Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to put that on record. People who live on the mainland of the United Kingdom sometimes do not recognise that an underlying level of violence continues in republican and loyalist communities. Normalisation in the Province cannot simply be achieved by violence disappearing from news reports. Violence must disappear on the ground in the Province and true lawful behaviour must be introduced. The Ulster Defence Association has, however, at least continued its talks with the Decommissioning Commission. But perhaps the most significant development took place this morning, when the Loyalist Volunteer Force announced its intention to stand down. As we have already heard, the feud between the Ulster Volunteer Force and the LVF has had a devastating effect on the loyalist community. What will matter, once again, will be the Independent Monitoring Commission report in January on whether LVF violence has indeed come to an end. I shall move on to the details of the Bill. I am pleased that over the past five years the Government have largely accepted the recommendations put forward in the annual reports written by my noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. I am especially pleased that the Government do not wish to resurrect sections 70 and 71 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which were repealed earlier this year. Those provisions allowed 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 powers come from a time when young persons were held in remand homes. Those homes were insecure and serious problems were presented in the management of some of their remand population. Thankfully, there have been great advances in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland over recent years and Hydebank young offenders centre and the juvenile justice centre are now able to provide the security required. Those developments are welcome and the Government are right to ensure that those sections do not return to the statute book. Lord Carlile raised worries about section 108 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in his 2004 report on the operation of part VII of the Act. That section makes provisions on 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 section 108 render admissible under a section 11 charge hearsay evidence that 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 the opinion of that officer that the accused belongs to an organisation that is specified, the statement ““shall be admissible”” as evidence of the matter stated. Lord Carlile found in 2004 that section 108 had not been used. Paragraph 19.7 of his report 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.””" However, section 108 will continue to remain in force under the Bill.