COMMITTEE ON THE Monday 18 September 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: Witnesses: The Committee met at 9.48 am. (The Chairman (Mr Wells) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Wells): This is obviously an extremely important meeting, and we must ensure that we get our tactics and protocol right — I mean your tactics, not mine. The meeting will finish at 11.30 am. It is absolutely vital that mobile phones be switched off. You might be tempted to text your press agent with some scoop that you have just heard, but please do not leave them on, even in silent mode, because we would run the risk of losing some of the Secretary of State’s comments, or, even more importantly, some of your own questions. Everyone has been here before. Have you been here, William? Mr Hay: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Therefore, no declarations of interest are required regarding membership of the Policing Board or District Policing Partnerships. The entire Policing Board is here, from what I can see. The purpose of this morning’s meeting is obviously the question-and-answer session with the Secretary of State. Members should have details of who is batting first. The DUP will lead off with question one, and the subsequent order is based on party strength. The order of supplementaries for question one will be: Sinn Féin, UUP, SDLP and Alliance. Sinn Féin will lead on question two, but to be fair, we will then reverse the sequence. Therefore the Alliance Party will be second, followed by the SDLP, the UUPAG (Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group) and the DUP. In other words, the Alliance Party will ask the first supplementary question on the second topic. Mr Ford: What about the UUP’s designation? The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is the UUP. It is written down here as UUPAG, but we will scrub that out. The UUP will ask the third question, and the SDLP will ask the first supplementary question to that, and so on. Simply arranging the order according to party strength for the entire meeting could create difficulties in that the Alliance Party, or even the SDLP, would get chopped each time. This is an attempt to ensure that every party leads on one question and has at least one chance to ask the first supplementary question. Does everybody understand that? A Member: No. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The idea is that no party will be left to the end without having had a chance to ask a question at all. It is up to the parties to decide who asks their first question. Who will ask the DUP’s first question? Mr Paisley Jnr: I will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Who will ask Sinn Féin’s first question? Mr M McGuinness: I will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Who will ask the Ulster Unionist Party’s first question? Mr McFarland: I will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Who will be the SDLP’s lead? Mr A Maginness: I will. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Who will ask the Alliance Party’s first question? Mrs Long: I will. Mr Ford: I have to leave to go to a funeral, so Kieran McCarthy will replace me after the first half hour. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I simply need to know who to call next. Mr McFarland: Other parties raised some of the issues about which we will talk today. Can I be reminded of the major piece of information that the Secretary of State needs to tell us about the appointment of the Police Ombudsman? The Chairman (Mr Wells): That was a DUP question. Do we know what we are trying to establish with that? Mr Kennedy: I think the issue was whether the Executive or the Assembly would ratify the appointment. Mr Paisley Jnr: It involved the qualification of the person holding the office of ombudsman and whether it was in line with Dr Maurice Hayes’s recommendation. Mr McFarland: It concerned judges, and so forth. Mr Paisley Jnr: Or persons of that standing. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Members will be aware of the main issues that were raised: the politics of policing; the Glenties speech; army powers post-normalisation; and fifty-fifty recruitment. The national security and intelligence issue deals with the demarcation between ordinary crime and matters of national security, responsibility of the PSNI for national security matters, accountability arrangements for MI5; and Regulation of the Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Policing structures is a UUP topic, and it deals with the appointment of the Police Ombudsman and the Policing Board. The SDLP raised justice issues, and that covers community restorative justice and peremptory challenge in the Diplock courts. The Alliance Party will lead on criminality and paramilitarism. That topic includes building a lawful society, paramilitary links with organised crime, and the role of political parties in influencing paramilitary organisations. Mr McFarland: Will parties ask both questions together in each of their slots? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, they will have only one opportunity to ask both their questions. Mr McFarland: Therefore we will ask the questions together and the Secretary of State will answer them together. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The difficulty will be in sticking to the 18 minutes that have been allocated for each section. I will alert members when 17 minutes have passed. We will have to be pretty ruthless, otherwise the Alliance Party will not get the chance to put its question, which would be unfair. That is the danger that we face if we run over. Mrs Long: Chairman, if you keep stressing that, members will run over their time. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Wells): That would be unfair to the Alliance Party. Do members feel that we should introduce ourselves to the Secretary of State, or do we assume that he knows everybody in the room? Mr Cobain: Does he know you, Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Yes, he does. Mr McFarland: Chairman, the Secretary of State set up this Committee and this Assembly, and presumably, having spent all summer closely monitoring every word that we have said, he will therefore know exactly who everyone is. Mr Kennedy: Does he have access to the Internet? The Chairman (Mr Wells): Has anybody not met the Secretary of State? Mr Paisley Jnr: I hope that he will not fall asleep on us today. Mr Kennedy: Allegedly. Mr G Kelly: Will the Secretary of State make opening remarks? After the DUP asks the first question, will he respond, or are we going to ask all of the questions at once? The Chairman (Mr Wells): The Secretary of State will make two statements. He will make a brief opening statement, and I understand that he also has an important announcement to make at the end. That might encourage members to stay. Once the last question has been dealt with, he will take a few minutes to say something that will be announced publicly after this meeting so, whatever it is, you will hear it here first. Mr Kennedy: The drama. Mr G Kelly: The dates for Scotland. The Chairman (Mr Wells): If it is the dates for Scotland, it will not be such a coup after all; we have all heard them this morning. Please do not stand up to ask questions. Members may wish to stand in deference to the Secretary of State, but the microphones are at knee level, so if you stand, you will not be heard. Secretary of State, you are extremely welcome to the thirty-third meeting of the Committee on the Preparation for Government. I also welcome Ms Hilary Jackson and Mr Nick Perry, who will no doubt be assisting you as the meeting proceeds. We aim to finish at about 11.30 am. Secretary of State, I understand that you have some opening remarks, and that you would like to make a short statement at the end. Do you need to be introduced to any of the members? I am sure that you have met most of them. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Hain): They are all very familiar. The Chairman (Mr Wells): I will call members by name to ask their questions. That may remind the Secretary of State of some members that he may not have met as often as he would have liked. We have gained a little time through your early arrival, Secretary of State, which is much appreciated. I invite you to proceed with your opening remarks. Mr Hain: I wish to make a few very brief opening remarks. The purpose of this meeting is for members to question me, rather than for me to deliver a speech. I am grateful, as I think everyone is, for the work that the Committee on the Preparation for Government has done over the last few months. The Committee started out amid great difficulties, but subsequently has done much extremely good, purposeful work. The Hansard reports and Committee reports are proof of that. I am in the process of preparing legislation on policing and justice, and a Bill will be introduced into Parliament around the time of the Queen’s Speech in mid-November. I have paid close attention to the deliberations of the Committee and to areas where it has agreed and where it has not. I wish to say something about the process over the coming weeks. We are going to have an important summit session at St Andrews in Scotland between 11 and 13 October. I am aware of the concerns that parties have expressed about the cost of that, etc, but it is the only way of concentrating attention and getting people really focused on the task ahead, namely to promote agreement in time for the deadline of 24 November. Without being belligerent about it, I repeat that that deadline is in statute and will not be moved. That is really all I want to say at this stage, Mr Chairman. I look forward to questions from members. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Secretary of State. The first set of questions is to do with the politics of policing. Mr Paisley Jnr: Secretary of State, you are very welcome to the Committee. I am glad that after some misunderstanding and prevarication the Secretary of State has come here. That is welcome, and it is useful for us to have the chance to question him on some of these issues. With regard to the politics of policing, the Secretary of State will be aware that when the Prime Minister spoke to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 4 July, he said that people could not pick and choose when it came to the rule of law and support for policing. Yet the Secretary of State’s speech to the MacGill summer school at about the same time appeared to have a slightly different logic and emphasis, which caused great concern to the unionist community. 10.00 am He said then that Sinn Féin must be brought to a position in which its members can distinguish: “between ‘constitutional’ endorsement of the structures of policing, and support for the practical service of policing”. Such a choice does not exist. I hope that he accepts that we cannot allow a party that aspires to be in the Government to choose which parts of the law-and-order process it will decide to endorse and which parts it will not. It is either this way or no way, and it is important that the Government make that clear. A party that aspires to be in the Government would not be allowed to take an à la carte approach in its support for policing and the structures of law and order in any other part of the United Kingdom for which the Secretary of State has responsibility. I hope that he will take this opportunity to clarify the dichotomy between his words and those of the Prime Minister. My colleagues have other questions in this area and, in particular, on fifty-fifty recruitment to the police, but I would like the Secretary of State to answer that point first. Mr Hain: First of all, I do not understand the member’s references to prevarication and misunderstanding about my appearance before the Committee. It was a matter of getting a diary date that suited the Committee and suited me, and I was happy to do that at the earliest opportunity, which is today. I am not prevaricating or misunderstanding anything. What I sought to do at the MacGill summer school lecture at Glenties in Donegal was to recognise that republicanism has a long history of a particular stance towards policing that is exercised under the jurisdiction of a British Secretary of State. That is to recognise a political reality: not to approve or disapprove of it; but to say that that is part of Northern Ireland’s history. I was absolutely uncompromising about the fact that there has to be respect for the rule of law and co-operation with policing. I notice that the Sinn Féin president, Gerry Adams, said in an interview on television yesterday that he is comfortable with people from republican communities and republicans themselves co-operating with the police and reporting crime to the police. That needs to go much further. There must be full co-operation with the police. I have never hidden that. There needs to be respect for the rule of law — especially on the part of any party that aspires to office. It might become an absolutely essential precondition in some part of the process or another that a party, Sinn Féin in this case, signs up to the Policing Board and undertakes to join tomorrow. I do not think that that should be a stumbling block at this stage. What is imperative, and it would be indefensible not to have it, is co-operation with the police and respect for the rule of law. There is no disagreement between anybody and what the Prime Minister said. Mr Paisley Jnr: Does the Secretary of State not think that there is no legitimate excuse for not supporting law and order and policing in Northern Ireland — Mr Hain: Yes. Mr Paisley Jnr: — and that no reward will be given to a party that refuses to endorse those structures when it decides to catch up with everybody else and endorse them? There can be no reward for that. Mr Hain: I do not know what the member means by reward. Every party, and in this instance we are talking about Sinn Féin exclusively, needs to co-operate with the police and sign up to the rule of law. Of course there can be no compromise on that. Mr M McGuinness: I welcome the Secretary of State’s attendance today and I welcome his announcement that the two Governments have confirmed a date for the forthcoming talks in Scotland. Whatever the merits of the location or cost of those talks, Sinn Féin has been pressing the two Governments for some time to set out a plan of action that would see the Good Friday Agreement implemented in full. Sinn Féin is approaching the coming period in a positive fashion. However, we believe that the onus for ensuring progress rests with the two Governments. If it becomes clear that not all of the parties will commit to inclusive institutions, the Governments really must set out a schedule for delivering in full on all other aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. On the specific issue of policing, Sinn Féin is firmly of the view that there must be an end, once and for all, to political policing, which has been a feature of this state since Ireland was partitioned. The nationalist experience of policing has been entirely negative. We have seen systematic repression, human rights abuses, collusion and manipulation of loyalist death squads by a police force that was the armed wing of a sectarian state. So-called national security has been used to turn policing and the entire judicial system into weapons of state repression. We need an end to political policing. We need policing that is democratic, accountable, representative and free from political control. We believe that central to achieving that is the transfer — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Mr McGuinness, please come to the question. Mr M McGuinness: I should be allowed as much time as Ian Paisley Jnr, but I am coming to the question. We believe that the transfer of power to locally elected politicians is central to all of this. We argued for — and secured — British legislation to enable that to happen, but we also need fully functioning political institutions. Therefore, this Committee needs to hear from Mr Hain, as British Secretary of State, what the British Government strategy for achieving all of that really amounts to. Mr Hain: First, whatever people say about the past, I do not accept that the experience of the nationalist community today is entirely repressive, as the member claimed. I do not know whether he is suggesting that that remains the case so far as the PSNI is concerned. The PSNI is now widely respected right across the world as a police force that seeks to police all communities impartially. More and more Catholics are joining the Police Service of Northern Ireland — up to more than 20% now from just 8% eight years ago. That trend is continuing. In that respect, I do not accept that the PSNI is anything other than a force that has cross-community support. Increasingly, even in areas such as south Armagh, where there was traditionally a hostile relationship between the police and local residents, there is increasing acceptance of policing. So far as the process over the coming weeks is concerned, I am very clear, as I said earlier, that the deadline of 24 November is absolute. I hope that the parties will agree to take their responsibilities to share the power that they were elected to discharge in an Executive. I hope that there is agreement on that. If there is not, it will be very disappointing to the people of Northern Ireland, who want Members to do their jobs on their behalf. However, I cannot force anyone to agree and would not attempt to. I just think that it would be a greatly missed opportunity. If that opportunity is missed, of course, we must dissolve the Assembly. We all know that, after dissolution, getting the Assembly back up and running will take very many years — an average of about 10 years if one looks at the process over the decades and the generations. I do not think that we want to go there, with everything in Northern Ireland so far looking positive in every respect except the politics. However, the work that the Committee has done has been very encouraging, and it is time for the politics to catch up. The Chairman (Mr Wells): You may respond very briefly, Mr McGuinness. Mr M McGuinness: It is very important that we all move forward on the basis of trying to achieve success at the talks in Scotland and the restoration of the institutions by 24 November. Sinn Féin has made legitimate requests vis-á-vis moving completion forward. All of the parties in this room agree in principle that powers should be transferred from London to a locally elected and accountable administration. Does the Secretary of State accept that all parties have a responsibility to assist each other in trying to achieve completion in the time frame? Mr Hain: The Prime Minister, my predecessors and I committed the Government to legislation providing for the devolution of policing and justice, and we have delivered on that commitment. Exactly when it is implemented is still to be negotiated, and I do not want to put a time frame of days or weeks on it. However, I understand why it is important to achieve the devolution of policing and justice, and it can be achieved when there is agreement. In the meantime, there is no real excuse or reason, given the way that policing has changed under the PSNI, for there not to be full and practical co-operation on a daily basis with the way in which the police do their jobs, in solving crimes from rape to burglary and joyriding. All those things affect our communities in Northern Ireland perhaps more than they did in the past, in a sense that becoming more normal has, unfortunately, meant importing some of the “normal” behaviour of urban areas in other parts of the United Kingdom. Mr McFarland: I too welcome the Secretary of State. Gerry Adams made an interesting speech yesterday in which he said that Sinn Féin was ready to support policing when the Government had met their obligations. What does the Secretary of State understand those obligations to be? Mr Hain: I shall have to let Gerry speak for himself. In respect of the negotiations of some years ago, we have met our obligation to deliver onto the statute book the provision to devolve policing and justice, which has been a long-standing SDLP and Sinn Féin demand. As I said earlier, that process still has to be implemented, and the Committee has had a chance to look at and comment upon a big consultation document. The Committee has done a lot of good and interesting work. There are, of course, areas of disagreement, but there is a lot of agreement as well. We have met our obligations with regard to legislating for this provision. Its implementation is a matter for political agreement in the Assembly. Mr McFarland: Could the Secretary of State confirm that there are no outstanding obligations of which he is aware that prevent Sinn Féin accepting policing? Mr Hain: Sinn Féin will speak for itself, and, doubtless, Martin and Gerry Kelly will do that. As far as I am concerned, from a British Government point of view, we have put the devolution of policing and justice provisions on the statute book. In any event, Sinn Féin should co-operate with the police at the most basic level, at a community level. There is no longer any reason not to do that, whatever reasons there might or might not have been in the past. It remains for the provisions for the devolution of policing and justice to be implemented, and that requires cross-community consent in the Assembly. If meeting our obligations includes the implementing phase, I cannot force the Assembly to do anything — whatever people say about me and my dictatorial powers. That is a matter for Northern Ireland politicians to decide. Mr Attwood: Secretary of State, you are welcome. The Secretary of State is correct that some progress has been made in the Committee on the Preparation for Government. There has been some useful cross-party agreement on this element of — Mr Hain: More than I would have expected. Mr Attwood: Our view is that the difficulties are still greater than the achievements; there were no particular achievements. I refer to the fact that the Committee agreed unanimously that some issues should be taken forward on an all-party inclusive basis and not as one party to one Government. 10.15 am On the politics of policing, David Hanson said at the weekend that, if the 24 November deadline were not met, it could be a “long time” before there is an Assembly like the previous one. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that history shows that it takes perhaps 10 years to get round to setting up an Assembly. Therefore, if we are working within such a time frame, it may take up to 10 years for policing and justice to be devolved. Given that, the SDLP finds it difficult to believe that the British Government’s position is that, during that time and in the absence of restoration, it is sufficient for any party — Sinn Féin, the SDLP or any unionist party — to have a relationship with the police on the ground, given that that relationship will be the height of any policing commitment for one, two, four, six, or perhaps even 10, years. The British Government have said that they understand the problems of one party with the devolution of justice and policing. However, endless difficulties will be created if, pending the restoration of an Assembly — which could take up to 10 years — the only requirement of that party is to have a relationship with the police on the ground. That will have serious consequences on the integrity of policing and on wider public confidence over a long, never mind a short, time. Consequently, the British Government must very quickly revisit that approach. If they adopt that approach over a longer time, we will all live to regret it. My second point is that — The Chairman (Mr Wells): Alex, are these questions? Mr Attwood: That was a question; I am asking the Secretary of State to respond. I welcome the British Government saying that there should be full co-operation with the police. The Secretary of State cited events in the summer and the words from one party over the weekend as examples of co-operation. However, people ask what full co-operation means. In the Robert McCartney murder inquiry, we saw that it did not mean a great deal. So-called arm’s-length co-operation with the police, either through the Police Ombudsman or through solicitors or even directly with the police did not lead to any useful information being provided. While the Secretary of State is right to call for full co-operation and assistance, there does not seem to be compelling evidence that one party wishes for or intends to support that. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Alex, will you come to your question please? Mr Attwood: Does the Secretary of State really believe that the words “full co-operation” are what we need to hear? Is it not better that the British Government adopt an approach where all parties are judged by whether they advise people to join the police, whether they unambiguously advise people to co-operate with the police and by the fact that they place no impediment in the way of any individual who participates in policing accountability structures? Mr Hain: First, in mentioning 10 years, I was merely giving an example of the history of the various attempts to get this place up and running. I am not making a prediction about what will happen if we do not succeed by midnight on 24 November; I am simply saying that the historical picture has not been encouraging. That is why it is absolutely imperative that we get a deal by 24 November. I do not want Stormont to close down; I want politicians to do the jobs for which they have been elected. Members have mandates, but they are not discharging the responsibilities that go with those mandates. I do not have a mandate here, but I have responsibilities that I must discharge. It would be much better if elected politicians, such as those present, discharged those responsibilities. Therefore, I am not making a prediction about 10 years; I am simply quoting the historical experience and pointing out that once the Assembly is dissolved — which will obviously happen at some point after 24 November — the option to close down the place is a pretty serious one. Indeed, that would mean not merely suspension or dissolution. If policing and justice are to be devolved, institutions to which to devolve them must exist, otherwise it cannot be done. I found the Committee’s idea of a single justice Department interesting; however, the existence of institutions is a prerequisite. The absence of the complete devolution of policing and justice must not become a reason for any party’s not co-operating with the police. I have been very encouraged by the events of recent months. For example, before 12 March there was contact between senior Sinn Féin representatives and senior PSNI officers. That contact has continued over the most peaceful and successful marching season that we have had for nearly 40 years. That shows that a step change is going on. I want to see that encouraged and deepened so that we can then clear the issue out of the way. However, I hope to get devolution up and running by 24 November and have the deal done by then. I hope that the devolution of policing and justice can happen as quickly as possible thereafter, once there is agreement in the Assembly. Mr Ford: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome the Secretary of State and his team. There are great concerns across the community at the prospect of policing being placed in the hands of local politicians. Do the Government recognise the limitations of all the models that were previously proposed for the devolution of policing and justice? Will the Secretary of State accept that it is only through effective collective responsibility in an Executive that real assurances can be provided to the whole community? Mr Hain: My interpretation of David’s point is that we need an inclusive power-sharing Executive and a functioning Assembly to maintain the confidence that policing will be subject to local democratic control as opposed to being administered by a direct rule Secretary of State. For the devolution of policing and justice to work effectively, we need an inclusive power-sharing Executive. I agree with David, if that is what he is suggesting. Mr Ford: It depends on the definition of “inclusive” and “power-sharing”, as opposed to the silo system that we had in the previous Executive. Mr Hain: I see. I hope that there will be an inclusive power-sharing Executive that operates in the way in which coalition politics — if I may use that comparison, although I realise that it is not exact — works elsewhere, including, at the moment, in the Republic of Ireland. Parties of different aspirations and policies there who are enemies during elections work collectively on behalf of the people whom they govern. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next issue to which you have been alerted, Secretary of State, is national security and intelligence. Mr Kelly of Sinn Féin will ask the lead-off question, to be followed by the UUP. Mr G Kelly: The Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear that Sinn Féin has publicly opposed MI5 primacy in national security: we want a lessening of, not an increase in, involvement in that arena. Our concern is shared by, among others, the Police Ombudsman, the Oversight Commissioner, the SDLP and, indeed, the Irish Government. There is concern about the definition and scope of British national security, an arena into which the Serious Organised Crime Agency comes. Is it true that MI5 primacy was decided a full year before the Secretary of State’s immediate predecessor, Paul Murphy, announced it? I ask that because it would mean that that decision was made around the time of the Leeds Castle talks, yet it was not raised with any of the parties at the time. Will a member of the PSNI be accountable to the Police Ombudsman, the Policing Board and whatever Minister is in post, no matter where that PSNI member might work, including the regional intelligence cells? The Committee raised the issue of protocols. Do protocols between the PSNI and MI5 exist? If so, why were they not supplied to the Committee when it requested them? Who will define the interface between “ordinary” crime and national security issues? How will such decision-making be made transparent and accountable? Mr Hain: With your permission, Chairman, I will deal with that series of important issues and Mr Kelly may come back to me if I miss any. First, I am not in a position to confirm exactly when the final decision was taken. It was being discussed and considered at the time that Mr Kelly mentions, although the final decision was not taken until much more recently. Today’s world is one of al-Qaeda terrorism: the events in London in July 2005; the attempt to bring down airliners between London and the United States that was averted with a series of arrests in August 2006; and also the arrest and prosecution of an individual with those affiliations in Belfast a year or two ago. In that context, the idea that national security can somehow not be applied universally across all parts of the United Kingdom is untenable. I understand Sinn Féin’s political aspirations and those of the SDLP in terms of Northern Ireland becoming constitutionally part of a single island rather than part of the United Kingdom. That is a matter, under the Good Friday Agreement, for the people of Northern Ireland. In the meantime, until any such decision is taken, we have a responsibility to exercise national security functions right across every part of the UK. The idea of a national security no-go area for MI5 as regards the defence of the United Kingdom, particularly against terrorist attacks of the kind that I described, is unacceptable. That is the reason. The PSNI will have operational responsibility for any arrests, investigations or inquiries that result from activity carried out by the Security Service. I should have thought — particularly since policing and justice will be devolved in the future — that that would bring comfort to nationalists and republicans who have concerns about the matter. The practical effect of any work by the Security Service will be under the PSNI’s jurisdiction, which itself will be accountable to a power-sharing Executive, in respect of non-national security matters, through the Chief Constable. Mr G Kelly: The core, if I may say so, is what you have missed; it is all about accountability. Despite years of negotiations to have accountability mechanisms set up, we now have a situation in which the accountability of MI5 — which does not have a good reputation as regards collusion — Special Branch, and so on is unclear. Where is the guarantee for accountability? I asked whether PSNI members working in any area were entirely accountable for all their actions, through the established accountability mechanisms such as the Police Ombudsman, the Policing Board, and any future Minister in the Executive. Mr Hain: I do not think that there will be any weakening of accountability over the switch in primacy. For example, I do not think that the Policing Board will receive any less information on police involvement in national security operations than it does currently. When Sinn Féin members take their places on the Policing Board, as I hope they will, in due course, they will be privy to that as well. That is because the Chief Constable’s main accountability in national security matters is, and always has been, to the Secretary of State rather than to the Policing Board. That position will remain. I assume that Mr Kelly was referring to the situation of previous years, but unlike then, the Security Service is now subject to a great deal of accountability. It has been established under statute and is properly accountable. The Intelligence and Security Committee in the House of Commons, which is chaired by my predecessor, is subject to accountability, and various other commissioners maintain detailed oversight of the Security Service’s operations. 10.30 am Mrs Long: My question is based on the strong perception that, at the very least, republican activity has historically been treated as a threat to the state while loyalist paramilitary activity has been treated as a criminal issue. Given the differentiation between national security issues and regular policing activities, are the Government concerned that the actions of loyalist paramilitaries could be handled differently to those of republican paramilitaries? Are they concerned that that differentiation would confirm that perception? Due to the blurring of criminal and paramilitary activities, how do the Government see the role of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) in relation to paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland? Mr Hain: Mrs Long is quite right to refer to the blurring of criminal and paramilitary activities. Loyalist groups have effectively switched their activities from paramilitarism in its traditional quasi-political sense, if I may put it that way, to gangsterism. The leaders of the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG), about which I will say something at the end of the session, have done some impressive work and have shown leadership in that work. They, and indeed, the PUP, are trying to pull loyalist groups and their representatives away from criminality. Those groups have not focused on paramilitary activity alone, which is pretty well closed down, but on criminality. Indeed, recent UDA behaviour reflects those attempts. Mrs Long is correct to say that there is an overlap between paramilitarism and criminality in some loyalist groups. That is also true for dissident republican groups such as the Continuity IRA (CIRA) and the Real IRA (RIRA). We must keep a careful eye on that. The PSNI carries out the practical, on-the-ground activity that emanates from its own work or from the Security Service’s surveillance, therefore in all its operations it will be accountable to a justice Minister and to the Policing Board. Mr Attwood: I shall ask an important question, Secretary of State. In the event of MI5 gaining primacy for national security, will the British Government’s standard be that all information — not merely all relevant or essential information — gathered by MI5 in the North will be shared with the PSNI? Mr Hain: I must stress that the Chief Constable and his senior officers are fully involved in the development of the model that will be implemented and that any procedural activities will have their full agreement and co-operation. Arrangements are being developed and tested by the PSNI and the Security Service to ensure mutual visibility of serious crime and national security intelligence investigations. My point is that the Chief Constable is not being dragooned into this; he fully supports the Government’s position. I do not want to sound unreasonable, but the fact that primacy for national security rests with MI5 is not negotiable. That is something that the Government have decided, because it is a question of putting in place arrangements, which would include any incoming Executive, that build maximum confidence. Mr Attwood: Although the Chief Constable may accept British Government’s decision, if he is not satisfied about how those arrangements will operate, he will say so. Therefore, I ask the Chief Constable again — sorry, the Secretary of State — Mr M McGuinness: Are you confused? Do you think that you are at a meeting of the Policing Board? Mr Attwood: That political policing thing got through to me again. Will all information be shared with the PSNI in this new order? That is a straightforward question, and therefore merits a straightforward yes or no answer. Given that the Secretary of State has executive responsibility for this matter, I do not want an answer that outlines the current process but one that tells me whether he will work, and MI5 will work, on the principle that all information will be shared with the PSNI. If that is to be not the case, the nationalist community, and, I believe, the unionist community also, will be concerned to learn that, after all the good work over the past four or five years to create policing architecture that complies with best international standards as regards intelligence gathering and management, the British Government have decided that the PSNI cannot access all national-security information on the North. Mr Hain: What I can say is that the arrangements that are currently being agreed between the Chief Constable and his senior officers and the security service are proceeding, and I think that they will satisfy the PSNI and members of the Policing Board. My officials and I are kept closely informed about those arrangements. That is not a yes or no answer to Mr Attwood’s question, because I do not think that a yes or no answer can be given. Mr Attwood: As the Minister responsible, has the Secretary of State instructed MI5 to operate on that principle when it comes to discussions with the PSNI? Mr Hain: They are working together, so they do not need an instruction from me. Mr McFarland: The Secretary of State will be aware that, after the beginning of the Iraq war, there was great concern about the effectiveness of MI6, for example. Concern has been expressed on the Policing Board and elsewhere that, under the new system, MI5 may suppress any intelligence that it receives, were it to interfere with the peace process. There is concern that London may put it to the Director General of MI5 that it would be most unhelpful for a particular piece of information to get out at a particular time. The protocols that are put in place must be extremely robust in order to get around that. Does the Secretary of State see a substantially increased role for the Intelligence and Security Committee? At present, although it exists, it tends to focus on whether money has been spent wisely or whether the buildings are right. It tends not to be able to get its teeth into the serious issues, such as whether intelligence is being used properly. Given the seriousness of the issue of national security now, does the Secretary of State see the Intelligence and Security Committee’s role being increased, allowing it to properly oversee both MI5 and MI6 in future? Mr Hain: We shall just have to watch developments. That Committee is relatively new and is free to develop whatever role it wishes. However, it has oversight of the Security Service’s operations throughout the United Kingdom, and, in the case of MI6, it has oversight of matters abroad. However, I do not think that I can properly go into any more detail. Mr Paisley Jnr: It should be put on the record that many people in Northern Ireland welcome the fact the security services have performed their principal duty of protecting property and saving people’s lives from those who blew up courts, murdered people and destroyed businesses. It has been placed on the record that there is a great deal of gratitude in Northern Ireland for the fact that the security services have done a very difficult job in a very difficult situation. It is a nonsense for some people to beat their chests and claim that they want a say in national security when they are so linked to the terrorist network. It is essential that structures are in place in order for there to be proper accountability. I am sure that the Secretary of State can tell us whether the structures that will be put in place in the coming months and years will be the same as the structures that our fellow citizens in Wales, Scotland and England enjoy. If those structures and standards were the same, we could take some comfort from the fact that Northern Ireland is treated in the same way as other regions. In the past, some of the problems have perhaps arisen because Northern Ireland has been treated differently. Getting fair standards and structures across the United Kingdom is critical. The other issue is accountability. I suggest that one way to address accountability would be through the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee, which the Secretary of State mentioned. A Welsh MP chairs that Committee, and its members include English and Scottish MPs. However, there is no Northern Ireland representation. The Secretary of State should consider suggesting at Cabinet level that Northern Ireland MPs should have representation on that Committee. That would ensure accountability at national level, where it is ultimately required. Mr Hain: On the latter point, that is a question for Parliament, not for me. The first question about Wales, Scotland and England was important. In respect of the security services, the same standards will apply. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The next set of questions is about policing structures. The Ulster Unionist Party will take the lead — I believe that Alan McFarland will begin — followed by the SDLP. Mr McFarland: My first question concerns the appointment of the Police Ombudsman. The Secretary of State will be aware that the Hayes Report recommended that that post be filled by a retired senior judge, or someone of similar standing, with a clear knowledge of legal procedures. What selection criteria does the Secretary of State see being introduced when the post is re-advertised next year? My second question concerns the Policing Board. The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been interference with the Policing Board, changing its structure from 11 politicians and 10 independent members to eight politicians with the balance made up of independent members. When the Assembly gets up and running, 11 MLAs will serve on a policing Committee and 10 MLAs will sit on the Policing Board. If the Assembly gets up and running, how will that relationship develop? Mr Hain: If the Assembly gets up and running, the Policing Board will have to be reconstituted. The procedure is very clear: the d’Hondt formula would apply. As for the current composition, I agreed to the reconstitution of the board’s membership when I thought that legitimate pressure was being put on me to say that the composition did not reflect the outcome of the 2003 Northern Ireland Assembly election. As Sinn Féin had made it clear that it would not take up its positions on the board — which was regrettable — I decided that there had to be community balance. Therefore, rather than redistributing the membership among the parties that were taking their positions, I decided to maintain community balance by appointing more independent members. The board is working well. Its members are doing a good job. There was some initial concern, especially from the UUP, which I fully understand, but there was no hidden agenda. I took the decision to maintain community balance. The Police Ombudsman’s term of office runs out in November 2007; the post is a seven-year, fixed-term appointment. Obviously, if a power-sharing Executive is up and running by then — and I hope that it will be — it will be possible, following devolution of policing and justice, for the Police Ombudsman to be appointed by a Northern Ireland Minister for policing or by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly. Alternatively, responsibility for the appointment could remain with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. That is yet to be decided. The Assembly should give the next appointment process urgent consideration, given that it can take up to nine months to complete. 10.45 am Mrs D Kelly: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be relieved to learn that, in the report on law-and-order issues that is to be presented to the Assembly tomorrow, all parties agreed that there should be no change in the composition of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The SDLP welcomes the comments made by the Secretary of State to the Police Federation for Northern Ireland endorsing the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s office. Does he agree with the SDLP that the appointment next autumn of the Police Ombudsman should not be subject to a vote in the Assembly? Does he also agree that, with the devolution of justice and policing powers, there should be no encroachment on the powers, independence and authority of the Policing Board and the district policing partnerships? Mr Hain: The answer to both those questions is “yes”. It is important that the Ombudsman — or Ombudsperson — is seen to be independent of political manipulation or partisan choice. I have said to the Police Federation that Nuala O’Loan has done an excellent job — I am grateful for Mrs Kelly’s comments in that regard. Mrs O’Loan has shown great integrity and independence and has sometimes done things that are uncomfortable for Governments as well as everyone else. She is due to report on the McCord case and will doubtless show her customary independence, integrity and vigilance in the pursuit of the truth in that terrible case. The report may be extremely uncomfortable for the British state — if I may use that term — and its current representative, even though those appalling events took place some years ago. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Mrs O’Loan has shown much courage. Mr McCarthy: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Alliance Party had serious concerns about fifty-fifty recruitment to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Do the Government recognise the fact that the stark distinction made between Catholics and non-Catholics in fifty-fifty recruitment makes it more difficult to attract ethnic minorities to the Police Service and to ensure that the PSNI is fully representative of the community as a whole, including the diversity in the Catholic and Protestant traditions? I understand that advertisements for PSNI recruitment are now being placed worldwide in various languages. Mr Hain: The PSNI is working hard to try to attract more members of the ethnic minority community. As Mr McCarthy rightly implies, Northern Ireland is rapidly becoming a more diverse region than has traditionally been the case. In recent generations in Great Britain, large ethnic minority communities have developed and become familiar in England, and also in parts of Scotland and Wales. Ethnic minority communities are a relatively new phenomenon in Northern Ireland, so we must keep an eye on this issue. However, the main issue has been to make the PSNI more representative of the historical community divide in Northern Ireland. The PSNI is on its way to achieving that; Catholic representation now stands at 20%, and that percentage is climbing, month by month and year by year. Mr McCarthy: As I understand it, a recent PSNI recruitment advertisement was placed worldwide in order to encourage people from ethnic minorities to join. Is the Secretary of State happy that that measure should help? Mr Hain: I am happy about that. The Chief Constable is aware of, and anxious about, the ethnic minority community situation, and we will do what we can about it. That issue must be addressed in a way that also maintains the increased Catholic representation, because the priority is to re-balance the composition of the PSNI in that regard. Mr McCarthy: Thank you very much. Mr Weir: Secretary of State, the DUP has wider concerns about fifty-fifty recruitment to the PSNI; perhaps we can discuss that issue later. Many people in the unionist community do not share the glowing references to the Police Ombudsman. Mr Hain: I acknowledge that as well. Mr Weir: I did not think otherwise. It is worrying that a report at the weekend suggested that the leader of Sinn Féin had indicated that he would seek his party’s support for policing once the Government had fulfilled promises that they had made to Sinn Féin. Can the Secretary of State indicate whether the British Government made promises to Sinn Féin that remain unfulfilled? Can he give us an assurance with regard to policing structures and any other policing matters that no changes will be made simply to accommodate one party so that it will join the rest of us on a level playing field with regard to policing? Mr Hain: I cannot speak for the Sinn Féin president. Perhaps Sinn Féin representatives can assist me. I do not believe that he would want me to speak for him. The big commitment that the Government agreed to with Sinn Féin, the Irish Government and others who were involved in the talks process was that legislation would be introduced that would devolve policing and justice matters. We have honoured that commitment. However, that legislation has not yet been implemented. I cannot force the devolution of policing and justice on institutions that do not exist; even when they do exist, I cannot do that without consent. That is possibly what Gerry Adams had in mind. As far as I am concerned, with regard to the bigger picture, the British Government have honoured their commitment to introduce the legislation that provides for the devolution of policing and justice. That legislation is on the statute book. Mr Weir: Can the Secretary of State give a reassurance that no changes will be made to policing and its structures simply to accommodate one party and to allow it to come on board with the other parties that have always operated on a level playing field? Mr Hain: I am not aware of any proposal to change the structures of policing. Mr Weir: I ask for reassurance that no changes will be made. Mr Hain: I am not aware of any demand for changes. There are outstanding differences and a disagreement on national security matters, which is a matter of concern for the SDLP. That has been mentioned today. I am not aware of any other structural issues. Perhaps a member can assist me with that. Mr M McGuinness: I can assist the Secretary of State. The agreement that Sinn Féin made with the British Government concerns more than simply the introduction of legislation on the transfer of powers. It is about the transfer of powers to a locally elected and accountable Administration. That raises the question of what must be done if that is not achieved. I have already said that Sinn Féin wants there to be success. As the talks in Scotland approach, Sinn Féin hopes that all parties will recognise the need to assist one another in order to bring about a resolution of all our difficulties. Sinn Féin recognises that unionists have difficulties, and it is determined to tackle those issues. However, those powers must be transferred to a locally elected Administration — with a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and an Executive that includes a Minister for justice. In a context in which that transfer has occurred, and there is a working relationship between a British Secretary of State, a Minister for justice, possibly the PSNI and the Policing Board, and with regard to their respective powers, will the Minister for policing have the power to ban the purchase of plastic bullets, Tasers and CS spray? Mr Hain: I believe so, unless I am corrected by my chief securocrats during the week. The Chief Constable and the Policing Board would be the agencies that would determine that. Their recommendations would guide a justice Minister. As Secretary of State, I do not envisage that I would have a direct veto on any decision that might be taken. Mr M McGuinness: At that stage, the Secretary of State will probably not have a veto because by then he will either be Deputy Prime Minister or deputy leader of the Labour Party. He would effectively be out of the loop. It would be a matter for the Minister for justice, the PSNI Chief Constable and the Policing Board. Mr Hain: It is, essentially, an operational matter. I am aware of sensitivities in the nationalist community. I acknowledge and understand the concern that the member’s party has regularly expressed on those issues. However, the Chief Constable has an operational responsibility to protect members of the PSNI. At the moment, he feels that it is necessary to have that capability, and I support him in that. As the situation normalises — and I am confident that it will, given a very good marching season and dialogue of a kind that has never happened before — the Policing Board and the Chief Constable may both take the view that it is no longer necessary. Once devolution of policing and justice has taken place, it will become a matter for the Policing Board, the Chief Constable and the Minister for policing and justice. Were there a functioning Assembly, Members could of course raise these issues and discuss them with the Chief Constable and no doubt question him about it. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you to members for bringing us back on schedule for the next set of questions on justice issues. Mr A Maginness: At the conference of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State sought to reassure policemen — and the public at large — that protocols relating to community restorative justice (CRJ) had been significantly strengthened. Community restorative justice has caused considerable unease throughout the nationalist and unionist communities, and is of particular concern to the SDLP. My party has examined the protocols, and undeniably there have been improvements. However, first, where direct communication with the police remains undefined, the protocols do not give the absolute reassurance that we want. Secondly, the complaints system is not truly independent, and does not have the powers that are required to conduct thorough and independent investigations. They are not on a statutory basis. Thirdly, there is no supervision of most community restorative justice work, namely the non-criminal work. The protocols do not cover that aspect of the work. That is worrying. I ask the Secretary of State for further reassurance on those protocols, and assurance that community restorative justice will work closely and effectively with the PSNI. Mr Hain: I am happy to do that in general terms, and I can be more specific. I understand the concerns, criticisms and fears that the SDLP has expressed about the initial proposals for CRJ. It is unusual for Government Ministers to do this, but we admitted, on publishing the second tranche of proposals for a fresh period of consultation, that we had not got it right first time around. We came clean on that. As I have said previously, that was in an unscripted remark, not in the text of my speech to the Police Federation, so members might not have picked that up. However, I am happy to put it on the record before this Committee today. If we do not get it right, we will not do it. That is to say, if we cannot come up with protocols and arrangements for community restorative justice that command widespread support — though not necessarily universal support for every dot and comma in schemes’ arrangements — we will not proceed with guidelines and official recognition of CRJ schemes. There are CRJ schemes in operation; the intention has been to bring them under the umbrella of proper regulation, so that autonomous CRJ schemes will not operate in communities in an unsupervised way. I will remind the Committee of the changes we have made. First, we have removed the provision for schemes to report offences to the PSNI through a third party. That emphasises the centrality of the police in the way that the schemes operate. I want to stress that. The police are central to the most successful schemes — for instance, the alternative scheme which, I am pleased to say, is being continued following its recent financial difficulties. I have seen a CRJ scheme operating effectively, with the full involvement of the police, in a loyalist area. 11.00 am Secondly, we have established arrangements for a panel comprising representatives from the relevant statutory bodies to determine the suitability of individuals to work in posts governed by the protocol. That panel will be permitted to consider such available information as criminal records. Thirdly, an independent complaints mechanism for victims and offenders was established at the suggestion of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI). Fourthly, a new protocol has been introduced which sets exacting standards that schemes must meet to achieve accreditation. It will take the form of a rigorous, regular and unannounced inspection regime undertaken by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. Those changes should make clear — if it was not already — that the police will be working hand in glove with CRJ schemes and that they will have to comply with the rule of law. The proposals for CRJ came from an independent criminal justice review; they are not part of some backroom deal. Mr Cobain: The CRJ schemes offer huge potential for people living in working-class areas whose lives are blighted by antisocial behaviour, and much has been talked about some of those schemes. I can only speak from the unionist perspective, but the CRJ schemes have been a tremendous success, and those people involved with them are willing to work with the police. As the Secretary of State said, co-operation with the police is at the centre of the schemes’ consultations. I welcome the additional protocols, because unless communities are willing to accept these schemes, they will not work. I, therefore, accept any strengthening of the protocols. I mentioned to the Secretary of State before that schemes that are willing to sign up to the protocols are being discriminated against because other schemes are not willing to do so. I press him again today to re-examine those schemes that are willing to sign up to the protocols and grant that they are free to apply for some financial help to allow them to continue the good work that they are doing in these areas. Participation in the CRJ schemes is voluntary. Some people have the idea that those who want to join the schemes are somehow intimidated into doing so. However, it is a voluntary arrangement between the victims and perpetrators, and it brings about a way of re-engaging communities in dealing with these schemes. Will the Secretary of State reinforce his previous comment that there are schemes, in some areas, in which the participants are willing to engage with the police — in fact, they make police central to their scheme —and to adhere to all the protocols. Mr Hain: I do not know that praise from a Secretary of State for any MLA helps his career, but I want to acknowledge the work that Fred Cobain has done in many parts of Belfast in CRJ. He is right: the schemes that are willing to sign up in full to the protocols will require funding, and we want to look at that sympathetically. There are no funds or resource budgets earmarked for CRJ schemes that will comply with the guidelines when they are eventually finalised. However, we will — if possible — want to assist the valuable work that is being done in many of these communities and with which Mr Cobain is well acquainted. Mr G Kelly: There are many myths around the concept of CRJ. Does the Secretary of State accept that the concept and practice of restorative justice is a non-violent mediation of neighbourhood disputes? In nationalist terms, it has been on the go since 1999. Does he also accept that the furore from those who have no involvement in restorative justice is based entirely around the issue of Government funding? CRJ is a voluntary process, and people have been working their hearts out on such processes for years. I do not mean it as a criticism of alternative schemes that co-operate with the PSNI, but I would dispute what the Secretary of State has said about such schemes being the best example. In fact, I can tell him from my own experience that the amount of work that CRJ schemes have taken away from MLAs and councillors is massive. Does he accept that Lord Clyde, the previous Justice Oversight Commissioner, agreed that restorative justice was necessary and was working and that the Criminal Justice Inspectorate agreed with that. There have been many attacks on this process, but it is about voluntary participation — no one can be forced into a mediation process. All the discussion and worry comes from those who have had no involvement in dealing with the issues that afflict communities, and they are based entirely on whether people get funding. However, people have been working on this process for years without funding. I welcome the ending of the Diplock courts, but there is deep concern over the proposal to do away with the defence’s right to peremptory challenges of jurors. Jury trials have not been used here for over a generation, and it would be the wrong step to take. It would undermine the jury process, especially when it is only being reintroduced into the criminal justice system. Mr Hain: First, at the risk of agreeing too much with some of my questioners, the picture that Mr Kelly painted was a fair and historically accurate one, except perhaps that it is essential for any community restorative scheme to co-operate with the police. Such schemes work best when they co-operate with the police, and that is perhaps the only point on which I would differ with the member. We are proposing legislation on peremptory challenge, which will be published in the middle of November. When the suggested clauses have been drafted, I hope to be able to share them with the relevant Committee members, assuming that we have a process that is serious about preparing for Government and only on that assumption. That will establish a principle: rather than a presumption in favour of non-jury trial, which is what Diplock courts have been about, there will be a presumption in favour of jury trial. However, the DPP will have the ability, subject to evidence and intelligence information that he has received, to decide that certain cases would be better sitting without a jury to avoid the risk of intimidation and to ensure the safe pursuit of justice. We propose to introduce a system in which the selection of juries is more random — by number, rather than by name. The abolition of peremptory challenge, which is the defence’s right to get jurors stood down, would avoid the danger of packing juries. That is why we are proposing it. Mr Hay: I want to return to some of the policing issues before moving on to talk briefly about restorative justice. Mr Hain: I am sorry to interrupt, but I have one further point. The number of non-jury trials has reduced massively over the years. Last year, there were fewer than 50 such trials; I think that there were about 47. I stand to be corrected on the record, but the figure is in that order and compares to hundreds that used to be held every year. Therefore, jury trial is, effectively, increasingly becoming the norm in Northern Ireland. Mr Hay: The Secretary of State mentioned that some parties are making policing a deal-breaker in relation to future talks. The DUP considers policing, justice and law and order as real deal-breakers in relation to future talks and an Assembly being set up, and it will lay down a marker to that effect. I do not believe that the Secretary of State could ever envisage any other Assembly in the United Kingdom incorporating people who had not signed up to law and order. I am interested to hear his point of view on that, before an Assembly is set up. It is important to know that everyone who signs up to a future Assembly has also signed up to law and order. As a member of the Policing Board, I always felt that, from the outset, it was left out of the loop in relation to restorative justice in Northern Ireland. Board members felt that the Government seemed to be talking to everyone else but us. As soon as we realised that, we managed to gain a platform with Government on the restorative justice issues that we felt strongly about. The Policing Board managed to persuade the Government to support it on some of the issues about which it was deeply concerned: that restorative justice schemes must involve the police directly and on issues relating to their funding. I continually raise those issues as a Policing Board member. Some restorative justice schemes have worked reasonably well and have all the protocols in place. I want to hear the Secretary of State’s views on the fact that those organisations that have agreed protocols with Government and comply with them nevertheless think that they may not be funded. However, other restorative justice schemes receive funding despite not having protocols. The sooner that that anomaly is resolved, the better for everyone, so that we can all move on. The question uppermost in everyone’s minds in relation to the changes to be made to Diplock courts in Northern Ireland relates to immunity: under the new arrangements, will no offences committed by, or on behalf of, paramilitary organisations ever be tried by a jury? Mr Hain: I can give an absolute assurance that non-jury trials are overwhelmingly designed for cases with a paramilitary dimension. Such cases may involve acts of serious, organised crime committed by ex-paramilitaries or people involved in paramilitary activity. I am thinking, for example, of dissident republicans or loyalist groups at the moment. There is no question about that; it is precisely why the Government will still make provision for non-jury trials in that limited, and declining, number of cases. Mr Hay mentioned policing and justice, and I fully understand why those issues are so important to the DUP: they are important to me and to everyone in Northern Ireland, but we should be talking about deal makers rather than deal-breakers. However, if Mr Hay wants me to repeat, before him, that every party, and certainly those holding ministerial office, should sign up to policing and respect for the rule of law, I am happy to reaffirm that principle, as I have done in the past. CRJ funding is important. It is precisely because the Government wanted to get the guidelines right that we have pursued the issue, so that despite the controversy and some of the false starts for which we were responsible — and we did not get it right first time round — bodies could have protocols and comply with them, but not yet be allocated budgets. However, if they were to continue to apply their protocols, they could be eligible for public funds. It is valuable work, as both Gerry Kelly and Fred Cobain said earlier. If we can support that with public funding, that would be very good. 11.15 am Mrs Long: We wish to associate ourselves with the earlier comments, particularly in relation to the need for the full integration of community restorative justice schemes into the wider justice system, and also for full co-operative working with the police. We also recognise the value that such schemes, properly regulated, can add to the local community. However, reference has been made during this morning’s conversation to neighbourhood disputes and antisocial behaviour, which do not always fall strictly within the realm of criminality. How do the Government propose to regulate community restorative justice projects with respect to non-criminal activities? The line between criminal and non-criminal acts can be blurred, and the overall performance and conduct of organisations that deliver CRJ can impact on their credibility as justice agencies in that particular realm. Mr Hain: Those who have had more direct experience than I have will agree or disagree, but probably agree, that part of the objective of CRJ schemes is to decriminalise society; it is to try to stop youngsters engaging in antisocial behaviour such as joyriding or rowdiness, which is particularly threatening to older people, rather than putting them on the escalator that leads to the courts and to their getting a record. The idea is to get mediation at a community level to avoid that outcome. That is the right thing to do. The Chairman (Mr Wells): We now come to the fifth and final topic, which is criminality and paramilitarism. We have only nine minutes to finish off the session, as the Secretary of State has to leave at 11.30 am. I am conscious that Ms Gildernew and Mr Kennedy have not yet asked questions, so I hope that they will get an opportunity in this final round. Mrs Long: Communities have concerns not just about inter-communal violence, which has been a hallmark of our troubles here, but also intra-communal violence, through which paramilitaries set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner. Will the Secretary of State explain the Government’s justification for continuing to use a different set of standards for assessing whether a paramilitary organisation is on ceasefire, when the benchmarks for assessing involvement in paramilitary activity were set out in paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration and subsequently developed by the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC)? Mr Hain: Could you be a bit more specific about what lies behind your question? Mrs Long: Whenever loyalist paramilitaries attack people in loyalist communities or republican paramilitaries attack people in republican communities, the Government have not deemed those attacks to be a breach of the ceasefire. However, if that violence is against people from the opposite community, it is deemed to be a breach of the ceasefire. There seems to be something inherently sectarian and unjust in that approach. Mr Hain: I would need to look at the specifics to establish exactly what has been going on, but we do rely a great deal on the Independent Monitoring Commission to guide us on these matters. We take close note and interest, and, based on the recommendations of the Chief Constable, we take decisions in that respect. Mrs Long: Would it be the Secretary of State’s view that, if the Independent Monitoring Commission determines that paramilitary groups are in breach of paragraph 13 of the Joint Declaration, that would be enough to establish that they are no longer on ceasefire? Mr Hain: The IMC has covered that eventuality in nearly all of its reports. We are due another in a couple of weeks. That report will be important as it will form the backdrop to the session in Scotland, then to the negotiations and, it is hoped, to a deal being done by 24 November. We are guided by the IMC on these, and other, matters. The IMC is not made up of Government Ministers, nor does it have to make decisions, but it provides valuable guidance. Mr Paisley Jnr: I want to ask the Secretary of State about paramilitary links with organised crime and the role of the political parties in influencing those paramilitary organisations. I wish to stress this point — I do not want to labour it, but I want to make it very clear that these issues are deal-breakers. If we do not resolve these issues there cannot be a deal by 24 November. Although people may want to be optimistic, we have to be realistic about where we actually are. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sinn Féin still has considerable distance to travel on the issue of political links to paramilitary crime? I think of our most recent news bulletin; 11 police officers hospitalised, and a Sinn Féin representative on the radio this morning practically justifying those attacks on police officers. In June/July of this year, a senior IRA man was convicted of extorting £300,000. Despite the fact that the evidence was overwhelming, a Sinn Féin MLA questioned the bona fides of that case. A senior and prominent Sinn Féin member, also a member of the community restorative justice scheme, witnessed a very serious beating and refused to give that evidence to the police. The Secretary of State will also be aware of the Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) report that was published in late June 2006, which stated that the IRA structures have evolved from an efficient and effective terrorist organisation into a lucrative criminal empire. Does the Secretary of State accept that those structures must be removed as they are the scaffolding for a criminal empire of money making and money laundering that must cease urgently? Mr Hain: We should be guided on these matters by the IMC and pretty well nobody else, quite frankly. Mr Paisley Jnr: What about the Organised Crime Task Force, which the Secretary of State’s Minister chairs? Mr Hain: I am saying that the IMC should be the key and definitive group that reports and makes an overall assessment of what is going on. It is independent. I do not know what will be in the report that is to be published on 4 October, but the IMC’s tenth report states: “We have found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members and to prevent them from engaging in it.” The report made it clear that it is important to realise that that represents a total cultural change within PIRA, which the IMC believes will take some time to complete. I think that I am right to say that there have been now been six IMC reports since the IRA’s historic statement of 28 July 2005, which ended the armed campaign and committed the organisation to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. In each successive IMC report since then, the IMC has noted an improvement in the situation with regard to criminality. The leadership has been publicly very clear on this matter, as has the leadership of Sinn Féin. Mr Paisley Jnr: The Secretary of State will be aware that the IMC is not universally praised, embraced or accepted by every party. Although its reports may be of interest to us all, they are not the touchstone reports in all of this, and it is important to bear that in mind. Last night — The Chairman (Mr Wells): I am going to have to stop you, Mr Paisley, and move on to Mr Kennedy. Mr Paisley Jnr: Everyone else has had a supplementary question. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Ian, I am stopping you. Mr Paisley Jnr: Last night was hardly an endorsement of a cultural change in Sinn Fein’s attitude to policing in society. Mr Hain: I will respond briefly, Chairman. We do not have a picture of perfection — I am not suggesting that. If the member wants a picture of perfection in Northern Ireland, he will have to wait until he is a very old man. I do not think that Northern Ireland can wait, but there has been an absolute sea change. Sinn Féin has often criticised the IMC. I just cannot believe that the member really is saying that the DUP does not support the independence and integrity of the IMC. The Chairman (Mr Wells): There is only time to hear from two members who have not yet had a chance to speak: Mr Kennedy and Ms Gildernew. Mr Kennedy: Thank you, Chairman, for your consideration of me. Notwithstanding the IMC reports, what measures will the Government and the Secretary of State — the senior Government representative in Northern Ireland — undertake to deal with the ongoing and serious issue of paramilitary links to organised crime to increase public confidence, given that many unionists challenge the Secretary of State’s assertion that elements within the Provisional IRA have stopped criminal activity? Mr Hain: It is not my assertion; it is the IMC’s categoric report. Mr Kennedy: Did the Secretary of State not endorse that report in glowing terms? Mr Hain: I have always, in my own words, reflected what the IMC says. As Secretary of State, it would not be responsible for me to give my independent assessment. I have put into my own words what the IMC said, and I have just quoted a statement in which the IMC makes it clear — and doubtless that will be the case in its early October report — that there is not a perfect situation, given the history of Northern Ireland and its emergence from conflict, bitterness, war and all the rest. The IRA leadership and Sinn Féin have made clear decisions because people do not want criminal activity, and it would be astonishing if, overnight — as the IMC report states —individuals were not doing things for their own private gain. At some point unionism needs to recognise that Northern Ireland has been absolutely and completely transformed and that that process is deepening all the time, week by week, month by month and year by year. There have been bad regressions of the kind that Ian Paisley Jnr pointed out over the weekend, but the picture shows a total transformation. Members could keep searching for perfection to the end of their days, and they would probably never find it, but by doing so they would miss the opportunity that exists for Northern Ireland’s self-government to work, with all the possibilities and potential that that offers. That would be very sad. Mr Kennedy: Are you contemplating any measures to increase the powers of the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) or any change in its conditions? Mr Hain: The recently established Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) is energetically and vigilantly pursuing ex-paramilitary groups, dissident republicans and some loyalists groups that continue their paramilitary involvement in criminal activity and serious crime. The ARA, working in concert with its opposite number across the border, is doing the same. Big operations have been launched over the past year, and that will continue. Be in no doubt: we will not compromise on rooting out criminal activity from wherever it comes, and especially if it has any paramilitary association. Ms Gildernew: How can Mr Hain be confident that criminal activity, up to and including murder through collusion, will be properly pursued, given that no prosecutions have yet been brought as a result of the Stevens Inquiry? He mentioned the McCord case earlier. Will he elaborate on what is happening with that case? Mr Hain: I want to see prosecutions resulting from the investigation. The Historical Enquiries Team is contributing to this, and the Chief Constable is taking it forward. I want to see prosecutions in all those cases where that is possible. I do not know what will be in the Ombudsman’s report, but if, as a result of that report, evidence is brought that would sustain a prosecution, a prosecution should follow. The McCord case is an appalling case and an appalling stain on the history of Northern Ireland. Mr A Maginness: The Secretary of State has said that Northern Ireland has been transformed in terms of paramilitarism, and that is true up to a point. However, loyalist paramilitarism remains a residual and stubborn problem. It is the most active form of paramilitarism here, and it has in many ways descended further into covert criminality. That is surely the most pressing problem in relation to criminality and paramilitarism that remains here. Mr Hain: The most serious danger at the moment — as we saw with the attempt to explode a 250 lb bomb in Lurgan — comes from RIRA and CIRA, the dissident republicans. However, loyalist gangsterism is also very serious. 11.30 am Mr Chairman, as I am due to make an announcement within a few hours, may I take this opportunity to inform members of the Committee as a courtesy? I have been working very closely with loyalist community representatives, especially in the UPRG, who want to take their organisations and communities forward to comply with the rule of law and to emerge from the bad position in which they have been. They are still, to a large extent, involved in criminality and paramilitary activity. The UPRG has proposed a conflict transformation initiative, which would aim to turn loyalist communities away from the influence of paramilitaries and criminality. Later today, I will announce that under the supervision and administration of Farset Youth and Community Development Ltd, which is a well-established and respected community organisation, the Government will make a limited amount of funding available for six months in order to employ project workers who will undertake that important work. When the leaders of the UPRG approach the Secretary of State to say that they want to move forward into a new Northern Ireland without the mire of criminality, gangsterism and paramilitarism, that must be considered a positive sign. They have told me that since the IRA has ceased its paramilitary activity, there is no point in the UDA and associated individuals being engaged in the kind of activities that they have been engaged in, past and present. That is an encouraging sign. I want to support their emergence from conflict. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Thank you, Secretary of State, for answering the various questions that were posed to you. You are aware that the Assembly will debate the PFG Committee’s report tomorrow and on Wednesday. I am sure that you will pay close attention to matters that Members raise. Mr Molloy will escort you out of the Senate Chamber. We are grateful to you for your time. On your next visit, we must address the matter of the chairs, which must have intimidated all those concerned. Mr Hain: I am grateful for the meeting and consider it valuable. My Ministers and I are at the Committee’s disposal — perhaps not on a daily or weekly basis, but when the Committee feels that dialogue should take place. I wish the Committee the best of luck in its work and in the plenaries. I want to thank the Chairmen, you and Francie Molloy, for the leadership that you have shown to the PFG Committee. The Chairman (Mr Wells): It is 11.32 am. The timing has been good, despite the efforts of certain individuals to grandstand. I do not want to name anybody in particular, although there were some clever attempts to turn one question into four and to make certain statements. Nevertheless, we got through the meeting on time. Everyone was equally guilty, so I do not believe that there will be any repercussions. I thought that it was best that when the Secretary of State arrived, we made maximum use of his time and did not delay with preliminaries. We shall go through the Committee members now. We are at full strength. The Ulster Unionists are represented by Mr Kennedy, Mr McFarland and Mr Cobain. Mr McFarland: Mr Cobain represented Mr McNarry. The Chairman (Mr Wells): The DUP are represented by Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Hay on behalf of Lord Morrow, and Mr Weir on behalf of Willie McCrea. Mrs Long: David Ford was present but had to leave for a funeral. Kieran McCarthy is here in his place. Mr G Kelly: Ms Gildernew, Mr McGuinness and I are present. Mr A Maginness: Mr Attwood, Mrs Kelly and I are present on behalf of Mark Durkan, Seán Farren and Alasdair McDonnell. The Chairman (Mr Wells): Somebody had to draw the short straw. Members’ questions were extremely relevant: no waffle or extraneous material was included. I was grateful that I did not need to call anybody to order with regard to material. Perhaps timing was a problem, although the material was fine. I want to mention a couple of issues. The minutes of the meeting on 13 September were signed off and will be included in a report. Committee protocol is that members note those minutes when we table a report. The next meeting of the Committee on strand one matters is today at 2.30 pm. We are halfway through the report, which we want to complete at that meeting. There will be an overlap for some members who are involved in that. There is no further business. I want to thank members for their co-operation in making that such a smooth session. Adjourned at 11.36 am. |