| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): First, I associate myself with the Secretary of State's condemnation of the attacks yesterday on the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and Mr. Alex Attwood. Those events were a sobering reminder to us all of the risks borne and the courage shown daily by democratic politicians in Northern Ireland—both Unionist and nationalist. I also thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, and pay tribute to the work of the Independent Monitoring Commission and the quality of its report, which has been produced within a very short period.
The report provides a stark and truthful analysis of what is happening in Northern Ireland. There are no euphemisms in it. All the main organisations—the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association—remain armed, active and capable of full-scale terrorist activity if they so choose. As the Secretary of State said, there is some good news—the number of murders, bombings and attacks on security forces has decreased—but, as the commission says on page 25,
"the level of other paramilitary violence has been and continues to be considerably higher than before the Belfast Agreement."
"the leadership of the paramilitary groups is directing, rather than seeking to prevent"
Perhaps most startling of all to those of us who live and work in England and other parts of Great Britain is the commission's conclusion that if the level of violence experienced in Northern Ireland were extrapolated to the United Kingdom as a whole, since the beginning of January 2003 there would have been 375 murders, 6,300 victims of shooting and 5,700 assault victims.
I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. Before I deal with the sanctions, I ask him to confirm that the Government intend that paramilitary violence and the organised crime that supports and
20 Apr 2004 : Column 175
funds it be met with the full force of law. On 24 July 2002, the Secretary of State's predecessor announced that the Attorney-General was to examine on the Government's behalf whether changes in police powers and the criminal law were needed
"to facilitate successful prosecution for acts of terrorism, violence and organised crime."—[Official Report, 24 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 984.]
What has happened to that work over the past year and a half? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there can be no question of security normalisation while paramilitary violence continues as described by the IMC?
On sanctions, we shall support the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take—I hope that he will say for how long he intends to cut off funds from both Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party—but can he really be satisfied that today's announcement is sufficient? Frankly, if Sinn Fein is to sacrifice its Northern Ireland Assembly funding because of its links with paramilitary violence, it is surely outrageous for Sinn Fein Members to continue to enjoy both access to and allowances for the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Will any financial penalty make much of a difference to paramilitary organisations that, according to the IMC and the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic, are reaping millions of pounds from drug trafficking and other forms of gangsterism?
So, will the Secretary of State consider additional action? In view of the report's evidence of violence by the paramilitaries, will the Government consider—as we have asked them to do before—specifying the Provisional IRA under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998? In his statement, the Secretary of State rightly spoke of the responsibilities of those Northern Ireland politicians with influence over paramilitary groups. Does he share my profound concern on learning that Mr. McGuinness, when speaking in County Tyrone on Easter Sunday, paid tribute to the role that IRA volunteers had played
"and continue to play in the struggle for Irish freedom"?
The Secretary of State knows that the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic has consistently and trenchantly stated that so long as Sinn Fein remains linked to paramilitary violence, it cannot be a fit partner in a coalition Government in the Irish Republic. In the light of the conclusions of today's IMC report, surely the Government must now accept that the principle that is right for a Government in Dublin must be right for the formation of an Executive in Belfast.
Mr. Murphy:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the statement and for the IMC's report, and I certainly agree that the figures in it are startling. On the force of law bearing down on people who commit such crimes, he may rest assured that the Chief Constable is doing a very good job in that respect. Our Organised Crime Task Force is working extremely well, and I hope that the Assets Recovery Agency will deal with the assets of paramilitaries as soon as possible. Between April 2003 and February this year, 139 loyalists and 80 republicans were charged with serious terrorist and public order offences. In the past year, six individuals have received long sentences for extortion. Other convictions have been secured for armed robbery and
20 Apr 2004 : Column 176
drug offences, and fuel-laundering plants have been dismantled and illegal fuel seized. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that normalisation as it appears in the joint declaration document cannot happen unless there are acts of completion.
On sanctions, the hon. Gentleman will of course recall that when the relevant legislation was going through this House, it was the statement and belief of this Government that, whatever the Independent Monitoring Commission recommended, it would be very difficult to envisage a situation in which we would not accept it. On this occasion, we certainly do accept the IMC's recommendations and conclusions—as, indeed, do the Irish Government.
The important point to emphasise is that if the Assembly had been operating, the IMC would have recommended something up to, and possibly including, exclusion from office. We do not know exactly what the IMC would have recommended because, as it is aware, the Assembly is not up and running; but it certainly would have considered such action.
So far as the term of the penalty—the sanction—is concerned, there is no particular end. We can renew the order after a year, so there is no limit. I intend to look at the situation after six months, because that is when the IMC will next report. So, for six months, no allowances will be paid in that respect. Obviously, this is a matter for the Commons to consider, but whatever the sanctions, it is very important that they represent and reflect society's disapproval of, and public displeasure at, what has happened.
Although these revelations are startling and sometimes very dramatic, I still hope that the devolved institutions can be restored as soon as possible, and that that will include all parties. I hope, too, that Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party will be involved in discussions on how we achieve that—but we must of course see an end to paramilitary activity.
Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Independent Monitoring Commission's report and its detailed analysis of what has been going on. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say, "Both Governments accept the commission's conclusions and recommendations." I am pleased to hear it; indeed, they had little alternative. On the financial penalties that might be incurred by political organisations associated with paramilitaries, it seems appropriate, as my colleague Lord Smith of Clifton has said many times, that a financial penalty be imposed for not participating more overtly in the peace process.
I want to ask some questions concerning the Government's commitment to responding to the IMC's recommendations and conclusions with action. The IMC's report details a wide range of illegal activities committed by a number of organisations. Given that those activities undermine the democratic process and the rule of law, will the report alter the Government's definition of a ceasefire? In the light of the IMC's comments, do the Government intend to change their approach to peace process discussions with parties linked to named paramilitary organisations, or do they intend to carry on as if nothing has happened? Was the postponement of the Lancaster House talks related to the contents of the IMC's report? In the light of that postponement, will the Secretary of State clarify the status of the review?
20 Apr 2004 : Column 177
Are the Government expecting to have any meaningful discussions this side of the European elections? Given that the IMC has been able to recommend only rather weak sanctions, in the form of financial penalties, what plans do the Government have to review the powers of the body, specifically in the context of a suspension?
We all know that Northern Ireland politics is characterised by long periods of negotiation and, it has to be said, a degree of pragmatism. However, does the Secretary of State accept that, unless the Government show themselves willing to act on the recommendations of the IMC, opportunism and a lack of respect for political institutions will continue to be additional ingredients in the mix?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |