Paul
Goggins: I shall respond first to my hon. Friend the
Member for Foyle. The issues would be significant ones for any Minister
to have to deal with, but I can assure him that the matters will remain
reserved following devolution. It is right that terrorism, terrorist
offences and the legislation behind them are dealt with in the House,
through the legislation that we have. I hope that that offers him some
reassurance.
Hopefully, I
can provide some clarification on Ã"glaigh na hEireann. The hon.
Gentleman is right, of course. He understands such matters better than
most. Ã"glaigh na hEireann is the IRA in the Irish language. What
is clear—the House of Lords made its ruling absolutely
clear—is that whatever name any dissident group associated with
the IRA trades under, it is the IRA. The other groups
mentioned—Continuity IRA, Real IRA, Ã"glaigh na hEireann,
whatever they call themselves—are the IRA, and they are
proscribed. Those three organisations, if the order is passed, will
also be specified. I hope that that offers some clarification to him
and to the
Committee. Turning
to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, I was pleased with the measure of
agreement that he gave regarding Ã"glaigh na hEireann. He clearly
had no difficulty with that, as he quoted extensively from the IMC
report and gave his support to the specification. He is right that that
organisation, Continuity IRA and Real IRA still pose serious and
significant threats. The Chief Constable described them as
organisations in the end-game, lashing out. Although in some senses
paramilitarism is weaker than it has been in Northern Ireland in the
past, the potential threat of those organisations is quite deadly. We
all understand that, and pay tribute to the Chief Constable and his
colleagues for the way which they take on dissident
groups. The
hon. Gentleman questioned why we should despecify organisations such as
the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. I should
point out that the 17th IMC report—the one before
last—made it very clear that within the UDA
“there is a
genuine desire to make
progress”. The
IMC did not believe that the UDA had serious ambitions or a strategy to
enhance its capacity for paramilitary activity. That is not to say that
there are not people within that organisation who are still intent on
criminal activity and in causing harm and difficulties; none the less,
the general sense of direction is positive, and we need to build on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle is quite right that this is
twilight zone to some extent. We have got to push people across the
line: when we get as many across the line as we can, people need to
know that there will not be any abnormal, unusual pieces of legislation
to protect them and that they will have to face the full force of the
law if they break
it. In
relation to the UVF, paragraph 2.36 of the latest IMC report—the
18th—makes the position very clear. It
states: “Overall,
in the light of what we have said above, we think that the British
Government should revisit the question of the despecification of the
UVF”. We
have arrived at this debate on this order with the recommendation of
the IMC behind us, and we know that it looks carefully and closely at
such things. That is why the Secretary of State, having looked at all
the evidence on the advice of the IMC, has introduced the order. The
IMC has made it clear that the UVF remains committed to the statement
that it made in May 2007, in which it made it clear that it was putting
arms beyond use. I continue to agree with the hon. Member for
Tewkesbury—we have discussed this before—that that is not
enough. The UVF needs to go further and to engage fully and properly
with the IICD, and decommission its arms fully and finally to ensure
that we have a sustainable path to peace. We have made it clear that
the organisation must go further.
In an attempt
to persuade the hon. Gentleman not to divide the Committee, I offer two
further thoughts. First, it is the Secretary of State’s
responsibility to keep the list of specified organisations under
constant review. I made that clear in my opening remarks. On the advice
of the Security Service and the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State
would not hesitate to specify the UVF again if things moved in a
negative direction, and if there was a cause for concern and a reason
to believe that it was no longer on the path to peace or moving in the
right direction. I offer the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that we
will not hesitate to return and specify that organisation again if
there was growing evidence that that was a necessary
step. Secondly,
it is important to recognise the difference between proscription and
specification. We are not seeking to deproscribe any organisation. I
assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that the UVF remains a
proscribed organisation. That is all laid out in the Terrorism Act
2000. We are talking today about the despecification of the UVF. The
benefit of despecification is that it will attract the opportunities
given under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. However, there
are very clear criteria on that. Stringent tests are carried out by the
Sentence Review Commissioners even on individuals who have been
associated with organisations that are no longer specified when they
are released from prison. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman
with the full details of the test that must be carried out, but there
are four conditions. The Act states:
“The
first condition is that the sentence...was passed in Northern
Ireland for a qualifying offence...The second condition is that
the prisoner is not a supporter of a specified organisation...The
third condition is that, if the prisoner were released immediately, he
would not be likely...to become a supporter of a specified
organisation...The fourth condition is that, if the prisoner were
released immediately, he would not be a danger to the
public”. The
Sentence Review Commissioners must judge a decision about particular
individuals using those four tests. Even if an individual is given a
life sentence for a serious crime and even if they have been a
supporter of an organisation that is no longer specified, if they have
a life sentence and the commissioners believe that they would pose a
threat and danger to the public, they would not automatically be
released.
2.59
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 3.13
pm On
resuming—
Mr.
Robertson: I was trying to
intervene.
Paul
Goggins: I happily give
way.
Mr.
Robertson: The point that I was about to make has been
slightly
lost— Jim
Dowd (Lewisham, West) (Lab): On a point of order, Dr.
McCrea. You specified that the Committee would resume at 3.15, and the
hon. Members who left when you specified that time may be under the
impression that it will not resume before
3.15.
The
Chairman: I did specify 3.15, but the Whips on both sides
of the room were happy that we started when we
did.
Jim
Dowd: Very well. I stand
rebuked.
Mr.
Robertson: Twice I have lost my point. Perhaps you will
allow me, Dr. McCrea, to remind the Committee that the Minister had
just run through the conditions for someone being released early from
prison under the terms of the Good Friday agreement. He said that one
provision was they could not continue to support a specified
organisation. That goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for
Foyle. If they cannot support a specified organisation, can they rejoin
a proscribed organisation? That is my question; perhaps the Minister
will discuss
it. The
Minister spoke about the UVF, but it concerns me that the IMC report
states that individuals are still procuring arms, and a point in the
UVF’s own statement suggests that it may be ready to recruit
again should the need arise—those are my words, not the exact
words. Will he be so kind as to take those three points on
board?
Paul
Goggins: There is no doubt that as we see organisations
and individuals moving in the right direction, it is not always plain
and straightforward what progress they are making. Although the hon.
Gentleman quotes from part of the statement made by the UVF, and I
think earlier by the UDA, the general thrust of the statements that
those organisations have made in the recent past has been
positive—putting arms beyond use, moving to a more peaceful
society and stating that those organisations should have a role within
it. The
Secretary of State has to make a judgment in the round on whether
organisations should be specified. My first point of reassurance is
that if there is evidence that the broad thrust is negative—that
people are moving from peace back toward conflict, taking us backwards
rather than forwards—the Secretary of State will not hesitate to
return to the House with a different order, which will respecify those
organisations if he feels that that is absolutely necessary.
To answer the
final point that the hon. Gentleman made, if somebody comes out of
prison and still supports a proscribed organisation, rather than a
specified organisation, that is an offence, if the evidence is
there.
Mr.
Robertson: My question was whether they will still be
allowed out of prison on that
basis.
Paul
Goggins: The point is that when a decision is made by the
Sentence Review Commissioners on whether to allow somebody out under
the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—the
outworking of the Good Friday agreement—it is absolutely clear
that that individual must not engage in the activities of a proscribed
organisation. They must not engage in criminal activity or pose any
kind of threat, and if they do they can be recalled to
prison. On
those occasions when the Secretary of State exercises his power and
takes people back to prison—often for a long period, because
many such people have committed
grave offences in the past—his statement always makes it clear
that he will not hesitate for a second to put people back in prison
when they flout the terms of their release and engage with criminal and
proscribed organisations, and with unsafe and risky activity as far as
the community is
concerned. I
hope that that offers the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. The fact
that we are despecifying an organisation does not give carte blanche
for people who have committed grave offences in the past to carry on
doing, willy-nilly, whatever they want to do. They have to stick to
those terms clearly, and if they do not they can be recalled. I shall
not rehearse the criteria that I went through before; they are there on
the record. Serious consideration against those four criteria has to be
undertaken by the Sentence Review Commissioners, and only if they are
satisfied will they allow somebody out under the terms of the 1998
Act. In
offering some reassurance, I am trying to say that all those
organisations that are proscribed will remain proscribed. There are
some organisations that are proscribed, but not specified. I assure the
hon. Member for Tewkesbury that it is an offence to engage in the
activities of proscribed organisations. If people do that, they can be
prosecuted and, if necessary, sent to
prison. I
want to get across to the hon. Gentleman the message that because we
are despecifying does not mean that people get off scot-free and that
we are no longer interested. That is far from the case. The order is,
however, a positive message to those in the UVF who are trying to take
the organisation and those who have been associated with it in the
right direction on the path of peace that they must carry on and get to
the point where they fully decommission and fully engage peacefully in
society.
Mr.
Robertson: The Minister has been extremely courteous in
giving way, as usual. I take his point about sending that message to
the UVF, but when the message was sent to the UDA, in the following 12
months it murdered four people. It hardly took the message on board,
did
it?
Paul
Goggins: Earlier, I gave the strong message from the 17th
report of the IMC about the activities of the UDA. The IMC
identifies “a
genuine desire to make
progress” and
states that it does
not “believe
that the UDA has terrorist ambitions or a strategy to enhance the
organisation’s
capacity”. Undoubtedly,
there are individuals within that organisation who engage in criminal
acts. Indeed, it is recorded in the IMC reports that members of the
Provisional IRA have engaged in such activities as individuals, but
that does not detract from the massive movement forward made by the
Provisional IRA as an organisation in no longer having the will or the
capacity to engage in conflict. One has to differentiate between
individuals and organisations and see the signs of progress for what
they are, although they are only signs, not the end
game. We
shall discuss in future debates whether these unusual legal
arrangements, such as those for the amnesty period, are to continue. We
are making it clear across all parties that special arrangements of
this kind cannot
continue for ever and that there has to be a point where people stop
delaying and fully engage in decommissioning. That message is not
diluted one bit by the proposal that we should despecify the
UVF. Finally, I
feel that earlier I probably did not explain my point sufficiently well
to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, who is no longer with
us— [Interruption.] I understand that my
hon. Friend is now back in communication with the Committee, which I am
grateful for. I made the first half of the point, which was that
Ã"glaigh na hEireann is the generic term for the IRA, as he
rightly said. The House of Lords ruling makes that clear and does not
differentiate between different parts of the IRA regarding its legal
status. The IMC does differentiate between different factions within
the IRA, as do the Government, on its
advice. That
relates to how those groups style themselves: the Continuity IRA and
the Real IRA style themselves in those particular ways and in February
2006 the IMC noted for the first time that there was a new splinter
group styling itself Ã"glaigh na hEireann. Our understanding of
what Ã"glaigh na hEireann means is based on those who style
themselves in that way claiming responsibility for grave acts, as they
have done and as other groups have done. In law, we understand that the
IRA is a generic term; the advice of the Security Service and others,
as well as how the organisations style themselves, is what
differentiates one from the other.
In the last
two years, we have had this new group that styles itself Ã"glaigh
na hEireann, even though a range of organisations see themselves in a
similar way. I hope that that provides some further clarification, that
I have been able to persuade the hon. Member for Tewkesbury to reflect
a little on the points he was making and that he will support the
order.
Question
put:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
| 
