Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order 2010

My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the noble Baroness for introducing the orders and to congratulate her on her good fortune—which she deserves because of the benign interest that she has shown in the affairs of Northern Ireland in the period that she has been leading this House—in being able to bring forward such important and positive legislation. I will speak to only one point at the heart of her initial speech. Other noble Lords have also referred to it. It is the issue of the independence of the chief constable. It may seem a technical difficulty with the new arrangements, but it is a very real one. Mr Peter Smith QC, a member of the Patten commission, and Mr Alex Attwood of the SDLP, have in recent months been in the van of the argument for police reform in Northern Ireland. When one recalls that in recent months they have raised issues about the new protocols, and concerns about whether the independence of the chief constable will be preserved, one realises that there is an issue here. In particular, there is a political issue that no Government can resolve, namely the need for Sinn Fein to present the devolution of policing and justice as, in Mr Adams's words, a staging post towards a united Ireland. That might seem rather a strained way of viewing the replacement of Mr Paul Goggins of New Labour by Mr Ford of the Alliance Party. It seems a grand interpretation of what looks like a relatively small political event, but none the less that language is out there and it conditions the debate. There is nothing that the Government can do about that. However, there are fundamentally crucial new technical questions that arise from these new arrangements. The Serious Organised Crime Agency will remain responsible to London, not to the devolved institutions. So will the intelligence services in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness referred to the issue in her opening remarks as the interface. Very helpfully, she pointed out that where technical difficulties of competence arise, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will have a role. That is very reassuring to the many Members of this House who have enormous respect for the acumen that the noble Lord brings to these issues. None the less, there will be problems. I will give one simple example of a crowd scene and a riot in Northern Ireland. There surely will be another riot in Northern Ireland some day soon. The chief constable will have a responsibility to deal with the aftermath in public with the Minister of Justice. However, let us say there is a shooting in the crowd and terrorists are involved. There will be issues of terrorist activity, of intercepts in relation to that activity, and of the role of the intelligence services. It is a very clear cut example of the ways in which we now have a very messy situation to which, at this point, no one has answers. The two things are caught up—the responsibility of the chief constable for national security and the responsibility of the chief constable to the local devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that I repeat a point which the noble Baroness has listened to many times and patiently responded to many times regarding the Government’s support for the independence of the chief constable. I ask her to do so one more time if only because, given the difficult times ahead, it cannot be put on the record too often. With the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I also ask about the parliamentary scrutiny of these new issues as they arise. A new space of contestation has been created and the chief constable faces a new difficulty; he will have to face towards two different authorities in his operation, and the job becomes that much more difficult. We must do everything possible to help the chief constable carry out his duties professionally.