Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that a range of other oversight bodies can obtain that information if inquiries lead in that direction. In this case, it is important that the commission faces forward. Perhaps hon. Members should evaluate its contribution in a different way. It dealt with 920 cases last year. It is a busy organisation. It is doing a good job and should be supported in its work to ensure that people’s human rights are adhered to. Major changes are taking place to Army and police powers in Northern Ireland. We are repealing part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 from next July. As was made clear, many of the provisions of part VII have been removed. Only those that are essential for security in Northern Ireland are included in the Bill. Alongside the changes in legislation, the changes to the presence of the Army are profound. As of the summer of next year, the Army will no longer be deployed in Northern Ireland. There will be a garrison force, but it will be there just as other troops are based in north Yorkshire or any other part of the United Kingdom. That will be its home and it will be out on operations throughout the world along with the rest of its colleagues in the British Army. These are big changes. Again, we have to see the optimistic side of that, but we must also have regard to the risks that remain. The minimal powers in the Bill enable us to do that. In particular, they allow us to deal with public disorder. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the problems of Whiterock. In a sense, that is our benchmark for the measures that we are introducing to deal with that level of paramilitary-inspired disorder. The police and the Army must be able to deal with that. The Army clearly has special expertise when it comes to explosives, and we need provisions for that purpose as well. The Army needs to be there to support the police, as it would in the event of serious disorder anywhere in Great Britain. In particular, it is needed to manage parades. I gave the example of Whiterock. We have had an extremely good year, the most peaceful that many can remember, but none of us should think that one year means there will never be a challenge in the future. We must be prepared to ensure that we can always maintain order and make certain that people are secure in their own communities. It is also important for the Army and police to have powers to search for weapons, deal with bomb threats and cordon off roads if such action is necessary. These are not powers that we hope to see used more and more, but they are powers that will be required for the foreseeable future. It should be emphasised that the Army has no direct national security role. It is there to give important back-up to the police and the civil authorities, which is why it needs these powers. Let me reassure the right hon. Member for Torfaen about another issue that he raised. He asked how we would review the powers for the Army and the police, which was a fair question. As he will have noted, there is provision for a review and a report to the Secretary of State so that we can look carefully at how the legislation is working. That will help the Secretary of State to decide whether to remove powers if they are no longer needed, which clause 40 allows him to do. The review will also deal with any military complaints. I think that there were only six last year, but it is important for someone to be able to deal with such complaints if necessary, and the same person will perform both those functions. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle took us down the route of national security—as I thought he might, although very little in the Bill pertains to it. I do not want to dwell on the subject for too long, but it would be wrong if I did not respond to some of what my hon. Friend said. There is no massive new role for MI5 in Northern Ireland. If those were not the words my hon. Friend used, that was certainly the impression conveyed in his speech. Accountability is changing, however. I know that my hon. Friend disagrees with the way in which it is changing, but we think it is changing in the right way, to ensure that national security in Northern Ireland is on the same footing as national security in every other part of the United Kingdom. Let me make three points. First, all police officers, wherever they are based— and whether they are working on the streets of Belfast or any other part of Northern Ireland, or working with the Security Service in Northern Ireland—have all the accountability that any police officer has. They are of course accountable to the Chief Constable, and also to the police ombudsman. Nothing, but nothing, will change that. It is important for the people of Northern Ireland to understand that the provisions we have set down for transparency and accountability are not diminished one bit by the changes in primacy. Secondly, the Chief Constable and the ombudsman are in the process of agreeing protocols with the Security Service so that all those organisations know precisely where they stand when it comes to dealing with any investigations or information. That, too, should offer reassurance. It is not true to say that the Security Service has no routes to accountability: the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee are just two of the bodies that can provide accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle may want to intervene again briefly in a second. First, let me say that there will be no force within a force. Anyone who claims otherwise is not really taking cognisance of the measures that we have provided to ensure proper accountability. Equally, there can be no open access to security intelligence for anyone who fancies taking a look. We must protect the people of Northern Ireland and make certain that they are secure, and some of the information involved needs to remain secret, albeit with the accountability that I have mentioned.