Ireland—its expanded headquarters and its new
recruits—is all about international terrorism. The reality is
that a large part of MI5’s work in Northern Ireland will still
concern domestic terrorism. The Minister’s comments in Committee
on Tuesday reflected that, because he recognised that the issues dealt
with in the Bill’s earlier clauses touched on not only criminal
justice but national security. He was equally explicit then that
non-jury courts would relate only to domestic terrorism and Northern
Irish paramilitaries specifically, not international terrorism. It is
clear that MI5 will continue to play a significant role in that
area.
It is proposed
that primacy in national security will move in October from the Police
Service of Northern Ireland to MI5. If national security functions have
not been impaired or compromised in any way by the police
ombudsman’s power to pursue information in investigations
relating to national security, including information in the hands of
MI5, what is the argument for saying that there is a risk in allowing
that to continue, if primacy
shifts?
It is clear
that the shift of primacy and the bogus separation sold to Sinn Fein in
the Prime Minister’s statement is about separating the work of
MI5 from the scrutiny and challenge of the police ombudsman’s
office. No one with possible cause for concern or complaint about the
work of MI5 in the future will be able to go to the police ombudsman,
whereas they can do that now. It is clear that under Government
proposals the police ombudsman will not be able to investigate what MI5
does in Northern Ireland, which clearly shows that there will be a loss
of accountability. The
Prime Minister’s statement last week sought to tell us that
there will be no diminution in police accountability in Northern
Ireland, which will be true of PNSI accountability. It is true that the
PSNI will be no less accountable to the ombudsman, so the assertion in
the Prime Minister’s statement is technically true. However,
what if someone were to say, “Well, what about intelligence
policing in Northern Ireland? Will that be less accountable under the
new arrangements or not?”? The fact is that it will be less
accountable. To that extent, the line in the Prime Minister’s
statement is misleading and calculatedly misleading, as are some other
things in his statement, such as that the police officers who will
interact with MI5 will be “PSNI headquarters staff”. That
might sound the same as saying that they will be based at PSNI
headquarters, but it does not mean that. They might be PSNI
headquarters staff, but there is no guarantee that they will be based
in PSNI headquarters. Again, people who say that there will be no
co-location and that they have persuaded the Government of that are
either buying a lie or selling
one.
The structures
that are supposed to hold MI5 to account are, quite simply, useless.
Only people who believe that they were subject to MI5 surveillance and
attention can bring complaints against MI5 through the investigatory
powers tribunal. Do not just take my word for that, because it is
stated on the tribunal’s own website. The investigatory powers
tribunal is pretty clear about who can and cannot bring a complaint,
and it is only those who have been the subject of attention from
MI5.
We therefore face
the ludicrous situation in which Osama bin Laden can complain about
MI5, but the Omagh families in Northern Ireland, who were let down by
MI5, cannot complain, even though MI5 did not bother to pass on a bomb
warning about Omagh for seven and a half years. It is bad enough that
people who may be victims of MI5’s negligence or abuse of power
cannot bring complaints, but even if they were able to bring
complaints, do complaints to the tribunal go anywhere? The tribunal
investigated 380 complaints from its foundation in 2000 until 31
December 2004. How many of those complaints were upheld? Not one. How
many reasons were ever given? Not one. That is not accountability, and
it is certainly not accountability in terms of the Northern Ireland
standards that are now needed as per the Patten report and the Patten
vision. Hon. Members might be happy enough to have that level of
accountability for themselves, but MI5 will not play as concentrated
and sensitive a role in their constituencies as it will in
mine.
Mr.
Robertson:
The hon. Gentleman is touching on a very
important subject. I looked, and continue to look, very closely at the
Omagh situation. Does he not feel that something as important as what
one might describe as the overseeing of the security services should be
done on a national basis—a United Kingdom basis? He may well
have a point that it is necessary, because it is possible for people to
get away with anything on the basis of “Oh, it’s national
security.” I am uncomfortable with that as well,
because almost anything can be excused, but does he not think that the
matter should be tackled more on a UK
basis?
Mark
Durkan:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I
certainly have no case against it, but obviously I am trying to deal
with the Northern Ireland-specific situation. MI5 will be given a
distinctively different role in Northern Ireland from what it has had
before. It is being given big new headquarters and an enhanced and
enlarged role. Staff are being recruited, and it is deliberately
recruiting people with special branch experience. We are particularly
concerned about whether that is a means of creating some sort of
“continuity” special branch. Remember, people in the old
RUC special branch were involved in some of the worst aspects of
collusion or complicity, which involved allowing things to happen when
interventions by other officers might have prevented
them.
4
pm
We are trying
to deal with Northern Ireland-specific issues. It is understood that
MI5 will have a role in Northern Ireland in respect of not only
international terrorism, but what is called domestic terrorism. The
Minister’s arguments the other day were consistent with that. We
want to make sure that the police ombudsman has the same reach in
respect of those intelligence policing activities as it has on Northern
Ireland citizens to deal with Northern Ireland affairs, and that that
is not
diminished.
Sammy
Wilson:
Once again, the hon. Gentleman is making a case
for extended powers for one of the SDLP’s favourite
institutions—the police ombudsman. The Chief Constable has
publicly insisted that his demand that all human intelligence sources
be handled by the PSNI in Northern Ireland has been met. Does the hon.
Gentleman not accept that his scenario could not exist, as the police
ombudsman will have the powers to review PSNI officers, and human
intelligence sources will be handled by
them?
Mark
Durkan:
The hon. Gentleman needs to look at other sources;
the assurance on which he relies is not the only statement on the
issue. The picture is not as straightforward as he suggests. In respect
of sources that will be handled by the PSNI, remember that the key
issue is primacy.
Other people are being foolish
in trying to sell the false notion of separation between MI5 and the
PSNI. The hon. Gentleman suggests that all agents would be handled by
the PSNI, but the fact is that whoever handles those agents, a lot of
them will function according to the MI5 agenda and interest. That
further confuses the separation picture as well as the degree of
interaction in that handling. If primacy lies with MI5, that has to be
a worry.
Contrary to
what the hon. Gentleman also suggested, the SDLP is advocating not
extension of the police ombudsman’s powers, but retention of the
scope of those powers as they currently apply to
national
security issues. At present, the police ombudsman can seek information
and inquire into the activities of MI5 in so far as they relate to
matters of intelligence policing conducted by the PSNI. Matters that
can be looked into now will not be able to be examined after primacy
switches. If the
system has worked well until now, with no crisis having been created
and no public interest having been compromised, why the shift? Some
Committee members may ask how the police ombudsman can be able to
pursue complaints against the PSNI and its officers and against a
UK-wide body. The fact is that the police ombudsman can already
investigate actions of staff of UK-wide bodies, such as the Serious
Organised Crime Agency. Legislation coming to Parliament will give the
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland the power to do
likewise for Revenue and Customs staff and immigration staff when their
work touches on and reaches into policing
matters.
If that is
okay for those agencies and is compatible and consistent with Patten,
how can it be right to remove the police ombudsman’s powers of
scrutiny and accountability in intelligence policing? That goes to the
heart of confidence in policing in Northern Ireland and is where the
worst abuses lie. Not only people with a political axe to grind but
victims have genuine grievances and misgivings about how things were
handled and how things that could have been prevented were
not.
The new clause
is essentially about ensuring that the police ombudsman is still able
to perform the function that was envisaged before Patten. We must
remember that she was able to do so even then, before we had Patten and
before Secretary of State after Secretary of State assured the House
that the situation was benign. When there was a much greater threat and
more sensitive activity on national security and intelligence, the
police ombudsman’s office was entrusted with the powers in
question, but now for some reason it will not be. The idea that we can
trust MI5 in a new role with diminished accountability does not square
with experience in Northern Ireland or with the reality that the
Government tell us we should
embrace.
Paul
Goggins:
I credit my hon. Friend with one thing: he is
consistent and persistent in raising the issue. He has done so for a
considerable time now. We disagree and I am sure that we will continue
to do so this afternoon, but let us agree on one point: the police
ombudsman has done an extremely good job of ensuring that transparency
and accountability in Northern Ireland is second to none in the world.
There is more scrutiny, accountability and transparency in policing in
Northern Ireland than anywhere else. That has been needed to create
conditions in which, we hope, the whole community can have confidence
in and support the police and the rule of law. Any democratic society
requires that.
Despite
the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for East Antrim, I am
certain that my hon. Friend is seeking to extend the powers of the
police ombudsman to scrutiny of the Security Service. The Government do
not agree with that. My hon. Friend pointed out that other agencies
involved in law enforcement, such as the Serious Organised Crime
Agency, will come within the
purview of the police ombudsman. He is right: that is because such
bodies are law enforcement agencies.The national security
intelligence service is not a law enforcement agency and it would
therefore be inappropriate for it to come directly under the
ombudsman’s
scrutiny. I know that
my hon. Friend does not accept this argument, but I shall put it
anyway: there is already scrutiny of and accountability for the
securityservice. There are the three groups of commissioners
who oversee various elements of covert work in Northern
Ireland:—the intelligence commissioner, the interception of
communications commissioner andthe surveillance commissioner.
There is also the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee and
the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, on which my hon. Friend went into
some detail, which was established in the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000.
My
hon. Friend cited the case of Omagh, as he and his colleagues do
regularly, and I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for East
Antrim. The allegations that my hon. Friend made this afternoon on the
failure to pass on information relating to Omagh have been refuted
clearly by the Chief Constable. Our legal advice confirms that the view
of the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is that it has
appreciable discretion to consider whether to hear and determine
complaints against the intelligence and security agencies. It has more
discretion than my hon. Friend gives it credit for, including the
discretion to consider complaints from people who are not the subject
of the surveillance—in other words, third parties can make a
complaint. I keep hearing the argument that my hon. Friend has made
today and I say to him in absolute sincerity that if people believe
that there are grounds for a complaint, he should encourage them to
make one, rather than persist with the argument that it is impossible
for them to do so. Our legal advice is that it is possible for a third
party to make a complaint, and the tribunal is the proper place to do
so.
Where the police
ombudsman has reason, consistent with her legal powers, to investigate
the activities of a PSNI officer, she will continue to have the same
powers as she has now. In that connection, the Security Service and the
ombudsman’s office have been working together to agree
arrangements governing the ombudsman’s access to sensitive
information held by the Security Service. Sometimes, when conducting
her own investigations in relation to her own remit, the ombudsman will
need access to such sensitive information. It is a matter of record
that the Security Service and the ombudsman are discussing arrangements
for the sharing of such information and the drawing-up of protocols,
which will also involve the Chief Constable. However, that applies only
in relation to the investigations that the ombudsman is permitted to
carry out, which does not and will not include investigations into
staff working for the Security Service.
In addition to the scrutiny
bodies that I have outlined, and following the announcement by my right
hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Lord Carlile will also carry out annual
reviews of the operation of the
arrangements. I should remind the Committee that those arrangements are
normal and that it is abnormal for the national security intelligence
security to be accountable to the Chief Constable in the way that it is
at present. It is normal for such arrangements to be back on a UK-wide
basis, and that should be celebrated as part of the return to normality
that we all want to see in Northern Ireland. In conducting his
investigations, Lord Carlile will consult the Chief Constable, the
Policing Board and the police ombudsman, as well as talking to the
First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and taking account of
their views before reaching his own conclusions. Therefore, in addition
to all the oversight that is already in place, there is also the role
of Lord Carlile.
Lembit
Öpik:
I think that we can all agree that Lord
Carlile is one of the finest Members of the other place and that he
comes from one of the finest constituencies in the
land.
Mr.
Robertson:
Where is that?
Lembit
Öpik:
The constituency of Montgomeryshire, for
those who are not familiar with Lord Carlile’s Commons history.
Although we can all agree that he does exceptional work in his scrutiny
role, the Minister will remember, as the hon. Member for Foyle and I
said during our discussion of clause 7, that Lord Carlile’s
advice has been ignored. Although the Minister highlights the role
played by Lord Carlile and others in the scrutiny of the security
services, one of our concerns is that the Government may ignore their
advice. To some extent, that compromises the case that the Minister is
making to try to reassure us.
Paul
Goggins:
I do not agree with that remark. Lord Carlile has
established a first-class reputation for his work and makes his
recommendations. Although Ministers do not always agree with his
conclusions, it is interesting that the Prime Minister was happy with
his work and had enough confidence in him to invite him to take on his
current role. Indeed, Lord Carlile was happy to accept that role, and I
am sure that he will carry it out in his customary style. That will
help to underpin the new and normal arrangements for national security
intelligence to which we are moving.
To conclude, in addition to the
measures that I have outlined, we have indicated that, as far as
possible, we will make available to the public a high number of the
memorandums of understanding drawn up between the Security Service, the
ombudsman and, indeed, the Chief Constable. We have also indicated that
we are happy for human rights advisers to the Policing Board to give
their views on those memorandums. We are trying to be as open and
transparent as possible, but we are not acceding to the request that
the ombudsman should have full scrutiny powers over national security
intelligence service personnel. In the end, it comes down to the fact
that in Northern Ireland we have a police service that is open to
greater scrutiny than any other in the world. As I have said, that
should give us confidence.
4.15
pm
Issues of
national security cannot be subject to the same level of transparency
as matters of policing. There are reasons why that is so. I am not
saying that there should not be any accountability. I have just listed
a range of measures by which the Security Service is held to account.
As the hon. Member for North Down has reminded us, we face dire threats
from international terrorism as well as the remaining dissident threat
and other threats. It is important for the security and safety of
ordinary people of Northern Ireland that the Security Service can do
its job in an accountable way, but in a way that is not suited to the
remit of the police ombudsman.
I regret to say to my hon.
Friend the Member for Foyle that he and I will continue to disagree on
the issue. However, I know that he will carry on making his point. He
will do so as genuinely and constructively as he can, but we have to
part company on the
issue.
Mark
Durkan:
I thank the Minister, at least for his last point.
There is not much else for which I can thank him, but I genuinely thank
him for what he said. He has made that point privately both to me and
others. I hope that he accepts that, in advancing such arguments as we
have been doing for a long time, neither I nor any of my colleagues are
playing electoral politics. We are not. If the hon. Gentleman does
accept that, I hope that he will convey it to the Secretary of State
who has accused us of doing precisely that. The right hon. Gentleman
has pretended to the BBC that he does not understand our worries or
what we said about the Prime Minister’s written statement last
week, and says that we are just playing electoral politics. We are
not.
Other people
might be approaching the matter with an eye to electoral politics, and
spinning things for the Sinn Fein leadership and so on. We are not
approaching anything to do with policing, justice and the Patten vision
with an eye to electoral politics. In terms of electoral politics it
has cost us to uphold Patten, implement Patten and take our stand for
Patten. We are not playing electoral politics and we have never
approached such issues from that standpoint. I hope that the Minister,
who genuinely accepts that point, can persuade his right hon. Friend to
accept it,
too.
Paul
Goggins:
It has been fairly evident from our debates that
an election is due in Northern Ireland. Various points have been made
sharply with one eye on 7 March. I rejoice in that because it means
that we can be confident that there will be an election and restored
devolution, something that we all celebrate as and when it happens. I
have every confidence that it
will.
To underline my
comments to my hon. Friend, I repeat that he has been consistent and
persistent in raising such issues. He has not just raised them in
recent weeks. He has done so over a period of time. I want to put that
on the
record.
Mark
Durkan:
I think that the Minister is referring to a
motivation for the Prime Minister’s written statement last week
and the fact that it was signalled in advance to Sinn Fein. The first
time that many hon. Members knew that it would be issued was as a
result
of the Sinn Fein press release the day before, which purported to say
what was in it. That was obviously to do with electoral politics, but
not the old axis of Sinn Fein-IRA; it showed the new axis of Sinn
Fein-NIO. It was clearly about electoral advancement. When some of us
are pre-emptively attacked before a statement is issued courtesy of a
Sinn Fein statement, we believe that we have the right to defend
ourselves. We also think that we have the right to point out those
parts of the Prime Minister’s statement that are pure figment,
and those parts that are mere fig leaf in respect of Sinn Fein’s
pretences about the
issue.
I go back to
the substance of the debate. The Minister made a strong point about the
role of Lord Carlile. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire made a valid
comment. How can we rest on the subject of the Government’s
reliance on the strong role for Lord Carlile when they feel free to
dismiss his advice and clear recommendations? He made it clear that if
there were to be any retention or renewal of emergency or special
powers in Northern Ireland they should be renewed annually, as before,
and not made permanent. The Government tell us, “Lord
Carlile—that’s good enough,” but those of us who
do not agree with his finding that the powers are appropriate are not
convinced that he is the right person. When we see that the Government
ignore his key caveat that the powers have to be annually renewable, we
are left to ask, “If we are not content with his judgment on one
point and the Government are not on another, what’s the big
deal?”
Let us
remember that all that Lord Carlile will dois review. That is
no substitute for the police ombudsman’s complaint and
investigation role. The Minister also raised the point of the
Investigatory Powers Tribunal, suggesting that I should
“encourage” people to complain to it. Given the record of
how it deals with complaints and the fact that no reason has even been
given, I am not sure that the word “encourage” describes
how one could convince people to go to the tribunal.
Significantly, the Omagh
families have made their case to a number of people about the
difficulties that they see. They tried to take their case to the head
of MI5, for instance, they wrote and sought meetings, they wrote to
Ministers and so on. Nobody has given them the formal advice,
“Oh, there’s no point coming to us with this. It’s
really a matter for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.” It is
not some misunderstanding on my part that the Investigatory Powers
Tribunal deals only with people who have been investigated by MI5, but
that is clearly the understanding of the tribunal itself and what is
understand by anyone who consults its
website.
I am not
satisfied that the Minister has answered the points. We are not looking
to extend the reach of the police ombudsman in Northern Ireland into
what people might call matters of national security. We want to allow
the police ombudsman to continue to have a reach into those matters
that citizens of Northern Ireland would have cause for concern or
complaint about that related to matters relating to Northern Ireland.
We are talking about sealing and preserving the role of the police
ombudsman that has helped to underpin the new beginning to policing and
has not undermined national security.
Question put, That the
clause be read a Second
time:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes
15.
Division
No.
13
]
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
Question
accordingly negatived.
| 
