---

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 2005

I am most grateful for the comments of both noble Lords in support of the order. Other issues have also been raised. If the issue was as black and white as being able to list a specific incident or what incidents might trigger certain things, then we would be in a different ball game. The matter has to be looked at in the round. Perhaps I may deal first with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I fully accept the issues he raised regarding the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act, but they are somewhat outside this. I am very grateful because he gave me notice of some of the issues he intended to raise. However, as I was not specifically briefed on that issue, I shall write to him. On the general issue of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the courts, they will be fully involved in the systems concerning the justice Act and restorative justice. Although I do not have a copy with me, I recall confirming that when I repeated the Statement of the Secretary of State in the House a week ago last Thursday. That made it quite clear that the Police Service of Northern Ireland would be involved; in fact it would be the trigger for things to go through the system. But I will write to the noble Lord on the specific issues he has raised. Regarding the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, the definition of ““ceasefire”” is set out in legislation, although I suspect she might not think that it is specific enough. It is set out in Section 3(9) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. It states:"““The Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation—(a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives; (b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or preparation for violence; (c) is directing or promoting acts of violence by other organisations; (d) is co-operating fully with the Commission””." Of course the Secretary of State will take advice on these matters and reach a judgment in the round. What I cannot say is that if, for example, there had not been the four murders but there had been Whiterock, or if there had been the four murders and no Whiterock, we would be doing this today. That is not possible. We have to judge what happened. What happened? What happened was the feud, the four murders and the outrageous behaviour at the Whiterock parade. That was a parade which had been delayed from earlier in the year. Taking all those factors into account the Secretary of State came to the view on 13 September that specification should take place. I cannot be more specific. That is how the system works. One cannot say that it is because of the four murders or because of Whiterock—that if one had not happened, this would not have happened. The fact is that we have to look at what happened. The events happened at a period of time and the decision was taken in the round. As regards the UDA, it is quite clear that it has been involved in recent violence, including some associated with the Whiterock parade. The Secretary of State, again judging the case in the round, concluded that there are insufficient grounds to specify at the present time. That applies for today. That is the current decision of the Secretary of State. But those circumstances and all the other factors are literally kept ““under constant review””. That is not a glib phrase that Ministers use from time to time as an excuse to say, ““Well, we don’t really know what we are doing””. These issues are kept under review to see whether action can be taken and whether that action will bring about some positive changes. The leadership of the UVF must think through what ““specification”” means. It may be classed as being not very effective, but things can follow for members of a specified organisation, particularly those who have been let out of prison. That is not to say that we are going to round them all up and put them back in. The fact is that their status is different if their organisation is specified and if they are out on licence from what it would be if it were not specified. The leadership of that organisation has to take that fact into account. On the PUP, we would argue that there is no inconsistency. I accept that it is very easy to say that. Having had all the issues set out for public consumption, the Secretary of State has had different decisions to make and has reached a conclusion. The Secretary of State has considered what the IMC had to say about the PUP—that is the party linked to the UVF. He made it clear in the Statement of 13 October that he does not intend to impose a penalty now, but that he is keeping it under review over the coming months and will want to see what is said in the IMC’s January report. The reports in January will be crucial, for lots of reasons. They will be a very important milestone. The October reports, for various reasons, only cover a certain few weeks after other events that I do not want to go into. The PUP has taken steps in the right direction. We want to encourage, not discourage, further progress to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. As a Member of this place, let alone a former MP, it sticks in the craw, on the surface, that we are paying the MLAs—they still receive three quarters of their allowance. It does not look logical but there is a reason for it. They are suspended; we want them back working. We want that Assembly up and running as quickly as possible. I realise that it is three years since it was suspended but, because of other decisions taken, we are probably on the verge of some momentous changes. It is in everybody’s interests that a political class is kept in being, so that there is no excuse, when the time comes, for those people who have been childish in one respect, because they did not want to participate in grown-up politics—that is what it is all about—to say that others should take the difficult decisions. We want them to take the decisions for the people of Northern Ireland and not to pass the buck anymore on to direct-rule Ministers. It would not be satisfactory, therefore, to go through negotiations, put through various legislative changes and then perhaps to have to start with a clean sheet of paper to set up an Assembly, with the personalities and everything else involved. In the round, it suits Westminster, which wants the devolved Assembly up and running, to maintain the genesis of the Assembly so that it can be switched on quite quickly. It is true that people may want a fresh mandate, but that is for discussion. I cannot speak for all MLAs, as I have neither met nor received letters from all of them, but many carry out a representative role for their constituents. Although they cannot make legislation and speak in an Assembly about it, as we all know, there are many other ways of representing one’s constituents. That said, I am very grateful for the contributions and I will write to follow up the points that I have not been able to answer. On Question, Motion agreed to.