Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

Shortly before the start of the new Parliament, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), as members of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, were pleased to make a pleasant and informative visit to Northern Ireland. I pass on our thanks, through the Minister, to the Northern Ireland Office. Our welcome was as warm as the visit was well organised. I am pleased to be a member of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee and hope to play a small yet full part in its important work, although it is the first time that I have accepted a job in an organisation that I hope will be done away with when power is returned to Stormont, the wonderful seat of Government in Northern Ireland that I was so happy to visit. The magnificent view from Stormont looking over the city of Belfast will live with me for a long time. It was my first visit to Northern Ireland, despite having a grandmother from there. My generation grew up thinking that Northern Ireland was somewhere that people would go only if they needed to, so it was wonderful to see now a thriving, vibrant European city that reminded me of my home city—Leeds—and of Manchester, near where I was born, and of Glasgow, where I spent two happy years. I agree with the conclusion of my hon. Friend who said that we would very much like to take our spouses and families on our next visit. But I also saw first hand for the first time the roads and areas that are known the world over and I found that experience more startling and more revealing than I could have imagined. It was not the murals, the bunting, the memorials or even the peace walls, which I was sad to hear are still getting ever higher and longer, that left the most impression on me, but the comments of the helpful official from the Northern Ireland Office. As we turned a corner, he said, ““These people are all Catholics.”” We turned another corner, he said, ““The people at that bus stop are all Protestants.”” Indeed, when we turned another corner, we saw a Tesco supermarket, and I asked, ““Are you telling me that only one side of the community goes to that supermarket?”” He said, ““Yes, that is a Protestant Tesco.”” Many of us who live on the British mainland have grown up with false assumptions and misunderstandings, and from my own experience, I know that people need to see some of those things to try even to start to understand them. I also saw the debris and the damage caused by the appalling violence of the summer, and it is clear to the Liberal Democrats that most of the measures in the Bill are still needed, which is why we support the Government on that. I concluded that some of the time-limited measures in the Bill are also needed, and, again, we support the Government on that. Indeed, Lord Carlile’s letter, which was so helpfully distributed to us this afternoon, says:"““In sum, I remain of the view that, in terms of the prevention of terrorism, some special powers remain necessary.””" However, some of those powers are more difficult to accept than others. In last week’s debate on the Terrorism Bill—a debate in which I was very pleased to take part—there was much discussion about striking a balance and which liberties we must sacrifice to gain greater protection from terrorism. Although I acknowledge that the balance in the Bill is nearly right, I argue that it is not quite right. From my limited experience—I acknowledge that it is very limited in Northern Ireland matters—surely balance is everything. The balance in the Bill is not quite right for two reasons: first, because of what is still there and, secondly, because of what is not there. On what is still there, why has there been no move even to consider the recommendation in the 2004 Carlile report to use three judges in Diplock courts? Surely that would be an important step towards the eventual re-establishment of trial by jury. We fully accept that that is something for the future and that it will be implemented when it can be realistically restored. On what is not in the Bill, section 108 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the oral evidence of senior police officers to be admissible as evidence about people’s membership of specific organisations. I concur with Lord Carlile’s conclusion in the 2004 report, which says:"““It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement.””" The Bill sends out a message fundamentally and most importantly to the communities in Northern Ireland, but it also sends a clear message to the wider world about Northern Ireland’s future. That message is not quite right, and I ask the Government to look again. I look forward to my next visit as a member of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to the fine city of Belfast, but I look forward even more to visits after that when that body no longer needs to sit. Most of all, I look forward to visits in the future with my family, quite simply as a tourist. So my message is simple: let us get the balance and the message right because I believe, from my limited experience, that the future of Northern Ireland depends on it.