For the purposes of clarification, I repeat: this is a simple option for consideration by the Assembly, and it can choose another one. Yes, we will impose it, because it has merit across the board, and there will be an opportunity to consider it, but the point is that it is an option, and if the Assembly as a whole does not wish to pursue it, it can choose another option for devolution.
I commend new clause 5 to the House because it achieves the objective of giving a wider choice to the Assembly, and provides an opportunity to maintain the purposes of the triple lock, which we have discussed on many occasions. It will help to progress devolution in the event of failure—if the Assembly cannot achieve a resolution of the potential models for the future.
I want to touch briefly on the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, who raised concerns about national security, which I tried to address in my opening remarks. In our discussions with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Chief Constable has been supportive of this change in national security primacy. He also said that five key principles must be met in order to secure his support. The Government accept that and we will ensure that effect be given to those five key principles. For the sake of the House as a whole, I point out that the Chief Constable wants to ensure that all Security Service intelligence relating to terrorism in Northern Ireland is visible to the PSNI, and I agree with that premise, as do the Government. He wants to ensure that the PSNI will be informed of all Security Service counter-terrorist investigations and operations in Northern Ireland, and we agree with that. We also agree with the Chief Constable that Security Service intelligence should be disseminated within the PSNI according to the current PSNI dissemination policy, and using police procedures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle also raised the question of PSNI officers continuing to deal with the great majority of national security issues in Northern Ireland under existing police handling protocols. There will be no diminution of the PSNI’s ability to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 or the Policing Board’s ability to monitor said compliance. From my perspective and in view of the Chief Constable’s support, our approach makes sense. The Chief Constable has laid down conditions, but essentially there is support for transferring such intelligence matters to the security services. I am afraid that I therefore have to reject new clauses 2 and 4, tabled by my hon. Friend, and I urge the House to do the same and to support new clause 5.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanson of Flint
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 6 February 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
456 c755-6 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:04:38 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376256
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376256
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_376256