Mr. Goodwill: That date is three days before one of the possible dates for a general election. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be impossible to publish the report during the final stages of a general election campaign? Is there anything that he can do to bring forward the publication of that already overdue report?
Mr. Woodward: The House will understand that it is not for me to speculate on dates of general elections. I can, however, tell the House that I have again met the families and the soldiers, and I am grateful to hon. Members for facilitating those meetings. The families are deeply disappointed by yet another delay; it is agonising for them. The same is true for the soldiers and their families. This delay is causing very real distress, and it is clearly compounding an already very anxious situation.
Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): Given that the publication date that Lord Saville has indicated is a possible, if not a likely, date for a general election announcement, is he aware of the toxicity and controversy that will undoubtedly follow his report in that context?
Mr. Woodward: I had the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman in his constituency only a week ago, when I was also meeting the families. I am particularly concerned about the delay. With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the date of a general election is a matter for him. However, there should be no delay in publishing this report. I have urged Lord Saville, and made every effort available, to ensure that we publish it as quickly as possible.
Mr. Woodward: The report has taken more than 10 years to produce, and it has cost nearly £200 million, half of which has been spent on legal aid. The report has been crucial to the peace process, and we will study its findings carefully. I say that because I think that the House will want a debate on it, and the Government would want to grant it a debate on the report and its findings.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): May I thank the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet a deputation of soldiers? That was very much appreciated. Will he express to Lord Saville our anger at the expense that he has run up, and at the ultimate discourtesy to this House and to the people involved that he has not yet published the report? Please will he express our anger at his incompetence?
Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman will know the concern that I have, for both the families and the soldiers who are part of the report. I am very concerned about the delay, and I very much hope that Lord Saville not only takes my representations seriously but finds the opportunity to read the Hansard of today's questions, because it is extremely important that he understand the genuine concern across the whole House.
7. James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the level of activity of dissident republicans in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. 
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Shaun Woodward): I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Independent Monitoring Commission's 22nd report on the activities of paramilitary groups, in which the IMC states:
"Dissident republican activity since the early summer of 2008 had been consistently more serious than at any time since we had started to report in April 2004."
David Tredinnick: Speaking as a former Grenadier Guard who served in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Secretary of State to express his condolences to the families of the three Guardsmen and two military policemen killed yesterday in Helmand province? Does the Secretary of State recognise the contribution to the peace process made by the Grenadiers in Northern Ireland, including building the peace line? Finally, will he tell the House whether the upsurge in violence is due to new terrorist activity, or to the Provisional IRA under another name?
Mr. Woodward: In answering the hon. Gentleman's third question, may I associate myself firmly with the remarks made in his two previous ones? In response to his third question, I urge him to read the IMC report, which makes it clear that such activity cannot be attributed to the organised activities of those who may have represented paramilitary activity in the past. The report is extremely clear in laying the blame where it appropriately lies, particularly with the so-called RIRA and CIRA-Real IRA and Continuity IRA. Those groups are extremely dangerous, and a political solution is pressed as a matter of urgency.
James Duddridge: Does the Secretary of State agree that the tragic death of Constable Stephen Carroll, allegedly by a 17-year-old, means that we should look carefully again at community policing and at how it helps to stop young people getting involved with proscribed organisations?
Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman will understand why I may not wish to speak about the particular individuals who have been charged with the murder of Constable Carroll, but I will say that the IMC report-I urge all hon. Members to read it-is very clear about where some of the recruitment, particularly of young males, is coming from and why it is happening. Within the report, there is also a proposal for a political intervention, which the IMC believes would be potent in having an effect on these people.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the logic of the IMC today is consistent with advice that the Social and Democratic Labour party has been giving for over two years about the importance of devolving justice and policing as a way of disarming the dissident groups? Does he also acknowledge that we are concerned that the dissidents could be assisted by some of the consequences of the Ashdown review? Given the seriousness of the situation, why has only the leader of the Alliance party been given confidential security briefings and why is the Secretary of State asking the Alliance leader to go quiet on the shared future in the countdown to the devolution of justice and policing?
Mr. Woodward: You might me rebuke me, Mr. Speaker, if I chose to answer all of those questions. I will none the less try to find an envelope that might succeed in answering the purport of the question. The report is very clear about the problem that we are facing in Northern Ireland today as a result of criminals calling themselves dissidents. It is very clear that there is a political solution and the report advocates that early devolution of policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly could provide a potent intervention. I urge that intervention on all those elected in Northern Ireland, regardless of party.
Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab): I welcome the views of the IMC and its conclusion that the time is right for the transfer of policing and justice powers to the devolved Assembly. I ask my right hon. Friend to reiterate in very strong terms the view of the IMC that the transference of those powers would, in its words,
"be a platform for co-operation against those trying to undermine the peace process."
Mr. Woodward: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It might be worth drawing the attention of the House to one of the remarks in the IMC's report today, which is that the activities of these dissidents
"represent a challenging of the peace process by groups always violently opposed to it",
"not an unravelling of that process."
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the attack by dissidents at the home of a police officer under a car that was driven off by his partner, although fortuitously no lives were lost as a result? Will he underline the need for police officers and their families to be particularly vigilant at this time, as even if they consider themselves to be living in safe areas, they need to remain alert? Will he indicate what steps he intends to take to meet the challenge set by the dissident republicans from their increase in activity over the past number of months?
Mr. Woodward: I very much join the right hon. Gentleman in those remarks and I thank him for the role that he is playing in trying to drive forward progress on completion of devolution. I would none the less remind him that paragraph 5.1, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) referred, is very clear in saying that
"the early devolution of policing and justice powers to the...Assembly...could provide a potent intervention... It would be because policing and justice would no longer be a point of contention across the political divide; rather, it would be a platform for co-operation against those trying to undermine the peace process."
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Will the Secretary of State pass on the congratulations of this House to the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the skill and vigilance that enabled it to defuse a massive bomb on the border? That occurred since the House last had Northern Ireland questions.
Mr. Woodward: I am happy to pass on those remarks to the PSNI. I am sure that the House would warmly welcome the new Chief Constable, Matt Baggott, who has taken over control of the PSNI. The PSNI does an extremely brave job, as this report demonstrates, in extremely difficult and challenging circumstances.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): May I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and the IMC report-that the devolution of criminal justice would indeed be "a potent intervention" that politicians could effect in dealing with dissident republican groups? Does he agree with me and those with whom I am associated in Northern Ireland that, in the long term, these groups will be countered only if we are able to pursue an agenda of shared futures?
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of the shared future. There has been a lot of discussion about community confidence being built before devolution can take place. The report puts clearly before the House and the public of Northern
Ireland that the real challenge to community confidence is the threat posed by dissidents. We have a choice, and we can act: early devolution would be a potent intervention, and I hope we will complete it soon.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), with Remembrance day approaching we should remember all those who were killed or injured serving the security forces, protecting our democracy and safeguarding our public. The latest IMC report published this morning contains some encouraging news, but also other deeply worrying information. The report states:
"The overall level of dissident activity was markedly higher than we have seen since we first met in late 2003. The seriousness, range and tempo of their activities all changed for the worse in these six months."
Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I would like to mark our thanks to the Opposition parties who have helped in supporting the financial package put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to enable early devolution to take place. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the part of the report relating to the security issue, which goes on to say that the challenges
"pose a major challenge to the law enforcement and other agencies on both sides of the border. Had it not been for the work of all these agencies North and South, more lives would have been lost."
Mr. Paterson: On the conclusion that the report endorses the devolution of policing, the Opposition have always taken a responsible approach. We support the devolution of policing and justice, and we supported the Bill in March. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has confirmed our long-term commitment to the significant financial package proposed by the Government. We have always made clear that devolution should happen only when all parts of the community are supportive-
Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is up to the four parties. But let us be clear: as the report highlights, this is perhaps a moment when whatever individual issues might still prevent parties from moving forward, they should now set aside their differences, find the points of common unity and purpose, and ensure that the dissidents do not become a major threat to people in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins): Although I welcome the positive leadership that has delivered major progress on decommissioning, some individual members of loyalist paramilitary organisations remain involved in criminality and punishment attacks.
Mr. Vara: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. However, when does he believe that the loyalist paramilitaries will disband their command structures, and what is he doing to try to ensure that that happens?
Paul Goggins: It is important that those organisations take down their command structures and desist from criminality, and that the Ulster Defence Association in particular moves to complete the decommissioning process it has begun-certainly no later than February next year, when the powers run out. I am particularly concerned about the increase, reported today by the IMC, in the number of paramilitary-style attacks in loyalist areas this year: already more than double the number last year. These people must stop taking the law into their own hands, and let the police and the courts do their job.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's urgent intent not only that there will be full and immediate decommissioning by loyalist paramilitaries, but that PSNI and the Serious Organised Crime Agency will pursue their criminally acquired assets and those of other paramilitaries past and present?
Paul Goggins: It is essential that decommissioning be completed by February next year, as the special arrangements will not be extended. My hon. Friend is also right that those who, as part of paramilitary gangs or other groups, have acquired criminal assets, often running into millions of pounds, should have them taken back off them. I reassure him that SOCA, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the PSNI will pursue those people relentlessly and bring those assets back into the public domain.
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): When the Government extended the arms amnesty until 2010 a few months ago we supported the Government, very reluctantly. Will the Minister confirm yet again that he will not seek to introduce primary legislation to extend the amnesty? We certainly could not support any further extension, because after that date we shall see these people as nothing more than criminals.
Let me once again express my appreciation for the Opposition parties' support for our approach to the decommissioning amnesty order. I believe that an unequivocal message went out from the House from all parties that there would be no tolerance of people who hold back on decommissioning, and no extension of
the amnesty powers beyond February next year. Next February, the powers will run out for good. Those who still hold on to weapons must decommission them, and decommission them now.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|