I rise to speak after some first-class contributions by people who know far more about this subject than I do. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), my colleague on the Select Committee, has articulated the way forward given the issues facing us in Northern Ireland.
For the past 30 years, the situation in Northern Ireland has rightly evoked strong emotions among all the parties involved, but we have now reached an important turning point, and we should do all that we can to encourage the process to achieve a peaceful resolution. Over the past decade, the threat of terrorism has greatly diminished. I, too, welcome the IRA statement of July and the report by the Independent Monitoring Commission in October that showed that progress had been made. A ““permanent and irreversible”” shift away from violence by paramilitary organisations is the only way in which we can create the ““enabling environment”” needed for sustainable peace. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, the IRA must cease to engage in all forms of organised crime and other criminal activity. It must also accept the legitimacy of the police and the criminal justice systems in the north and the south, and encourage full co-operation with them.
The measures in the Bill, while enforcing the provisions of part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000, pave the way for ““normalisation””, as many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out. However, we must not allow that process to begin while paramilitary groups such as the IRA maintain a blatant disrespect for law and order. It is important that we do not rush into the process without careful consideration of the consequences should the IRA go back on its word. Decisions such as dismantling security installations and watchtowers, dismantling the service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and reducing the permanent garrison in the Province by half to 5,000 should be reviewed after a period of time. The IMC concluded that"““clearly we are looking for cumulative indications of changes in behaviour over a more sustained period of time””."
Can the Secretary of State tell us what a ““sustained period of time”” is? We must take into account the fact that the troubles in Northern Ireland have been going on for over 30 years. As much as we want to accelerate the peace process, perhaps we should adopt a patient approach.
It is important to address the issue of loyalist paramilitaries. Much has been made of IRA decommissioning and yet, as the IMC confirmed, the threat from loyalist paramilitary organisations remains serious. If we can take anything from the events of recent years it is that we cannot be complacent about any threat of terrorism from any quarter. Like many others, I watched with disgust the recent violence and disruption on the streets of Belfast following the re-routing of a contentious Orange Order march. It was not, as one would presume, violence instigated by republican organisations. Instead, loyalist paramilitaries attacked our country’s police and Army. That is not to be tolerated, especially as it is perpetrated by people who claim to be loyal to the United Kingdom. Loyalist organisations are responsible for more violent attacks than republican organisations, and over the past six months the margin of difference has grown even wider. I call upon the Government urgently to address the current Unionist disaffection with the process. It is imperative that everyone is included and works together.
I am gravely concerned about the fact that there has been little constructive discussion of the process beyond the two-year normalisation period. I hope that the Secretary of State has taken on board hon. Members’ concerns about the transition from Diplock courts to trial by jury, and that he will consider that carefully. A clear timetable of action communicated to the parties involved would ensure that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
It cannot be denied that the Bill is an essential part of the final ““enabling environment””, and I support its measures. It would be irresponsible to allow the provisions in part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 to lapse without sufficient safeguards in their place and the Bill will continue to make such provision. The additional powers for the Attorney General of Northern Ireland are important in helping us to distinguish between offences under criminal law and offences under terrorism laws, which may prove significant in measuring the success of the IRA statement.
Finally, will the Secretary of State consider carefully the points that we have made this evening? I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will show their support for the Bill and for any sensible measures that will finally allow the people of Northern Ireland to live in a country that is no longer threatened by terrorism or violence.
Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Fraser
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 31 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c665-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:14:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271698
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271698
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271698