---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

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 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 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. 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?