Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

We have had a good debate and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) covered several substantive points, which other hon. Members expanded. We thank him and his party for their support. He rightly recognises that the measures are exceptional but proportionate, and rightly drew attention to last night’s statement from the LVF. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said that we should thank church and community leaders for the positive pressure that they exerted to help bring about the end of the summer’s feud. They have shown exemplary leadership in difficult circumstances. The Secretary of State said that a fundamental change had occurred in the security situation. The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he awaited further evidence. So do we. However, let us not underestimate the evidence of the summer—the statement of 28 July and the act of decommissioning. The Bill is a further step in creating an enabling environment. It does not mean that we have arrived at security normalisation, but it is necessary to prepare for such a day. The Bill plays its part in that but, for the present, leaves the special measures in place. It prepares for the future but takes no risks with the security of people in Northern Ireland now. The hon. Member for Aylesbury asked whether part VII would continue to be needed after August 2008. The Secretary of State set out the position and we are confident that, in the future, that will not be the case. He also asked whether part VII would be needed to deal with the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA in the future. The United Kingdom has some of the strongest and most effective counter-terrorist legislation in the world. We are satisfied that, after the part VII provisions have been repealed, the permanent counter-terrorism powers that apply throughout the UK will be sufficient to deal with any residual threat. However, as my right hon. Friend made clear, we will keep the security situation under constant review and if additional provision is necessary in the future, I have no doubt that he will return to Parliament. The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) asked whether we would replace Diplock courts with the three-judge courts that Lord Carlile recommended. We remain committed to the ideal of a return to jury trial. Indeed, we intend to go on examining what may be required for paramilitary-type trials, in which jurors could be subject to intimidation. However, we do not want to prejudge the outcome of any considerations by commenting on a specific model. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked about Lord Carlile’s recommendation of moving to the three-judge system of the Republic. I simply remind him of the words of Lord Carlile’s 2004 report. He stated:"““The present single judge courts continue to offer a high standard of justice: there is no evidence of any deficit in the quality of single court judges””." The hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Montgomeryshire asked about jury trials. The Government recognise that a serious risk of jury intimidation remains in a small number of cases in Northern Ireland. It would therefore be irresponsible to leave those who participate in court proceedings at risk from those who wish systematically to undermine the administration of justice through intimidation. We are mindful that arrangements need to be put in place to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the criminal justice system. However, I am sure that hon. Members understand that until the detailed, inter-agency work that is now under way has been completed, it would not be appropriate for me to outline specific proposals. There will be opportunities for hon. Members to have that discussion in due course.