Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill so succintly. There is a somewhat surreal quality to the debate today in the light of the recent Stormontgate revelations, but that is for another time. During the progress of the Terrorism Act 2000 through Parliament, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the fact that those measures were to be in place only for five years and were to be subject to renewal by Parliament by statutory instrument every twelve months. Along with many other noble Lords, I have participated in many of the debates on the statutory instruments which renewed the provisions, and others who have listened to and read the debates will agree that it is very important that Parliament has been able to look at the provisions on a regular basis and to make its own judgement about the situation in Northern Ireland and whether those provisions remained necessary. It has also been extremely useful in the run-up to these debates to have been able to study the annual reports of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. His work in this area has been invaluable. Unfortunately, given the time-frame needed to have this Bill on the statute books before the provisions run out in February, we are unable to see his deliberations on the operation of Part VII of the 2000 Act in the current year, but we shall be looking very closely at his latest report when it is published. It is still important to ensure that the measures we are debating today—which this Bill seeks to keep in force—are subject to a very specific time limit. We welcome the fact that Part VII is to be extended for only a very limited time—until 31 July 2007. There is provision in the Bill for the sections that are then in force to continue in force no later than 1 August 2008, but again with specific parliamentary approval by statutory instrument. I congratulate the Government on facilitating that. It is desperately important that Parliament is able to look regularly and closely at whether such measures are indeed necessary in Northern Ireland. It is regrettable that insufficient progress has been made in Northern Ireland in the five years since the 2000 Act was passed to render the provisions of Part VII redundant. Although some progress has been made recently in Northern Ireland, there has been such turmoil in the intervening years that it is with much regret that we have to agree with the Government that the provisions of Part VII are still necessary. While the IRA statement in July and the subsequent decommissioning of IRA weapons were significant events, the fact that it took so long to happen—five and a half years after all paramilitaries were meant to have completed decommissioning and seven and a half years after the signing of the Good Friday agreement—has meant that we have not yet had sufficient time to judge whether the IRA will be true to its word. The signs from the latest IMC report are encouraging and we look forward to its next report in January. Although there has been progress in relation to IRA violence, there unfortunately has not been similar progress made in relation to loyalist violence or dissident republicans. The violence that we saw over the summer from loyalist paramilitaries was truly horrific and unfortunately demonstrated in no uncertain terms why it is necessary for Part VII of the 2000 Act to remain in force. In saying that though, we were very encouraged to see in October that the UDA was continuing to talk to the decommissioning commission. Can the Minister tell us if any progress is being made or if there have been subsequent meetings? Is the Minister hopeful that other loyalist paramilitaries might follow this example? Can he indicate to the House what the Government are doing to persuade loyalists to give up their arms? We are pleased that in the past five years the Government have largely accepted the recommendations put forward in his annual reports by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. We are particularly pleased that the Government are not now seeking to resurrect Sections 70 and 71, which were repealed earlier this year. Those sections provided for the Secretary of State to make directions for young persons charged with a scheduled offence to be held in adult prisons while on remand. The power derived from a time when young persons were held in remand homes. These were insecure and presented serious problems in the management of some of the remand population. Thankfully, there have been great advances in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland in recent years, with Hydebank Young Offenders Centre and the Juvenile Justice Centre now being able to provide the level of security that is needed. These are welcome developments and the Government are right to ensure that those sections do not return to the statute book. However, in his report on the operation of Part VII, my noble friend Lord Carlile raised some concerns in relation to Section 108 of the 2000 Act. It makes provisions for the evidence that may lead a court to conclude that a Section 11 offence—membership of a proscribed organisation—has been committed. Subsections (2) and (3) of that section render admissible under Section 11 charge hearsay evidence which would not otherwise be admissible. The evidence must be given orally by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent. If it is his opinion that the accused belongs to an organisation which is specified, that statement ““shall be admissible”” as evidence of the matter stated. In his 2004 report, Lord Carlile found that Section 108 had not been used. In paragraph 19.7 of that report he states,"““I am totally unpersuaded by the arguments for its retention . . . Section 108 could be repealed without any measurable disadvantage to the cause of public protection from terrorism. It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement””." By virtue of this Bill, Section 108 would continue to remain in force. The issue was thoroughly debated in another place, where the Minister argued that only when the provision is tested will we know whether my noble friend Lord Carlile’s concerns are justified. The Minister further argued that its repeal would undermine a prosecution case in relation to the Omagh bombing. We have considered those arguments very carefully. Can the Minister indicate whether, if it came to 2008 and the Government decided that the situation was such in Northern Ireland that Part VII was not on the whole necessary, they would keep Section 108 on the statute book if it had still not been tested? Our other issue of concern raised in the other place related to Diplock courts. We very much welcome the assurances given by the Minister to consult on new arrangements and put them to pre-legislative scrutiny. On the basis of those reassurances we shall not be pressing this issue at this time. It is important to ensure that the Part VII provisions of the 2000 Act remain in force for the time being. We shall, however, be studying with great interest and in detail the next IMC report and my noble friend Lord Carlile’s next report. We sincerely hope that this is the last time that these provisions need to come before the House.