Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

My hon. Friend puts it very well. We require a profound ideological change from an organisation that regards itself, as the IRA’s constitution asserts, as the legitimate government of Ireland, both north and south, to show that it has become a genuinely democratic organisation that supports the police and upholds the rule of law. I have no problem with debating or fighting elections against a democratic movement that loathes the partition of Ireland and yearns for a united Irish republic, provided that that body accepts the principle that constitutional change can come only through the free consent of the people, and works within the constitutional structures of Northern Ireland, within the rule of law, in order to achieve its objectives. For the purposes of this argument, let us be optimistic—let us lay the scepticism to one side and assume that the Provisional IRA completes that transition from terrorism to democracy. What, then, would be the situation in 2007 or 2008? We have seen little concrete evidence yet that the major loyalist paramilitaries are about to cease their violence, intimidation or involvement in crime. We know, too, that dissident republicans remain a serious threat. The independent assessor of military complaints procedures, in his report for 2004, listed 44 serious incidents attributed to republican dissidents, and only weeks ago we saw a vicious attack on the deputy chairman of the Policing Board, leaving that brave man with severe injuries as a consequence. I find it impossible to believe, even on the most optimistic assumptions that we can make this afternoon, that by 2008 we will be in a position in which none of the part VII powers continue to be needed. As Lord Carlile put it in his most recent report, at paragraph 2.9:"““It seems reasonably likely that syndicated crime with a paramilitary connection . . . is a clear and potentially permanent part of the criminal intelligence picture of Northern Ireland””." He continued in paragraph 2.11:"““On both sides of the sectarian divide, there continues a clear danger of intimidation within living and working neighbourhoods””." As the Independent Monitoring Commission pointed out:"““Unreported acts of intimidation are far more numerous than acts of violence, are often traumatic in their impact and are not recorded in statistics.””" If we are trying to ensure that we have in place a system of criminal justice procedure that gives law-abiding citizens the courage to come forward with information and not to fear retaliation, we need to be aware that that fear of paramilitaries remains acute. The Northern Ireland Office’s most recent statistical bulletin, number 11/2005, showed that no fewer than 40 per cent. of people interviewed said that they were unlikely to report someone if they knew that that person had been involved in serious crime. We all know the reasons for that reluctance. It is not sympathy for the criminals. It is fear. It is terror of retaliation against oneself or one’s family. So what will happen in 2007 or 2008? The Secretary of State said that he is still considering possible options. He has known for a long time, as did his predecessor, that part VII would have to be replaced by February 2006, so I suspect that a review of some sort must have taken place in the Northern Ireland Office. I wonder whether, sitting in a pending tray at Hillsborough, there are revised proposals that are ready to be made if and when that proves necessary, or do the Government have in mind relying on powers incorporated into United Kingdom counter-terrorist and criminal justice legislation? For example, does the Secretary of State expect the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that allow for non-jury trials in cases of possible jury tampering to be applied after 2007 or 2008 to Northern Ireland for the sort of cases that we have been debating? There are various detailed matters in the Bill that we may wish to explore further in Standing Committee, but I want to touch briefly on three further points.