---

Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Inverclyde (David Cairns) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for truncating their remarks to allow me the opportunity to speak. I am not sure whether it will be of great value to them, because on the British Midland flight this morning I put my scribbled notes on the centre seat while I talked to the man beside me and the steward came along and said, "Can I take that rubbish away?" I can only say that it is a pity that he was not the steward on the flight taken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We might all have had more of an opportunity to speak in this debate. I welcome the introduction of the Bill. It represents a significant step in introducing new propositions that will significantly grow confidence in Northern Ireland in policing and justice. It allows for a methodology whereby the people of Northern Ireland can have confidence, despite the long-held concern that most within the Unionist community felt about the prospect of a Sinn Fein Minister or Sinn Fein being in control of policing and justice. I can easily recognise that Sinn Fein has taken considerable steps, given where it started from, in giving support to the police and encouraging people to give information to the police, and that must all be welcome, but it does not amount to its having gained sufficient confidence within the community to allow it to hold that office. I have no doubt that the prospect of any of my colleagues being Justice Minister will not enthral those who support Sinn Fein. That is the nub of the issue: the requirement that whoever holds that position has support across the community, especially given the kind of post that we are talking about. In the fullness of time, as normality in political terms gains hold in Northern Ireland, no doubt the DUP can look to that post, and there will be many very capable of holding it. It is regrettable that my colleagues do not have sufficient opportunity to speak on Second Reading, but I hope that there will be some flexibility during the Committee stage to allow them to make their remarks. Politics is the worse for the debate being reduced to one day. I cannot understand how the business managers of this House think that it is more important that those in another place have two days to debate the Bill while we have only one day. Those who follow Northern Ireland affairs closely will be aware of the agreement that laid the foundation for this Bill. It took many months of negotiations to reach it, and it is important to understand the background to this measure—not just what it does, but what it does not do. That affects the wider question of the devolution of policing and justice functions in Northern Ireland. The history of devolving policing and justice powers in Northern Ireland is encouraging to Unionists. Unionists fought to have those powers involved in the original settlement when Stormont was set up, and Carson and Craigavon rightly ensured that that Parliament had them. That was the Unionist thing to do. Some people out there would make out that having policing and justice powers was some fillip to Sinn Fein. The reality is that another Unionist Prime Minister refused to continue with devolution when those powers were taken away, saying that a Parliament without them was not worth having. Those powers are no big deal—or "no big move", as I have been quoted as saying—for Unionists. The control over those issues should be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Ministers. The big issue—the big deal—has always been about who would have the powers under their control. My party made its position clear. I do not want to take up too much time, but the Democratic Unionist party manifesto is always worth reading. We made three specific commitments in it. First, we said that""we support the devolution of policing and justice functions"," and what we are doing today is consistent with that. Secondly, we said that""we believe this can only happen when there is the necessary support within the community."" I shall come back to that vital issue in a moment. Thirdly, we said:""We have indicated that we do not believe there would be support for the devolution of such powers to a Sinn Fein Minister in the foreseeable future."" We stood on those points in the Assembly election, during which we brought out a policy document on policing and justice. Some of its wording has been mangled by some of our opponents, so it is proper that it should be placed on the record. It states that""we support the devolution of policing and justice…but believe it can only occur in the circumstances where there is the necessary confidence within the community. In the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 we succeeded in ensuring there was a triple lock on the exercise of such powers…In short, we have negotiated a veto for unionists on the devolution of these powers."" Importantly, we went on to say:""We have repeatedly indicated that in the context of Sinn Fein having a ministerial role in policing or justice it could be a political lifetime"—" the hon. Member for Inverclyde wondered whether that term would come up—""before such powers would be devolved. However, we have now negotiated arrangements which allow the powers to be devolved when we are satisfied but also allow us to block a Sinn Fein Justice Minister."" Therefore it was very clear that it was in the context of Sinn Fein’s having "a ministerial role" in policing or justice that a political lifetime could be involved. I am glad that, under the Bill, a cross-community vote will allow Unionist representatives to ensure that the person who holds the position is someone whom they believe fit to do so and someone with the confidence of the community. Equally, the nationalist community can have that confidence as well. The hon. Member for Foyle has made much by stretching beyond credulity the issue of the arrangements in this Bill. I do not recognise the features to which he referred. Let me tell him why the d’Hondt issue came to a head with this Bill. If that system had been used, it might have helped the hon. Gentleman on this occasion, but it could have helped anybody else on a future occasion. As I said earlier, the important aspect of the position of Justice Minister is that the person who holds it should be able to gain cross-community support and the respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland. That is why d’Hondt was dumped, and it was a good precedent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to tear down the rusty scaffolding of the Belfast agreement and get back more towards normality; the hon. Member for Inverclyde, a former Northern Ireland Minister, made that very point. We must continually reform the way in which we operate in Northern Ireland, not satisfy ourselves with what was effectively a cobbled-together version to deal with the specific difficulties that we faced. We must democratise Northern Ireland’s institutions, daily if we can. I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle will join us in attempting to make those changes to move from the unusual structures set up by the Belfast agreement, but happily much reformed by the St. Andrews agreement, which brought real accountability to the process of government in Northern Ireland. In 2007, we made our position clear in our manifesto and policy document. By contrast, the Ulster Unionists’ position has moved considerably from where they were. I want to put on record the fact that there is no doubt that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) would have been here today—she always takes a great interest in policing matters and often speaks on them—but she is attending the funeral of a former colleague. I am sure that the House will understand her absence in those circumstances. The position of the Ulster Unionists—I do not blame the hon. Member for North Down for this—is that they signed a deal that involved Sinn Fein and would have automatically devolved policing and justice in October 2005. Even while the arms were still being held, while violence was continuing, while criminality was going on, they signed up to a deal whereby at the end of the 2005 we would have had the devolution of policing and justice powers. More than that, when we prepared for the setting up of the Assembly we had what was called the Preparation for Government Committee, although it changed its name at some point, in which we dealt with the issue of policing and justice. The Ulster Unionist party’s representatives chided my party—I was deputy leader at the time—for not moving fast enough. Now we find—the Conservatives and Unionists’ new farce is killing us—that we are moving too fast. Let me be clear: our speed on this matter will be based entirely on the electoral commitments; there is no other basis on which we will move. Nobody else will add to or take away from the conditions that are laid down. I welcome the Bill. We will perhaps get the opportunity to correct some of the misunderstandings that people might still have about certain aspects of it during the Committee stage. I want to allow my good friend, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the opportunity to make a contribution, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but first I should mention the appointment of judges. We rightly took the view that judges should be appointed by a completely independent body so that they are not political appointees and therefore there is credibility to their independence. That model could be followed by others. It is a good move and, irrespective of the circumstances that brought it about, it is the right move for Northern Ireland. This is not the end of the legislative process. Legislation has to be passed in the Assembly, which is a process that we will soon have to begin. After that, there are the stages where we will have to be satisfied that there is support for these measures, although I honestly believe that that is growing. Since we managed to negotiate that Sinn Fein would not hold the justice ministry, I have not heard anywhere in my constituency the kinds of concerns that there had been previously. However—people do not want to hear this, but it still has to be said—confidence is about more than who will operate these structures; it is also about the funding of policing and justice. That is a very important matter. I have discussed it with the Secretary of State and will no doubt do so many more times. There is no sense in Northern Ireland’s Assembly having responsibility for policing and justice if it does not have the resources to do the job. It is therefore vital that the Government divvy up in this regard. When we entered into devolution in the first place, the Government gave us a financial commitment, about which there is some talk. I do not believe that the Prime Minister will go back on his word, and therefore I am sure that the rumours from the Treasury will be quashed at some later stage. But even though we had a deal for devolution, in which we were told that we could keep all the efficiencies made in Northern Ireland, there is talk in the Treasury that some of them will be pulled back. If people want us to have confidence in any deal that we do on finances for policing and justice, it will not set a very good example or give us confidence if the Treasury takes something back from the budget that was agreed to in the deal at the time of devolution. I thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish the Bill well. Like any Bill, it could be improved and my colleagues and I are happy to listen to any amendments and to take decisions based on the merit of the case presented.