---

Organised Crime (Northern Ireland)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Chief Constable said that the crime would continue. He believed that the police could eventually defeat it, but made it clear to us that it continued to be carried out by loyalist and republican groups that in the past were engaged in terrorist activity. Indeed, as I pointed out in an intervention, the evidence was that even up until this year, five-figure sums were given to some of the groups that said that they were not involved in such activities. Six-figure sums were given to the Provisional IRA. It is clear that such groups continue to engage in criminal activity. The political spokesmen for many of the terrorist groups complain vociferously about deprivation in working class Catholic or Protestant areas, yet the groups with which they are associated, which they defend, whose members they argue should get out of jail—many of them have gone back to criminal activity—are the very groups that are responsible for much of the economic deprivation, either by destroying the livelihood and lives of young people by pulling them the drug culture or criminality, or by chasing businesses away. I took a TV crew along one small section of road in my council area of East Belfast, and some of the shopkeepers came out and bravely took part in interviews. They said that no sooner had they opened their doors than demands came in for amounts ranging from £1,500 down to £100. Some of those who gave evidence to the police and got people put away ended up having to flee their own houses. That kind of thing chases business away, and then the political representatives complain about the resulting economic deprivation. Another effect of such activities is clearly stated in the report. Both of my colleagues made this point, and I cannot emphasise it enough: this type of crime will have an impact on political progress in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 21 states:"““Paramilitary organised crime continues to threaten the stability of communities in Northern Ireland and poses a real threat to future political progress.””" I sat in the Northern Ireland Assembly from 1998 to 2002 or 2003—whenever it was—and watched political representatives there who had one foot in Stormont and the other foot in all kinds of terrorist activity, including a spy room in the room underneath my room in Stormont. The thing that caused that Assembly to stumble from one crisis to another was the crime and terrorism associated with one of the parties whose representatives sat in Stormont and were even in government. It is important not just to give the impression that there has been a divorce between the IRA and Sinn Fein, but that the crime and any stigma that comes from it is no longer associated with a political party. The only way that that can happen is for those Sinn Fein leaders who have the ability to exercise some control to make it clear to those who follow them, those who support them and those for whom they speak that such criminal activity must stop. The report outlines several things that must be done to fight organised crime. I shall take them in a certain order. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) is gone. Organised crime is embedded in paramilitary organisations, many of which, unfortunately, are held in esteem in the communities in which they operate. Some of the individuals are seen as heroes, and some of the organisations are seen as defenders. The first prerequisite for fighting organised crime is that the political leaders of communities make it clear that there is no justification for crime or for sheltering criminals, and that communities must work with the statutory authorities, whether they be the police, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Assets Recovery Agency or whoever happens to deal with a criminal activity. As the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) pointed out in a telling intervention, the report emphasises in several places—I believe in three or four different paragraphs—the importance of the need not only for community support but for leadership to persuade communities to work with statutory agencies. In paragraph 145, the Committee states that it is under no illusions about"““gaining the community support that is essential in tackling organised crime and reducing the hold of the paramilitaries””." The next paragraph—paragraph 146—tells us one of the things that must be done if we are to get community support. Paragraph 146 states that"““the success of the police in tackling organised crime will be significantly limited so long as one of the major political parties, Sinn Fein, withholds its support for, and recognition of the legitimacy of, the PSNI””." That is crucial, and the Committee recognised it as such, not because some Northern Ireland political representatives asked for it to be included, but because the overwhelming evidence that we received from law enforcement agencies, citizens and businesspeople was that that had to be done. Although the recommendations gave the Minister at least four opportunities to make some comment on the need for political parties to support the police, there is not one endorsement of that position in his response to the report. I find that disappointing and I hope that he will address it when he comes to sum up at the end of the debate. There is a feeling in Northern Ireland and among many of my colleagues that from the time the Secretary of State stood in the House and said in response to questions from spokesmen for the Conservative party and my party that he did not want to make support for the police a new precondition in any talks, the wrong signal went out to Sinn Fein that somehow or other the Government would fudge the issue of support for the police. Even when we discussed the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Bill and the spokesman for the Conservative party tried on three occasions to get the Secretary of State to say when he believed it would be essential for Sinn Fein to hold a party conference, he could not even pin him down to something as woolly as before or after the election in March. What kind of signal does that send out to the representatives of one of the largest paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland who are engaged in organised crime? I want to see political movement in Northern Ireland and the establishment of an Assembly. As a Member who feels increasingly frustrated that the Government, with their large majority, can push legislation in Northern Ireland through fairly rapidly and with the minimum of debate when they want to, I would rather see a lot of that transferred to a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. My party is on record as saying that it is committed to working towards that goal and wants to achieve it as soon as possible. It will not be achieved, and even the most enthusiastic supporter of devolution will not move rapidly towards that position, if the requirement of political support for the police is not addressed. As was pointed out by one of my colleagues, who have either become bored or have been chased away—they have gone, anyway—that means not only a verbal commitment but a testing period. Not only must there be support for the police, but the police must have the ability and the tools with which to do the job. The Committee made its recommendation based on the comments of people who gave evidence that they feel at times or in some areas that the police may have been under-resourced when it came to the tools that they needed to carry out their job. I note that in the Minister’s response all we are told is that the financial commitment to the police will be about £800 million until 2008 and that after that the comprehensive spending review kicks in. That masks the fact—I have some knowledge of this because I was chairman of the finance committee of the Northern Ireland Policing Board until I came off it a few months ago—that the police are staring at a huge financial deficit after 2008 with the comprehensive spending review, the Gershon efficiencies and the cuts that there will be in police expenditure. The extent of that meant that there was talk that the PSNI might have to divest itself of nearly 2,000 personnel and to come down to the levels given by Patten for a situation where Northern Ireland has as much normality as other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, we know that with the dissident threat and the additional security problems that face Northern Ireland there is not that level of normality. When I read the Minister’s conclusion on that recommendation I felt that he was not so much handing us an assurance as reinforcing the problems that many of us see down the road for policing in Northern Ireland. We need to be careful of saying that we want to build up confidence in the police service and asking politicians to build it up when, at the same time, the police are finding that they have less authority to carry on with the job that they are required to do, because then all that we would have was disappointment. First, there must be confidence in the police so that people will come forward with evidence. Secondly, the police must have the tools and resources to do the job. When they catch the criminals, there must be proper sentencing. Examples must be made of those criminals. The evidence that we were given on sentencing was not merely a populist view from people who do not know, although it could be argued that some of those who gave evidence about sentencing might not be as well informed as professionals. We heard such comments as"““penalties do not fit the crime””," from Tom Wilson of the Freight Transport Association. The former chairman of the Road Haulage Association referred to ““derisory sentences””. Officers for HMRC"““told us that on a number of occasions officers had expected custodial sentences to be passed but suspended sentences were handed down and that sentences in Northern Ireland are lighter than for comparable offences in England and Wales.””" One could argue that the first two were just ordinary members of the public making comment, but one would imagine that officers at HMRC would have some yardstick against which to judge the comments that they made. They say that in England, Wales or Scotland, people would have gone down for a similar offence to one that in Northern Ireland led to people being given non-custodial sentences. The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland"““noted that the level of deterrent in Northern Ireland is often perceived as lower in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom””" because of the weak sentencing policy of the courts. He was one of those who recommended that we do some investigation into comparable sentencing. Maybe the Minister has had a chance to revise his opinion, but when he gave evidence to the Committee he said that he believed that sentencing was ““on a par”” with the rest of the United Kingdom. That certainly was not the opinion of the Chief Constable, who is not someone who came up through the ranks of the old Royal Ulster Constabulary and then the PSNI and has no experience outside Northern Ireland. He had considerable experience in the Met before he came to Northern Ireland. The officers of HMRC would certainly have had wider experience, and their view was that sentencing was not on a par. As a public representative in Northern Ireland, one cannot help but know some of those who are involved in such activity. Many of them walk the streets as if they own them and feel that they are above the law. Sometime, I think, they take the light sentences as part of the risks of the job. It is important that some cognisance is taken of the Committee’s view. Despite the fact that the Minister said in his response that it is not Government policy to interfere with the operation of the courts, we have precedents in Northern Ireland for giving guidance to courts to impose heavier sentences for certain types of crime. The report pointed that out: with hate crimes, whether they involve religion, sex, colour or whatever, judges are encouraged to and do give heavier sentences. It is important that there should be a similar direction in the cases of those who are involved in organised crime when they use their paramilitary muscle, paramilitary past, paramilitary involvement, paramilitary tactics or paramilitary friends, because allied to that is the culture of intimidation. The Committee’s next recommendation was for certain legislative change. I listened to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, and I know that he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary and that he had to say all those things and be nice to the Minister, but he was not in touch with reality. He talked about how swiftly the Government have moved on some of the issues. That is not the experience that the Committee had when listening to evidence or indeed the impression given by the report or the Government’s response. Let us look at a couple of the issues. On the licensing regime for petrol retailing, half of the garages in Northern Ireland sell illegal fuel. Many of them have been put out of business and many of the owners are forced to take loads from fuel-laundering plants. Despite the fact that in 2003 the Committee recommended that a licensing system should be introduced, nothing was done. There is promise of a consultation in paragraph 49 of the Government’s response and of a licensing system that might come in some time in 2007, but it is likely to be later than that. I hardly think that that shows urgency. That is all despite the fact that the industry is crying out for a licensing system, as are those involved in collecting the revenue—or not collecting it as the case may be, as result of all of the illegal fuel. We are saying that a licensing system would help and may have saved many of the small petrol retailers. A robust licensing system would at least ensure that it was much more difficult for those who laundered fuel in plants along the border to find an outlet, because much of it is now going through what appear to be legitimate forecourts, but are not. I note that there has been some change regarding the second piece of legislation we asked for. That involved an amendment to part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to aid the Assets Recovery Agency in, first of all, speeding up the civil recovery of the proceeds of crime. One of the things that the Minister must look at very soon is the way in which even when assets have been seized, they can be used to fund the legal defence of those from whom they were seized. The evidence that we were given was that large amounts of those assets were simply ploughed back into the legal defence. In fact, the legal bills were sometimes so enormous that it called into question just how genuine some of the bills were. Given that the report courageously points out that some professionals were actually part of this network, and I know some of the professional organisations jumped up and down about that, it can be seen that this loophole of using seized assets for a defence might actually be recycling assets right around the system again. There is no sign in the Minister’s response that that aspect is going to be looked at soon. The third area is the licensing regime for the road haulage industry; something that was introduced in other parts of the UK in 2000 and is not likely to come to Northern Ireland until the summer of 2008. Again, that is not a speedy response from the Government. In the meantime, people who are transporting illegal fuel can do so because there are not the same controls over the road haulage industry as elsewhere. Illegal cigarettes are transported and a whole range of other criminal activities are also taking place. The requirement for the role of the Charity Commission to be extended to Northern Ireland is also important. There was a lot of interest in that issue in the local media when the Committee published its report. One of the fears that I had—I did a number of interviews at home on the issue—was that many legitimate charities could actually find themselves hurt by the fact we had identified charity fraud in a report. People do not want to see that money ending up in the pockets of the paramilitaries. It is important that some assurance is given in Northern Ireland that organisations set up as charities are genuine so that the funds do not dry up. There are many other recommendations that I wanted to discuss, but I have spoken for long enough. The Committee Chairman has been generous in his comments on the Minister’s response. The Minister has tip-toed around many aspects of the report and the recommendations rather than address them head-on. There are some difficult issues here and I know that there is no panacea, but the tackling of organised crime is important for stability in Northern Ireland. It is important for the political stability of Northern Ireland and for showing that we are moving out of an era when paramilitaries and their political associates were able to run the place and benefit from organised crime. Every effort should be made to address the issues raised in the report and look at the recommendations that the Committee has made. They were made after due consideration and as a result of much thought and evidence from people who are affected by paramilitary and organised crime on a day-to-day basis. The Government must give serious consideration to the report, particularly because some of those who came along did so reluctantly, not, as the Chairman said, because they were afraid. Many of them were afraid and were very brave to come because they knew that, if some of the evidence given to us in private had got out and been made public, they would have been in personal danger. However, many came along saying, ““We have been here before. We came to this Committee when you were looking at fuel fraud in 2003. We gave evidence and nothing happened. We do not want this to be a waste of time again.”” People took a chance in giving evidence; they gave us an honest view of what it is like to be a business person in Northern Ireland and the Government have a duty to respond to the fears that they expressed.