Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
RT HON
PETER HAIN
MP, MR NICK
PERRY AND
MR ROBERT
HANNIGAN
10 MAY 2006
Q20 Mr Anderson: On a similar line,
the report said that not all arms have been handed in and that
some people have retained control, mainly at a local level. Is
there a worry that these arms may well be used in both organised
crime and, perhaps even more worrying, may get into the hands
of dissident republicans, terrorists? Also, is anything being
done through the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning
to account for these weapons?
Mr Hain: Again, I have not seen
any evidence or any intelligence suggesting that there has been
any leakage to dissident groups either of individual members of
the Provisional IRA going over to the dissident groups, which
themselves are small, fragmented and disorganised, though still
a threat, as we saw from the Lurgan bomb, a 250lb bomb last month.
I think that answers that point, but in respect of the IMC report,
it said that its present assessment (and I quote from paragraph
2.17) "is that such of the arms as were reported to us as
being retained would have been withheld under local control, despite
the instructions of the leadership, and the amount of unsurrendered
material was not significant in comparison to what was decommissioned
and that the reports they received do not cast doubt on the declared
intention of the PIRA leadership to eschew terrorism and to follow
the political path." The point I am making is, yes, it appears
some arms, according to the IMC, were kept at a local level, but
this was against the leadership's wishes and they are not significant
in the overall picture.
Q21 Lady Hermon: Secretary of State,
you very kindly provided the Committee with a memorandum before
coming before us this afternoon as a live witness, and in paragraph
16 you did refer to the IMC report, and I am slightly disconcerted
by the description taken about the IMC report: "The report
provided an extremely encouraging picture." May I take you
to the issue of loyalist paramilitaries? My colleague here, David
Anderson, has asked about the provisionals and all the rest of
it. Could we deal for a few minutes with loyalist paramilitaries.
At page 36 of the IMC report the IMC said, "The last three
months have shown little tangible evidence of progress and the
recent statement from a spokesman of the UVF that it does not
intend to do more before 24 November 2006 is not encouraging."
May I ask you, Secretary of State, what precisely is the strategy
within the Northern Ireland Office for bringing about loyalist
decommissioning? Is there a strategy, and, if there is, could
you disclose a little bit of it to us?
Mr Hain: There is a strategy,
and you are quite right to point out that there is still a big
problem in terms of criminality by members of the UDA and the
UVF. You have been very clear about bearing down, criticising
that and exposing it as well, and I commend you for that. I think
the IMC report said that there were efforts by elements of the
UVF leadership to tackle criminality and there are signs that
some people in the UDA who were associated with it wanted to steer
the organisation away from crime into community development. Certainly,
as it were, the political leadership of the UPRG and the PUP are
clearly putting all the pressure and influence to bear that they
can to seek to get the UDA and the UVF to decommission and, in
particular, to end any connection with criminality. I sense that
the UDA is probably divided between two groups, the one just committed
to gangsterism, and there have been some arrests recently, and
the other which wants to follow the Provisional IRA in decommissioning
and then dealing with its paramilitary activity. We continue to
put pressure on both organisations, as do the police and the security
forces, who maintain a pretty beady eye on their activities and
seek to stop criminal activity or paramilitary activity if it
shows any signs of taking place.
Q22 Lady Hermon: Do you have any
information that leads you to believe that any of these loyalist
paramilitary organisations, whether they be the LVF, presumably
definitely not the UVF because they have issued a statement, are
on the brink of beginning any decommissioning?
Mr Hain: Certainly elements are
in touch with John de Chastelain's Commission, and we continue
to urge them to engage, because that really is the completion
of the process. Whatever the justification originally for these
organisations to form, and they claimed a political objective,
whatever that objective, it does not exist any more because the
IRA's campaign has ended, and so I fear the real problem is gangsterism.
Q23 Lady Hermon: Secretary of State,
may I pursue that a little bit, picking up on some of the points
you have raised. You will know how angry the UVF were with the
joint statement that was issued by the Prime Minister and Taoiseach
on 6 April 2006 in Armagh. They particularly took exception to,
and I am not a spokesman for the organisation but it is in the
public domain, and disliked the term "the joint stewardship
of the process". Do you regret, and is there any regret in
Downing Street, that that phrase "the joint stewardship of
the process", was actually used, pushing back and delaying
the possibility of loyalist paramilitaries, particularly the UVF,
coming in from the cold and beginning the process that they should
have done a long time since?
Mr Hain: I hope my friends and
colleagues on the other side of the border will not take offence
at this, but I think there was some unhelpful spin from some elements
in Dublin which hyped up the interpretation of "joint stewardship.
"Joint stewardship of the process" was a very carefully
chosen phrase. It did not imply joint authority, as I said earlier,
or joint governance: it implied joint stewardship of the process
of bringing peace, of putting in concrete the peace and seeking
restoration of the devolved institutions. That is what it meant,
and that is what it will mean, that and nothing else. I do agree
that interpretation seems to have been the reason that, in the
case of the UVF at least, they would not do anything until after
24 November. I think that is an excuse, frankly, and now that
they know that that has been clarified by myself in particular,
there is no reason for them to delay at all.
Q24 Lady Hermon: There is no regret
in Downing Street or within the Northern Ireland Office at the
use of that phrase?
Mr Hain: Not the use of those
words. I do not think anybody could really object to those words.
I think the unhelpful spin around them, which certainly did not
come from Number Ten and certainly did not come from the Northern
Ireland Office created all sorts of instability amongst loyalist
ranks, but now that they see that it does not mean that, I think
they should have a second thought.
Q25 Chairman: I want to bring in
Rosie Cooper and Gordon Banks. You have already answered Lady
Hermon's questions about the loyalists. There does, of course,
remain this fundamental difference that they have no credible
political party to speak for them in the way that Sinn Fein, inextricably
linked with the IRA and all that, has in the past. All the evidence
that we are receiving is of a significant number rather than a
tiny number of those who have had paramilitary involvement continuing
to have an involvement in organised crime. Would you accept that
an absolute repudiation of this going further than we have had
up to now and a repudiation of any attempt to benefit from the
financial proceeds is fundamental to creating a climate of trust
in Northern Ireland?
Mr Hain: I do, and I was encouraged,
as I indicated earlier, by Martin McGuinness' criticism of those
who had undertaken the vodka heist in County Meath, and he said,
"I condemn it unreservedly and I do believe that anyone involved
in criminality of any description should be arrested, should be
charged and should be brought before a judge or jury." That
is quite an important statement. Similarly, in respect of the
Tohill kidnappings, the four men who admitted their part in kidnapping
a dissident republican, he said they should make themselves available
in court and they should present themselves to face the charges
that they pleaded guilty to. I think that is an indication, as
well as the Provisional IRA's Easter statement that I quoted earlier.
Those things have never been said before.
Q26 Chairman: No, but what we need
also is a commitment to helping to uphold the law and playing
a part in the policing. We will come on to that in a minute, but
I think we have got some way to go, have we not?
Mr Hain: We have got some way
to go. I do not know whether you want me to address that specific
issue.
Chairman: Yes, in a moment I am going
to ask colleagues to lead off on that, but I just put down the
marker.
Q27 Rosie Cooper: Secretary of State,
you talked about gangsterism and when talking to people in Northern
Ireland they have often referred to the Mafia now. There is an
increasing awareness that paramilitaries are turning to organised
crime—that is what we have been looking at—but really
they are using very, very sophisticated methods, professional
accountants, lawyers to cover their tracks. How would you see
the Northern Ireland Office dealing with that? There is a second
part to the question which will link it with policing and normalisation.
Mr Hain: For example, the Organised
Crime Taskforce is taking forward a whole raft of measures to
strengthen controls on charities, on liquor licensing and taxis,
with the active support of the Northern Ireland Office. We are
also, as I indicated earlier, taking action to clamp down on assets
that have been built up, and still are in some respects, in respect
of the loyalists in particular, but Provisional IRA members have
acquired considerable assets over the years and the Assets Recovery
Agency is bearing down on them, as we have seen, as is the CAB
in the Republic. That activity will all proceed, and we are proceeding
to clamp down on smuggling as well, so there is no letting up
on that, and, indeed, the action over the past year indicates
that it has been done with considerable verve and energy and quite
a lot of success as well.
Q28 Rosie Cooper: The confiscation
of assets is really welcomed in Northern Ireland, but people are
worried that when the military are removed from Northern Ireland
they will need a massive increase in the number of police officers.
This comes from the police themselves, maybe, and maybe organisations
which have been hit, often vast quantities of booze and cigarettes
stolen, and it is the protection that they feel they need. I think,
very clearly, that they would suggest a huge increase in the number
of police officers. Is that realistic or not?
Mr Hain: Police numbers are already
twice the average that they are in Great Britain per head, so
policing is at a very high level, and rightly so. There is no
argument about that. The Chief Constable has always made clear
what his needs are and we have always sought to resolve his requests
satisfactorily and so far we have been able to do so. I see no
reason why that will not occur in the future. As I said earlier,
the closing down of the Royal Irish Home Regiment and that whole
process of normalisation due to conclude in the summer of next
year, is all being done step by step with the agreement of the
Chief Constable who has responsibility for policing and with his
active support.
Chairman: We might come on to that later
in this session.
Q29 Sammy Wilson: We are moving on
to policing now. You have mentioned unhelpful statements or unhelpful
spin. There was another rather unhelpful statement from the Foreign
Minister in the Republic this week when he indicated that it would
be possible for an executive to be set up in Northern Ireland,
or he believed it was possible for an executive to be set up in
Northern Ireland, with ministers from Sinn Fein, even though Sinn
Fein had not at that stage given their support for policing. Do
you accept that is possible, Secretary of State?
Mr Hain: On the policing issue,
I think there is a difference between wanting to resolve difficult
issues like policing, which we have all got to do, Sinn Fein included,
and wanting to erect new hurdles to power sharing. I am in favour
of the former but not in favour of the latter. In other words,
everybody knows what needs to be done on policing, all the democratic
political parties need to sign up to it, and that means Sinn Fein
signing up to it, but I do not want to make this a pre-condition,
and it will not be made a pre-condition, for the restoration of
the institutions; but there is no question that it is unsustainable
in the medium-term, let alone the long-term, for parties to seek
to have ministers in an executive when they are not co-operating
with the police even at the most basic level or at a local level,
their councils and MLAs not actually co-operating with the police
on day-to-day crime matters. So, that needs to change. Sinn Fein,
to be fair, have made a number of statements recently which have
indicated a positive direction of travel, not fast enough and
not deep enough, but they are encouraging; things that have never
been said before. They have also said that once the legislation
that is currently going through Parliament gets royal assent they
will call a conference and seek to take their policy on policing
forward in a direction which we would all welcome, and so let
us pursue that.
Q30 Sammy Wilson: I am not clear
what your answer is there. You do not want to make it a pre-condition
but are you saying that you can envisage a situation where someone
could be a minister and not support policing?
Mr Hain: All I am saying is that
everybody needs to support policing. I am not clear what you are
asking. Are you saying they should have joined the policing board,
they should have done this or that? I think what we need to do
is move these things forward in sequence and in parallel so that
we are able to get universal support for policing but we are also
able to get restoration of a power-sharing executive, which is
an intrinsic part of building the trust and operating, in a way.
It is inconceivable to me that, over the medium-term, ministers
doing their jobs properly in the executive will not support the
police. It is inconceivable to me that a successful power-sharing
executive could operate without the Rule of Law applying and being
supported, but let us not erect hurdles when problems are best
resolved in other ways.
Q31 Sammy Wilson: This, I believe,
is one of the difficulties that we have in getting Sinn Fein to
sign up to policing. If you are saying that it is conceivable
in the short run for someone to be a minister without supporting
the police, then what incentive is there for Sinn Fein ever to
support the police?
Mr Hain: Sinn Fein know, for a
start, that their objective, which they share with the SDLP, of
getting devolution and policing and justice is completely out
of the question until they sign up properly to policing, and when
I say "sign up properly to policing" I mean the whole
lot. There is that issue. I am also saying, and I think we may
be more in agreement than not, that I do not want a late pre-condition
established on top of the absolutely correct demands that have
been made of republicans that they decommission, that they end
their paramilitary activity and they end their criminality. To
say that unless you join the Policing Board, or whatever the demand
may be and the goal posts are moved in that way there is no prospect
of a power-sharing executive being agreed—and I do not think
that you are saying that, to be fair—but I do agree that
all parties ought to support the police.
Q32 Sammy Wilson: But you do not
believe that it is essential for them to be supporting the police
to be ministers?
Mr Hain: I believe that all parties,
whether they have ministers or not, ought to support the police,
and that is the best way in which a devolved government could
function effectively.
Q33 Chairman: The question you are
being asked is—
Mr Hain: I am well aware of the
question I am being asked. That is my answer.
Q34 Chairman: It is a slightly less
than unequivocal answer.
Mr Hain: I do not agree with that.
I am not clear what I am being asked.
Q35 Chairman: What you are being
asked is, is it essential for a minister in a devolved administration
anywhere in the United Kingdom to be wholly committed to the Rule
of Law, and is it necessary, if you are wholly committed to the
Rule of Law, to be in support of a lawful police force and not
an alternative police force? Do you accept that?
Mr Hain: Let me put it this way
and answer the question using different language to the way I
answered earlier on. If we are to have devolved governments working
with real credibility and real effectiveness, then clearly signing
up to the Rule of Law and support for the police is an absolute
essential. Does that mean that to get to that point by 24 November,
let us say, Sinn Fein members have to have taken up their positions
on the policing board, have to, as it were, have climbed over
a series of additional hurdles put in late in the day in a political
process which has been incredibly difficult to take forward and
we are now on the brink of succeeding with, then, no, I do not
think so. I just remind the Committee that when there was last
a power-sharing executive, and you may say that was one of the
reasons it collapsed, that pre-condition was not there, but I
do not want any late pre-conditions suddenly assembled so that
they effectively become impossible hurdles so you might as well
write restoration out of the picture. I am not willing to agree
to that and that will not happen, but I am absolutely clear that
all parties, Sinn Fein included, and they know this, and they
will deliver on this, need to support the police and need to support
the Rule of Law 100%.
Q36 Gordon Banks: In the House on
26 April you talked about the need for cross-party political support
for the criminal justice system and the police before devolving
any of these policy areas. Does that mean that the political parties
between now and 24 November will not have sight of any potential
proposals in this area as they negotiate the future?
Mr Hain: I do not think there
is any prospect of devolving policing and criminal justice certainly
before 24 November, even assuming a restored institution to devolve
it to. I think this is going to take some time to work through
and there is a triple lock on it. It requires a cross-community
vote in the Assembly, it then requires a Secretary of State to
agree it and Parliament to approve the necessary legislation.
I do not expect that to happen quickly, and I think it will require
trust to be built and people's commitment to be absolutely clear.
What the bill does is to put in place the constitutional basis
for devolution subsequently by a series of Order in Councils so
it creates the statutory framework, but you then need a process,
as I say, with that triple lock on it.
Q37 Gordon Banks: So there will be
no development of guidelines or anything between now and 24 November?
Mr Hain: We have already published,
as you are aware, a detailed document, which is out for consultation,
on the options for how things might be done. We are still in the
process of taking that consultation through and that will take
some time.
Q38 Gordon Banks: Another policing
question, but maybe taking us away from the type of policing you
have been talking about. How effective do you believe anti-social
behaviour policy has been in Northern Ireland?
Mr Hain: It has been effective
but not effective enough. I would like to see anti-social behaviour
orders, not as a dogmatic end in itself but the whole process
around it being applied more vigorously, and I think that will
increasingly be done. In a way, it is a point I made earlier,
Chairman, as you get normalisation, which there is increasingly,
even in areas like South Armagh, then, paradoxically, you get
maybe a rise in some of the anti-social behaviour that we have
experienced in communities in Great Britain. I do not welcome
that, on the contrary, but you therefore need to deal with it.
Q39 Gordon Banks: Do you think the
relationships between the police, the councillors and the housing
bodies are clear enough in the role of anti-social behaviour legislation?
Do you feel that maybe one of the reasons why it has not been
as successful as maybe you would have liked is that the relationship
between the bodies is a little bit murky when it comes to Anti-Social
Behaviour Orders?
Mr Hain: I know that your Committee
is looking at the whole question of crime and I do not know whether
it will include anti-social behaviour, and I would certainly be
interested in your views if it did but I think there is some way
to go. It may well be that that partnership where anti-social
behaviour measures work best in England and Wales, and I think
Scotland too—but certainly in England and Wales—is
where you have those partnerships of the kind that you pointed
to.
|
