Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

I realise that the issue was touched on in the other place and at Second Reading, and I fully understand why the amendment has been brought forward; I do not cast any aspersions on the Opposition for doing so. I shall make my point as briefly as I can, because I am essentially repeating what I said at Second Reading. We are committed—I think that we all are—to repealing Part 7 as part of the security normalisation programme. Part of that—it was issued in the summer, after the IRA statement—was basically a two-year programme, putting an end date in sight for the normalisation of the security situation in Northern Ireland. That would take us to the summer of 2007. In case there is any doubt as we proceed towards that date, we have provision for a possible further 12 months, but there is nothing after that, partly as a means of giving the end date a degree of finality. We have made clear the Government’s fundamental duty to protect the people of Northern Ireland. If we failed, we would be back with a fresh Bill to proceed after summer 2008. We do not plan for, or want, that. It is no good saying to people, ““We are going to have a security normalisation programme””. There have been fundamental shifts in the situation in Northern Ireland, as, I hope, the Independent Monitoring Commission has confirmed, following the IRA statement of July and decommissioning in September. Those are major changes. We are going forward to a different regime, in the sense that it is more normal, in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Having a date for that gives a degree of finality; it is a target date. There is no doubt that we always reserve the ability to come back and seek further powers but we want to push further the fact that we want a normal society in Northern Ireland. That is one of the reasons for the end date. The amendment provides one solution to the uncertainty but no finality on the end date. Therefore, we do not think it is the right approach. I have to say that on the part of the opposition parties, although the Liberal Democrats are not supporting the amendment, there is a desire for the provisions to continue after 18 February this year, because if the Bill does not receive Royal Assent by then the whole process stops. I do not want to put words into people’s mouths, but it is remarkable that, given the comments of two of its speakers before Christmas, the Democratic Unionist Party clearly does not want the Bill through. Indeed, they called for my resignation because I was in Westminster dealing with Northern Ireland legislation and not elsewhere. That shows the degree of importance that the DUP attributes to the issue. Clearly it does not want Diplock courts and the other issues to continue after 18 February. However, the consensus is that we still need those provisions for the time being, certainly for another year or 18 months, and possibly for a year after that, but only one year. The Government will make other changes in the near future, as we have indicated, as part of the normalisation process and further devolution proposals. That lets the people of Northern Ireland know that there has been change, but, on the other hand, we will take no risks with their safety and security, which will be a top priority for the Government. We are not going off on a wing and a prayer. These are quite exceptional measures, and we will do whatever is appropriate to the security situation. We hope and expect to reach a more normal process according to the timetable set out in the Bill—a maximum of 2008, if need be, but that would be the final extension. We will of course look at other provisions to replace the current arrangements. At Second Reading it was pointed out that it will not be easy to jump from a Diplock court with a single judge to the new arrangements in one jump. Over the summer we will look at other proposals, and other legislation will be brought forward to the House. It is worth putting on record, to save me getting on my feet again, that in a Written Answer in the House of Commons a Member asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,"““what plans he has to review the necessity for non-jury trials in respect of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland””." The Minister replied to the effect that we are considering the system that will replace the system that operates under Part 7 of the legislation that we are renewing. He added that,"““we should have detailed proposals worked up next summer and . . . these will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/06; col. 330W.]" It is not as though nothing else is planned. There will be plenty of opportunities to debate the proposals. On finality, I repeat that we will not take risks with the security and safety of people in Northern Ireland. If things do not go according to plan—although there is every indication that they will—we will come back to Parliament in good time with further legislation. There will be no big surprises dumped on this House or the other House; we will not introduce emergency legislation with no time for debate. The Government’s commitment to both Houses is to provide plenty of opportunity for debate, so I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.