Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill

I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his comments. He invited me to make a choice but I may need to take a little more time in order to do so. However, I shall make some observations on the matter. A noble Lord mentioned a sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he replied to the debate on Second Reading, which had slipped my memory. However, it raises a general issue, which, to a certain extent, came up in the Attorney-General’s reply. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said on Second Reading: "““We are reluctant to put forward the case that a Minister in London should decide, in effect, the mode of trial””.—[Official Report, 20/2/07; col. 1053.]—" that is, in Northern Ireland. But, as the Committee knows, that is precisely what has happened for the past 34 years. Since 1973, a Minister here has decided that. Furthermore, that Minister is accountable. That latter point is in itself very important. As I said, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and I drafted this provision with the present situation in mind. Even if devolution occurs on 26 March, as the Government hope, the Attorney-General here will continue to make the relevant decision. What should happen with policing and justice matters after devolution, if they are devolved—that ““if”” still has to be underlined—is a matter on which I should like to think further as serious problems arise on that issue. But you know, there was one thing that the Attorney-General said towards the end with reference to my Amendment No. 49, when he came out with that famous phrase, ““Northern Ireland is different””. Different where? It is not. There is organised crime in England and Wales, perhaps even on a larger scale than in Northern Ireland. There are paramilitary organisations in England and Wales. The retiring head of the Security Service said a few months ago that there were 1,200 suspects, persons who might be likely to commit terrorist offences who were being observed of whom the service was aware. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, may want to intervene on me on this, but 1,200 is several times the total number of persons on active service in the Provisional IRA at any one time. So to say that Northern Ireland is different is wrong. No, it is not. The problems exist here too. They may perhaps not yet have fully worked their way through into the mind of the Government, although they are aware of the terrorist threat here and aware that it is as great if not greater than any threat in Northern Ireland. It may yet have produced the same toll of incidents and fatalities, but there is a long way to go on that. It is not right as a matter of fact to proceed on the basis that we are dealing with two different situations in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland; and it is not right as a matter of principle to say that we shall treat the two on a completely different basis. We will want to come back to that again. I will reflect on what has been said, especially the question posed to me by the Attorney-General, and hope that we can explore the matter a little more later. I apologise for not being able to give a clear answer at the moment, but I would not want to reply off-the-cuff without having considered the matter further. I am still very much of the view that it is highly desirable to have the decision on the mode of trial out of the hands of the prosecutor and exercised by someone who is not only accountable but more independent than the prosecutor may be. We cannot press this at the moment; all we can do is debate it; so we will have to leave it there unless there is something that the Attorney-General wants to say.