Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

I join other hon. Members in thanking those who chaired the Committee for the excellent way in which they did so, and for the amicable way in which business was conducted. As one of the newer Members, I would also like to thank them for the way in which they sought to guide those of us who are parliamentary apprentices and still learning the ropes and rules of the House. It has been made clear in our discussions in Committee and in our debates today that there are many aspects of the Bill that we welcome, as well as some with which we are unhappy and which we believe to be mistakes. Nevertheless, the tenor of the Bill is such that it addresses issues of concern to people in Northern Ireland. It will at least ensure that some of the safeguards that people feared were being removed are left in place. We have discussed the possible retention of non-jury courts. We also believe that, when there are to be jury courts, the safeguards that will be placed on those selected as jurors—such as a greater degree of anonymity—should give a greater assurance that the administration of justice will not be tampered with by those who seek to subvert it in order to carry on their criminal activities. One issue has not been discussed today. We have debated organised crime in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the proposed requirements for licensing in the private security industry will be welcomed. There was great concern about those who had been involved in paramilitary activity and who had used their paramilitary groups as a front for carrying out what they described as private security initiatives, which in reality were a means of demanding protection money. Licensing those who will carry out private security will go some way to addressing the concerns expressed by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee when it considered organised crime. We do not think that the Human Rights Commission has proved that it is capable of carrying out its existing extensive role. It has not clothed itself in any glory in its first four or five years. To give additional powers to such an untried and untested organisation, which has failed to live up to its duties so far, is wrong. On the devolution of policing and justice, we welcome the Minister’s assurance that the triple lock remains in place. We sought that arrangement not so that we could have a veto that we could use unwisely, but because the devolution of policing and justice is crucial and could have a detrimental effect on the Assembly—if the Assembly is to be up and running—if it was introduced too soon. There needs to be a degree of control so that it is not simply handed over to meet the political demands of Sinn Fein. There had to be, and there has to be, confidence that those powers can be properly exercised by the Assembly and those in it. That is why the triple lock is so important and why we welcome the assurance that it is in place. DUP Members have made it clear time and again that we do not intend to use it unwisely, in some petty manner, but it will be used if we think that the devolution of policing and justice will be detrimental to the exercise of trying to get devolution up and running. I raised a query in Committee. I still have not received an answer. Perhaps the Minister will respond now, because it exercises all of us. Why does the power in clause 25 for the police and the Army to stop vehicles extend to all vehicles apart from aircraft that are airborne? He promised that he would do his best to enlighten us. How did he intend the police to stop an aircraft that was airborne?