If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, as I would like other hon. Members, particularly those from Northern Ireland, to have the opportunity to speak.
Lord Carlile expressed concern about delays in the processing of scheduled offences. In his last report he said that that was taking longer in 2004 than in 2000, even though there were significantly fewer such cases to be processed. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether the situation has now improved and, if not, whether the Government are considering the use of powers under sections 72 and 73 of part VII to make statutory regulations to impose time limits on those cases.
I have a question about the private security industry. In England and Wales, the system relies on enhanced criminal records checks, which include not just information about convictions but details of police intelligence about the individuals concerned. The reason for the different approach in Northern Ireland, and as seen in the Bill, is that successive Governments have worried about the prospect of people from a paramilitary background being in receipt of evidence about police intelligence held against them, including, obviously, details of the informer who may have provided the police with that intelligence.
Do the Government think it likely, or even possible, that in the foreseeable future we will be in a position where we could allow the disclosure of police intelligence to people being vetted for a post in the private security industry in Northern Ireland? Does not that again suggest that some type of arrangement unique to Northern Ireland will continue to be needed after 2008?
Do we need the powers brought in after the Omagh bombing under which the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible as evidence in respect of membership of a specified organisation? My understanding is that, in practice, this power has never been used. As the Secretary of State knows, my party has always been uneasy about the idea of specification, whereby we have two categories of illegal terrorist organisations. In one category, specified organisations, the word of the police counts as evidence of membership. In the other category, non-specified but proscribed organisations, police evidence does not count in the same way. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about that.
I want to finish by touching briefly on an issue that was raised earlier in interventions: this Bill’s relationship to the Government’s policy on terrorists on the run. I hope, as others have expressed the hope, that we will get the opportunity to discuss the Government’s proposals fairly soon, and before we have to decide on the content of such legislation, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), said in an intervention. Frankly, I find it frustrating that members of Sinn Fein have seen, so they tell me, the Government’s proposals and are happy with them, but that my party and, I think, the Liberal Democrats, have not had access to the details of what the Government have in mind.
Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Lidington
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 31 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c642-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:14:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271647
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271647
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271647