|
Mr. Pearson: We have had an important debate. Perhaps we have strayed slightly more widely than the terms of the order, but usefully so. I shall respond as fully as I can to all the questions raised in the debate.
First, I shall reply to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on the procedural point that she raised. I am happy to make available to the Committee information on the notification to Mr. Speaker of the explanation for the use of the urgency procedure. As the hon. Lady says, the use of the urgency procedure is explained in paragraph 3 of the explanatory memorandum. Legally, the view was taken that we were required to address the potential human right implications once a decision had been taken by the Secretary of State to despecify. That is why urgency was required.
The hon. Lady also asked why there was a delay in debating the matter in the House of Commons. As she will appreciate, I do not have any control of the usual channels, but we were certainly keen to have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity, and I suspect it is the pressure of parliamentary time and the Christmas recess that has meant that we have not had a debate before now. She is right to stress the importance of paying recognition to victims. As I said in my opening contribution, the Government are fully committed to supporting and working with victims and victims' organisations. She will be aware of a range of programmes and support measures that we have put in place. We will continue to pay heed to the needs and interests of victims in all that we do.
The hon. Lady referred to the issue of exiling. Like any fair-minded person, and certainly any Member of this House, we condemn the practice of exiling, whether it is committed by loyalist or republican paramilitary organisations. She asked me what the justification was for the decision to despecify the UDA. The best answer that I can give her is that the Secretary of State makes such decisions in the round in accordance with legislation while taking account of advice that he receives from the Independent Monitoring Commission and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The chief constable supports the decision to despecify the UDA, and I am glad to hear that other political parties have also welcomed the decision.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised a number of detailed questions. The fundamental first question that he raised was whether we can be certain that the UDA leadership is genuine in its commitment. I say to him that we must wait and see. I cannot speak for the UDA but if it does not live up to its pledges for whatever reason, there is an option to respecify it under the terms of the legislation. The Secretary of State will keep that matter under close review. We shall judge the UDA, as we judge any organisation, by its deeds, not just its words.
The hon. Gentleman also asked if ceasing military activity also meant giving up crime. I cannot speak for the UDA, but as a Government we are committed to bearing down on crime. Criminal behaviour cannot be tolerated in Northern Ireland.
Column Number: 14
There is no soft pedalling. That is another question that the hon. Gentleman raised. I give him the unequivocal assurance that, as a Government, we will continue to ensure that there are sufficient resources for police and intelligence services in Northern Ireland and that they are devoted and fully committed to bearing down on crime, wherever it comes from.
Mr. Robinson: Far be it from me to interpret what the shadow Secretary of State asked, but I assume that his question was that if criminal activity is carried out by a paramilitary organisation, do the Government consider that activity to fall in the definition of paramilitary activity?
Mr. Pearson: Let us be clear that paramilitary organisations are deeply involved in organised crime. The IMC report, to which the hon. Member for North Down referred, demonstrates that clearly. About 80 per cent. of organised criminal gangs have paramilitary links. That is simply not acceptable. As a Government, we have consistently said that it is not acceptable. That remains our position. We continue to call on all those who have an influence in Northern Ireland to ensure that both paramilitary activity and criminal activity cease.
Mr. Lidington: Surely the point is that, through the Ulster Political Research Group, the UDA has given an undertaking to the Government that it will desist from certain paramilitary activities. On the basis of that, the Government have brought the order to the Committee. Is it the Minister's view that that undertaking from the UPRG on behalf of the UDA includes an undertaking to desist from involvement in crime?
Mr. Pearson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read carefully the statement issued by the UDA. Like me, he will have suspicions about whether the UPRG and the UDA can deliver on the pledges that they have made. We will have to judge them on that. We want them to give up organised crime. They say that they want to bear down on social deprivation and crime. We need to ensure that that happens. We know that members of the UDA are actively engaged in criminal behaviour. That is no secret. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed that out. It is not acceptable. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he called on the UDA to disown its criminal elements publicly. That is the right thing to do.
I think that the UPRG is right to talk about the circumstances in which the UDA and the UFF will not need to exist. We need to go further than just disowning members of the UDA who are engaged in criminal activity. We need to work towards the day when the UDA and the UFF no longer exist.
Lembit Öpik: I respond to what the Minister said. The UDA and its elements could choose to desist from organised crime, but the question for the Minister is whether, if it could be shown that elements of the UDA are involved in organised crime, that would be sufficient grounds for the Minister and the Government to specify that organisation under the terms of the order. Can he conceive of a situation in
Column Number: 15
which, despite clear-cut evidence that elements of the UDA are involved in organised crime, he will still decide not to specify that organisation?
Mr. Pearson: There already is evidence that elements of the UDA are involved in organised crime. I need to cite the IMC report to show that. It is important to recognise that the Secretary of State must make the judgments that the hon. Gentleman asks about. The hon. Member for Belfast, East acknowledged that difficult and complex decisions had to be made. However, we have to make those decisions in the round, in accordance with legislation and the best advice that is available at the time. The Secretary of State took the decision to despecify the UDA after meeting political representatives of loyalism. I genuinely believe that if there are people who want to come out of the jungle—if they want to give up their paramilitary past and move forward to peaceful, democratic politics—we ought to encourage them to do so. We should support those elements in the UDA that are committed to a genuine peaceful society in Northern Ireland, while at the same time cracking down on those elements in the UDA that are still committed to criminal activity and behaviour.
I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Belfast, East say. The UDA is not a cohesive organisation in the way in which the Provisional IRA is. We need to support the positive forces of loyalism in the UDA, while at the same time not tolerating criminal behaviour.
Mr. Robinson: I want to be clear that we are not leaving a loophole for any paramilitary organisation to be despecified on the basis of ending violent terrorist activity but then metamorphose into a mafia-style organisation and continue with that sort of activity. For instance, when someone comes on to a building site wearing a balaclava and tells the builder to hand over £5,000 to remain constructing or developing in that area, that is done with the authority and threat of the paramilitary organisation behind that. I want to be clear that when the Secretary of State makes decisions he will regard that as being terrorist activity in exactly the same way as taking somebody out and knee-capping them.
Mr. Pearson: We need to be clear that none of us wants to see paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland transforming themselves into mafia-style organisations, or that sort of organised crime culture being embedded in Northern Ireland's society. That is why we are doing a lot of work through the organised crime task force, which I chair, and why the police, through their various activities—in particular the crime operations department—seek to bear down on organised criminal behaviour.
The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that none of that is acceptable. None of it can be acceptable to the Government or to people in Northern Ireland.
Column Number: 16
Lady Hermon: Can the Minister reinforce the response that he has just given to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)? Will he undertake to review and amend the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998? The definition of a specified organisation is one that
''is concerned in terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, or in promoting or encouraging it, and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.''
That provision needs to be amended. Will the Minister give a commitment today that he will consider revising the legislation to make it clear that the provision also covers other paramilitary activity, including drug dealing and illegal activity?
Mr. Pearson: I cannot give the hon. Lady the commitment that she seeks. As far as I am aware, the Government have no plans to review the 1998 Act, but I will reflect on what she has said during the debate. That is the best answer that I can give her.
| 
