---

Northern Ireland

My Lords, I begin by saying that I am grateful for the kind words that have been extended to the new ministerial team, and in particular for the universal praise to Paul Murphy for his work. On behalf of the team, I am extremely grateful for the recognition of the efforts that he put in. I promise to use my new-found diplomatic skills that I have learnt in this House in the past four years, which have toned down considerably from my previous incarnation in the other place. But I take on board what was said—and as an aside to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for whom I have enormous respect, I can say that I do not have an ego, but that respect is priceless. Before I come to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who initiated the debate, I turn to a specific issue which I was unaware of previously. It relates to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made about the accident. On behalf of the whole House, I extend sincere and deep sympathy to the families of James Wilson and Kenny Blair, who tragically died in an industrial accident on Tuesday involving slurry storage bags. A Health and Safety Executive inquiry is going on, as is an inquiry from the manufacturers of those bags. It is right that I should start with that matter and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for raising the issue. This has been a stimulating and excellent debate, typical of the quality of debates in this place, to which people bring experience of day-to-day activities and professionalism. This is what is expected in Northern Ireland debates. During the past four years, I have sat in on a couple of debates; I remember sitting in on one   debate to which the former Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, responded. I am delighted to respond to this debate, initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I do not believe that I am speaking out of school in saying that once, as a result of a ride in the back of a taxi, I learnt that the name ““Monmouth”” is not quite as one noble Lord said in terms of a Welsh connection. But I shall not go beyond that—and I shall try to cover as many of the points that she raised as I can. The political situation in Northern Ireland is difficult—there is no question about that. But our position and the issues to be resolved are clear; I do not believe that there is any doubt about that. I was very taken by the short phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord   Alderdice—““clarity on crime””. It is only a matter of a few words, but they are absolutely clear and cannot be misunderstood. I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out the position, from the Government’s point of view. The British and Irish Governments remain committed to the ultimate goal of a fully inclusive power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. That is what the people want. They do not want direct rule—I fully accept that—and I come with that in advance to the people of Northern Ireland, on my visits there so far. I realise that we are operating second best. Devolution will enable Northern Ireland again to take local decisions at local level; that is where they should be taken. To get to that position, we have to see the paramilitary groups make the final transition away from criminality. The political path is the only way forward—and if anyone has any doubts about that, they must shed them. It is the only way in which we can go forward. All paramilitary activity and criminality must stop, and everybody must know that it has stopped, and of course we need Unionist participation in an inclusive government. We know the scale and scope of the criminal activities, which continue to blight the process. I pay tribute to the Independent Monitoring Commission, of   which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is a distinguished commissioner, for the reports that it produces and its contribution to bringing peace and stability in Northern Ireland. The last report was very important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, highlighted paragraph 2.11, whose few sentences in some ways say it all. The Government and law enforcement are not standing by waiting for criminality to disappear. Firm action is being taken, and excellent results are being achieved against organised crime through the efforts of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Organised Crime Task Force and the Assets Recovery Agency. I shall give a few examples. Efforts continue to clamp down on fuel laundering. On 16 May, in a joint operation, two fuel laundering plants in South Armagh were dismantled. It is estimated that the potential output of both plants was 3 million litres with a potential annual revenue loss of £1.5m. Successes against the drugs trade continue. On 7   March a couple from Manchester were jailed for 18   months in Newry Crown Court for attempting to smuggle £220,000-worth of cannabis into Northern Ireland. Also in March, Ecstasy with a street value of three-quarters of a million pounds was seized by the Police Service of Northern Ireland on 23 March in Craigavon in a search operation. One man was arrested. On 11 April the Police Service of Northern Ireland seized one kilogram of cocaine in Londonderry. The focus on armed robbery also continues. A criminal gang was convicted of armed robbery charges at Antrim Crown Court on 6 May relating to an attempted robbery in January 2003. The gang leader was jailed for nine years and the remaining five gang members for six years each. The results against volume crime are also to be congratulated. Crime is at its lowest for six years. There has been an overall drop in recorded crime of almost 8 per cent in the past year when comparing the financial years 2004–05 and 2003–04. The Police Service of Northern Ireland crime figures for 2003–04 show that domestic burglary had decreased by 12 per cent and that vehicle crime had decreased by 17 per cent. That should, of course, be welcomed but we are not complacent. The peace prize is, indeed, significant in many different ways. Troop levels are currently at their lowest when compared with the height of the troubles, and significantly less than at the time of the first IRA ceasefire. The figure was 30,000 in 1972, 17,000 in 1994 and is currently 10,500. Security-related deaths, while always unacceptable, are in single figures. There were 470 such deaths in 1972, 55 in 1998 and four in 2004. That is four too many, but the contrast is startling. The economic position has been transformed. There has been steady growth for more than a decade. The Northern Ireland economy expanded by 6 per cent over the year to 2003; considerably above the UK average rate of 5 per cent. Economic commentators forecast that Northern Ireland economic growth rates equalled the UK in 2004 and will exceed the UK growth rate in 2005. The Northern Ireland labour market has performed well. At 687,110, the number of employee jobs in December 2004 was the highest figure on record, while unemployment remains at historic lows and is currently equal to the UK rate of 4.7 per cent. I accept that those figures hide variations but those are the overall figures for Northern Ireland. Therefore, Northern Ireland has a strong economy and crime is down. The situation is better than it was in the past, but it could be better still, and it has to be much better to enable the people of Northern Ireland to live the same kind of life as the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. It is possible to rebuild situations and to rebuild the trust and confidence necessary to support a deal—that is crucial. Gerry Adams’ 6 April statement calling on the IRA to embrace the political route has been mentioned by several noble Lords. The IRA response is awaited. It knows what response is required. There is no equivocation about that. We seemed close to a political deal in December last year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said recently that if paramilitary activity and criminality cease, he hopes it should be possible to pick up the December position and move on. We are not going back; we have to move forward. That remains our focus and that is where we are putting our efforts. Through meetings with the parties, we continue to explore ways of achieving fully inclusive power-sharing. There is no apparent consensus for other models. Other models are seductive but there is no apparent consensus for them. We will continue to make every effort to move the process forward. Both Governments will do their utmost to achieve the ultimate goal of power-sharing. However, we must see this matched by an end to paramilitary activity. The present situation is unsatisfactory. Like other Members of this House, I am a democrat. The process on which I am now engaged as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office is almost distasteful when legislation is brought forward and cannot be amended. People feel as if they cannot make their point because it is not possible for amendments to be debated. Seductive suggestions are made regarding the work of the members of the Assembly. On the one hand, we must ensure that the people of Northern Ireland do not suffer during this interregnum through having no progress made on legislation. On the other hand, we must not have a situation whereby no decisions are taken locally and Ministers in London take all the tough decisions so that everyone unites against us. That is not a situation that is appropriate for the long term. It is too seductive to fall into that trap. I am not worried about taking tough decisions; I and my colleagues will do that. However, that is a second-best situation; we have made that clear. We do not want to go down that seductive route. I make no commitment regarding changing legislation through Orders in Council, but the position is unsatisfactory. We hope that it is a temporary, short-term situation. I do not want to be despondent about the matter. I have no dates to put forward but this is not a long-term situation. It is not a process that can be sustained in the long term. I am talking about a period of some two-and-a-half years and one has to define when the short term becomes the medium term. I have no doubt that this issue will be debated further. There is no way in which I can cover all the points that have been made in the nine minutes which I have left to speak. I shall send a compendium letter to noble Lords to cover the substantive points that have been made. However, I shall refer to each of the speeches that have been made if I can. I have already covered some of the issues in my opening remarks. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords referred to finance and political donations. Last year the Government made a commitment to move to greater transparency in political donation arrangements in Northern Ireland. These new arrangements will take into account Ireland’s special role in the political life of Northern Ireland as set out in the Belfast agreement to allow donations from Irish citizens while allowing for greater transparency. Therefore, there are moves in that respect. That is important. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the Government will, of course, continue to engage with all the parties in Northern Ireland. There must be a proper scrutiny of public expenditure. The noble Lord referred, as, indeed, did other noble Lords, to stronger local government with fewer but more powerful councils to be the bedrock of the new system. I have discovered that to be the reform of public administration, which I have been trying to get my head round. During the past couple of years an enormous amount of work has been done on that through the consultation. The final consultation is currently proceeding. It started in March and will finish in September. Ministerial decisions will be taken at the turn of the year: I cannot be certain whether that will occur in December or January. Everyone knows the options. The figure of 26 is impossible to operate. The figure will be either five, 11 or 15. I have made the point that it is hardly worth moving from 26 to 15. Councils will have more powers. I refer to the 100 plus quangos. That is important. Let us not democratise the quangos. We should ensure that their functions are carried out by elected local authorities, but not too many of them. There must be good governance with as much coterminosity as possible. The options are set out in the paper. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Laird, that I have answered many questions—I dare say that I shall answer many more—on the waterways and other issues. The noble Lord raised issues that are matters not for the United Kingdom Government because they relate to banking legislation and regulation in the Republic of Ireland. In so far as I am able to answer his questions, I shall certainly do so. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to the key question of security. We do not think that the security normalisation has gone too far. It is based on the current assessment of the threat. If the assessment changes, the security situation will change. It is a threat-based process. We are satisfied that the Secretary of State will be advised by the Chief Constable and the general commanding officer. As I say, it is a threat-based process and we are confident that we are on top of it. We are not losing out   on intelligence simply because of a move to normalisation. I have in many ways already responded to the very   important speech made by the noble Lord, Lord   Alderdice. The point that he made about clarity and criminality is crucial. I agreed very much with the thrust of his speech. I and other Ministers will do everything we can to learn from the commission in a positive way. Valuable lessons can be learnt from that. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord   Maginnis, of course I will meet with him to discuss the issues relating to the children’s commissioner and the unsatisfactory parliamentary Answers that I have been   giving him recently. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People was established only in 2004, so it is a fairly new organisation. It is making good progress, but I am happy to meet to discuss that at the convenience of the noble Lord, either in London or in Northern Ireland. I referred already to a more personal point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. This is not a cop-out, but   the point that he made about the Saville inquiry is a MoD, not a Northern Ireland Office issue. Nevertheless, I will ensure that the noble Lord receives an update on the Saville inquiry regarding the wholly legitimate points that he has raised. I am not knocking the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Steinberg, because they are seductive and they are practical and they come from his own experience. There are not enough people coming forward with practical answers and solutions. Plenty of people explain the problem; sometimes the answers are so seductive that one must be careful of the unintended consequences. I repeat that our goal remains the restoration of an inclusive, power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland. All other routes would be, not a cop-out, but second best—there is no question about that. We do not want second-best governance arrangements for Northern Ireland. Ministers want to be accountable, but as a Westminster Minister my first accountability to the Government is to this House. The first point of accountability of the other four Ministers is the House of Commons. That is the consequence; that is what direct rule is about. It is not about accountability to institutions in Northern Ireland. Local people should be accountable to institutions in Northern Ireland, making local decisions, having been elected to do so. That is what it is about; that is the way in which the system should work. We are a second-best, interim arrangement. The Secretary of State has set out the clear objectives regarding the end of paramilitary activity and criminality. We are always happy to look at the range of ideas that have been suggested to us. In some ways, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a helpful speech. I fully accept that changes may come as a point of principle from the Opposition Benches, if there is not a move to do something that is quite unusual, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said. I am not inviting them to do that; far from it. I would have to go to the bosses and say, ““Sorry, I have failed””. But they have given due warning. I cannot be drawn too much on the issues relating to the individuals about whom they have both spoken, because it would be wrong to do so from the Dispatch Box. As regards the democratic deficit, I fully understand the steps that they may take. I have made the position clear regarding the speech that was made on 5 or 6 April. We await a response; everyone understands the response that is required. There cannot be any equivocation on that. It is a means of taking things forward. The rebuilding and cementing of trust is crucial; without it there will be no progress. That is clear. There have been enormous changes with the peace process and the political process. I listened to young people in Belfast last Friday afternoon explaining the work that they had done across the communities through the European peace funding processes. To hear young people talking about working with and meeting members of the other community for the first time in their lives at the ages they gave was quite humbling, but it is also progress. Massive progress is going on there, both in a return to as near normality as possible and with the economy running successfully. We need to do a lot more to get private sector investment into Northern Ireland to keep the jobs flowing. There is no question that there is far too much dependence on the public sector. I will go through all the points of substance with my advisers. I have not touched on every one and I apologise, but my time is up. I conclude by thanking all noble Lords very much for their welcome to the new team. We hope to take the process forward in a positive way.