I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Before I turn to the Bill itself, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement issued last night in the name of the Loyalist Volunteer Force indicating that what they describe as their "military units" have been ordered to stand down. As the House will know, over the summer the LVF and the Ulster Volunteer Force have been engaged in a grisly feud, which has cost four lives. I welcome any move that brings such murderous violence to an end.

The statement is, therefore, a step forward which I hope will give encouragement to those who are working to establish the primacy of politics in their communities. Of course, words must also be matched by deeds from all loyalist groups. What we need to see is the full decommissioning of all paramilitary arsenals and a complete and permanent end to all paramilitary and criminal activity from all paramilitary groups. In welcoming the statement, I can also say that hearing the president of Sinn Fein use the words "the war is over"—words that we have wanted to hear for such a long time—is a further sign that we are continuing to move in the right direction.

We are all haunted by what has occurred in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Members of the House and the other place have been personally affected. Others will have vivid memories of scenes of terrorist atrocities reported in the media.

During the loyalist and republican terrorist campaigns more than 3,000 people lost their lives, families have been torn apart and victims left bereft. In 1972 alone, the worst year of violence, 497 people were killed and nearly 5,000 were injured. So far this year, there have been just five fatal attacks. Those are, of course, five deaths too many, but nevertheless the situation has changed dramatically from the dark days of the 1970s and 1980s.

The legislative response to terrorism has also changed over the last 30 years as the counter-capability responds to the level of threat. In particular, special provision has been required to counter terrorism and for the use of the armed forces in support of the police. Those provisions have evolved over time in response to changing terrorist tactics to ensure that the agencies can respond effectively to terrorism.

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 was the first piece of legislation to focus on tackling the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It provided non-jury Diplock courts to overcome problems of juror intimidation by paramilitaries and gave special powers to the police and armed forces in Northern Ireland to stop, to search and to enter premises. It applied only in Northern Ireland.

Following attacks by the IRA in Birmingham in 1974, Parliament passed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which gave additional powers of arrest and detention to police and applied throughout the United Kingdom. Those Acts were extended and renewed a number of times in subsequent years. The Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 was passed as a response to the Omagh bombing of 15 August 1998.

All of that legislation was re-enacted and extended, culminating in the Terrorism Act 2000, which was intended to combat all forms of terrorism, not just terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. The 2000 Act placed anti-terrorism laws largely on a permanent footing in the United Kingdom, in line with the recommendations made by Lord Lloyd of Berwick's "Inquiry into legislation against terrorism" and the proposals in the Home Office consultation document, "Legislation against Terrorism". However, the 2000 Act continued to contain temporary provision that was designed to tackle the specific threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland and that applies only there. Those temporary provisions are contained in part VII of that Act.

Since the 2000 Act was passed, there have been further changes to the permanent law on terrorism. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 further refined and extended the range of options available to deal with the terrorist threat. The Home Secretary has now brought further measures before Parliament to strengthen our capacity to tackle the latest threats from terrorism.

The Northern Ireland temporary powers have also evolved since they were first enacted in 1973, responding effectively to the particular threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland at any given time.

I welcome the Secretary of State's opening remarks. Will the order-making power in clause 1(3) be subject to the negative procedure of the House or to its affirmative counterpart?

The affirmative procedure will be used, given the importance attached to that matter.

Those provisions have been on a temporary footing since 1973, but have been necessary to tackle the security situation. They were never intended to be permanent, and we have always remained committed to their ultimate removal, once the security situation allowed. The provisions expire early next year. Without further legislation, provided by the Bill, they would not be available beyond 18 February 2006.

We have reviewed the necessity for the part VII provisions each year. Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of the Terrorism Act 2000—I am indebted to him for his continuing work—has conducted his own external review. I received a letter from Lord Carlile this morning—I have placed a copy in the Libraries of both Houses—in which he said:

"In sum, I remain of the view that, in terms of the prevention of terrorism, some special powers remain necessary. Were there not such powers in the Bill, I would be driven to the conclusion that there would be a risk of more terrorist acts connected with the island of Ireland rather than less."

I refer to the Carlile report and agree with the Secretary of State's sentiments, but why are we having this discussion before that report has been published?

I received Lord Carlile's letter only this morning. Obviously, the debate on Second Reading has been scheduled for a while, but I want to place on record again the fact that he does invaluable work in advising the Government in this respect on Northern Ireland, and we are very grateful to him indeed.

Did Lord Carlile's letter indicate the sources from which he anticipated that further acts of terror would come if the regulations were relaxed?

No, the letter did not indicate that, but allow me to cite another of the important points in Lord Carlile's letter that the hon. Gentleman and the House will want to hear. He said:

"In my view the duration of the powers proposed in the Bill is justified on the merits and proportional."

The word "proportional" is very appropriate.

Each year Parliament has approved the continued use of the provisions and agreed that they are an appropriate response to the threat. Earlier this year we identified several provisions relating to bail and the treatment of juveniles that were no longer needed and took them out of force. Last year, we lapsed a provision on port and border controls with no ill effect. All that has happened because the security situation in Northern Ireland has improved and other structural and legislative developments have meant that some of the provisions are no longer necessary.

Given that the letter that the Secretary of State quotes is obviously of considerable importance to the debate, would it not be prudent to provide all hon. Members who intend to participate in the debate with a copy, so that we do not all have to trail off to the Library? If the right hon. Gentleman is citing that letter, I stress that it is reasonable for every one of us to receive a copy because otherwise we will be at a disadvantage during the debate.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I saw the letter only in the mid-morning. I have only had the chance to look at it and refer to it in my speech. I shall put a copy in the Library as soon as possible.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a sense I am making a procedural request, so perhaps I should not have asked that question of the Secretary of State. Would it be possible for you to arrange for copies of the letter to be provided to hon. Members, because it would be helpful to all of us during the debate?

I think that the Secretary of State is indicating that he will do so.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly make arrangements for photocopies to be made available to hon. Members who wish to have them. I am sorry that the circumstances were such that they did not receive them earlier.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking another intervention— it will be quick. He really needs to clarify the inconsistency of his approach in recent weeks. We are being asked to approve terrorism legislation that will extend part VII for at least two years, and perhaps another year on top of that, on the basis that the security situation, as determined at the present time, makes the provisions "necessary". How can he reconcile a Bill that we are being asked to pass on that assessment with the facts that he has already indicated that Sinn Fein's allowances will be returned in the Assembly, that he will recommend in a few weeks that Sinn Fein Members' allowances in this House should be returned, and that Royal Irish Regiment home battalions should be disbanded? Before we go any further, will he reconcile the two irreconcilable points of view that are coming out of the Northern Ireland Office?

I understand the hon. Lady's points, which she makes with her normal courtesy and force. However, it is clear that we are trying to progress the politics and ensure that we get a permanent end to violence—including that from the IRA, in relation to her point about allowances. At the same time, to ensure that the safety and security of each individual citizen in Northern Ireland is not jeopardised in any way by any retrograde action, we are putting in place necessary provisions through the Bill. It is consistent to move forward the politics while adopting the prudent approach of safeguarding the position if there were a terrorist outbreak by perhaps dissident republicans, or the remaining active loyalist groups that have not done what the Loyalist Volunteer Force announced overnight.

Does not what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon, and indeed his reply to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), underline the wisdom of him giving the House the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the on-the-runs legislation with which we are threatened?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I dealt with that matter last week when I gave evidence to his Committee and he questioned me closely on it. The on-the-runs legislation is of course entirely separate from the Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that many people in Northern Ireland think that this "progress" is capitulation and is not going to help? There is the view that many things are moving the situation in one way—especially in favour of the IRA—and we also have this legislation. Surely there is a contradiction. It is not possible to have it both ways. Either things are not good in Northern Ireland or else things are good in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live there know exactly what the answer to that is.

The soon-to-be right hon. Gentleman makes a point about a judgment on this matter. We are right to bring the Bill before the House today, and I am sure that he will welcome it later on. We are right to do that as a prudent safety mechanism just in case there is a repeat of the threat—perhaps by a dissident republican group or one of the loyalist groups that has not yet announced that it is disarming and standing down in the way that the LVF has—which we need to be in a position to meet. As the normalisation measures are taken forward in terms of reducing the number of armed forces and so, I am sure that every citizen in Northern Ireland will be reassured that we have, as a fall-back, legislation that has been necessary in recent years.

May I sum up the message coming from the Secretary of State? We are taking the Bill through the House because he believes that we are still under threat from dissident republicans and perhaps loyalist paramilitaries, but that we are under no threat from the Provisional IRA. Is he really saying that to the people of Northern Ireland?

The Bill creates an enabling environment. That is why the time frame is put in the way that it is. As regards the promises that the IRA made on 28 July and the decommissioning of its arsenal, which General John de Chastelain announced on 26 September, and the consequences that that will have for activity on the ground, which the hon. Lady and I want closed down for good, we will have to await the reports of the Independent Monitoring Commission—the next one is due in January—to see what has been delivered and whether the promises have been kept.

While the security situation is far from perfect—the violent events at Whiterock last month are evidence of that—no one could deny that the security situation has changed fundamentally as a result of the events of the past couple of months. On 28 July 2005, the Provisional IRA made an historic statement, announcing an end to the armed conflict and ordering all members to dump arms. In response, I announced on 1 August 2005 the triggering of a programme of security normalisation measures. That sees a gradual reduction in the security infrastructure in Northern Ireland and a reduction in troop numbers to garrison level, and culminates in the repeal of counter-terrorism legislation particular to Northern Ireland.

On 26 September 2005, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that the totality of the IRA's arsenal had been put beyond use. Like the statement on 28 July, that was a seismic step by the IRA, but we need to be sure that it has ended paramilitary and criminal activity for good. The January report of the IMC will help us to make that assessment.

The Secretary of State refers to the triggering of the implementation of the so-called normalisation aspects of the joint declaration. Will he confirm that that was agreed as part of negotiations involving the pro-agreement parties in the run-up to the joint declaration? Does he recognise that since that agreement things have changed in Northern Ireland and that people are rightly concerned that what is being followed is a timetable that is now out of date and does not apply to the circumstances that prevail politically in Northern Ireland today?

I can confirm that the pro-agreement parties were consulted and gave their general endorsement to the joint declaration in 2003. That was the statement that pre-announced all the matters about which I reminded everyone in early August. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents have many deep concerns about the pace of those normalisation procedures. We are having a separate discussion about the position of the Royal Irish Regiment home battalions, and the Democratic Unionist party has put some very good points to me about how that should be handled, particularly the levels of redundancy, about which there is much concern in many of the communities where soldiers and their families have made tremendous sacrifices over the years, sometimes with their lives. The points made by the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other DUP Members are well taken. I have had recent discussions with the Chief of the Defence Staff on the matter, and he is seized of the importance that I attach to proper provision and is well aware of the concerns that exist, particularly in those Unionist communities that have suffered so much over the last years.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Royal Irish Regiment. We have been meeting regularly with many of the soldiers, and I am aware of their concerns, but they are now being told that it could be January next year before they are given an indication of what the package is likely to be and how much compensation they will receive. Will the Secretary of State, in his ongoing discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence, press the point that there is a need to remove the uncertainty over their future, as we will be doing?

First, I acknowledge the particular work that the hon. Gentleman has put into this matter. I know of his previous involvement with the Royal Irish Regiment and that of his families; that gives him a particular expertise and authority to speak on this. I have made it clear, as I have to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—in the end this is an MOD matter, although I am batting for the people of Northern Ireland on this issue, as the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have asked me to do—and last week to the Chief of the Defence Staff, that it is important that the families and the men and women involved know what their future is as soon as possible. In the end it is not a matter for me, but if it is possible to obtain a decision before Christmas, that would be very desirable, and I have made that clear. But I do not want to press too fast and too hard and get an earlier decision that is not a good one. I would rather have a good one even though I agree that it is essential that it is made as soon as possible, and ideally before Christmas.

In the context of a changed Northern Ireland, the Government will press ahead with commitments to normalisation.

Before the Secretary of State moves on to more details about the normalisation programme that he has undertaken with his colleagues, will he just confirm and clarify that there is a world of difference between consulting the pro-agreement parties about the joint declaration and having agreement from the pro-agreement parties?

I understand the point that that hon. Lady is making in defence of the Ulster Unionist party, which has played an honourable role in bringing forward the peace process. I doubt whether we would have been where we are today in terms of the statements of 28 July and 26 September on an end to the IRA's armed campaign and the decommissioning of its arsenal had it not been for the courage shown by the then leader of the UUP.

When I published the normalisation programme on 1 August, I made it clear that my priority is the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the first duty that I have as Secretary of State. Nothing will be done to jeopardise that. The completion of the normalisation programme must be subject to an enabling environment being sustained. That is why I am bringing legislation before the House today instead of letting the provisions expire next February. The Bill provides that the part VII provisions will continue in force until 31 July 2007. Because I will not take chances with the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland, the Bill also contains the option to extend the provisions for up to one year thereafter until July 2008.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has called for the repeal of part VII and schedule 9 of the Terrorism Act 2000, relating to the working of the Diplock courts? Obviously, it is very important that in times gone by families and jurors were protected by having a single judge making decisions in that way. However, it has been suggested that one step towards normalisation might be to have one judge instead of three judges, so that confidence in the judicial system could be greatly enhanced among people on all sides.

I am sure that Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will agree that there is now confidence in the legal system right across the communities. Of course I take account of the statement that the Human Rights Commission made earlier this year, but I take particular account of the advice from Lord Carlile, the independent assessor who has considered these matters in great detail. We want to look very carefully at what happens in future in every respect and monitor the progress that has occurred over recent years. The number of Diplock trials is now so small that some of the hon. Lady's concerns no longer apply.

The Secretary of State will recall that I asked him whether Lord Carlile's letter indicated where he thought threats might still come from. As if by magic, copies of that letter have now appeared, and I see that it did in fact say:

"On the other side is the Commission's conclusion that paramilitaries, especially Loyalists and dissident Republicans, continue to exert a malign influence over communities."

That was the justification for his statement, and I thought it just as well to get it on the record.

I think that that point is rather different from the one that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, but I am happy to agree that that is indeed contained in Lord Carlile's letter. I am advised that there are now copies of the letter in the Vote Office as well as in the Library.

Many Conservative Members will support the legislation because we believe that it is beyond belief that the complete arsenal of Sinn Fein-IRA has been decommissioned. That view is shared by tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State explain why he is not prepared to be more transparent about the decommissioning of the IRA's complete arsenal? Why cannot the statement made by General John de Chastelain and the two witnesses be made more transparent not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to the people of this country, who believe that Sinn Fein-IRA may be merely playing a waiting game to see whether it can gain more of what it wants by doing what it has done, but that that was not a complete decommissioning of its arsenal?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's points about transparency. In an ideal world, that would have been ideal. Unfortunately, we may not have got the decommissioning that we thought. It is not for me to determine the exact arrangements. There is an international independent commission headed by General John de Chastelain and eminent colleagues who are also internationally respected right across the world, as well as, on this occasion, two independent clergymen who witnessed what happened. That should give some confidence to the process.

If the Secretary of State is of a mind to appoint more judges in Northern Ireland, will he assure us that it will not be done on a 50:50 basis?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is not a great fan of the 50:50 principle, because he has frequently railed against it to me and in public. I will bear in mind what he has said.

On Diplock courts, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for ensuring that we have all received copies of Lord Carlile's letter. Lord Carlile does not commit himself unequivocally one way or the other on Diplock courts, although he states:

"I am unlikely to conclude that it is yet time for their total removal."

What is the Secretary of State's view on a three-judge system? Does he buy the argument that a three-judge system would be fairer than a one-judge system for Diplock courts?

As I have said, Diplock courts operate very rarely indeed. The situation is transformed from years ago, when terrorist attacks occurred almost every day. We will continue to examine the matter, and I will consider trials involving paramilitaries, where juries could be subject to intimidation. However, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of my considerations by commenting on any particular model.

I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State, who has been very generous in taking interventions this afternoon, and rightly so. Will he clarify whether the Diplock courts will continue if the security situation has not improved in two years' time and an extension is required in three years' time? There is no guarantee that the security situation will improve, which is why we are debating this legislation this afternoon. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that Diplock courts will continue?

It is because there are no guarantees of an absolute, final kind that we are introducing the Bill, which will allow us to continue to use the powers in current legislation after next February. We have used those powers, which act as a powerful deterrent to, for example, dissidents who want to up the paramilitary ante. Let us see where we are in two years' time, and if a further year of renewal is required, we will make a judgment and the House will decide the matter by Order in Council.

The Secretary of State must clarify the issue, which is crucial and impinges on other provisions in the Bill. I am sorry if Democratic Unionist party Members are exasperated, but the matter requires clarification. Under the Bill, breaches of control orders, which have been available in Northern Ireland since spring this year, will be regarded as scheduled offences and will be tried by Diplock courts. Control orders have recently been introduced throughout the United Kingdom to deal with international terrorists and, presumably, domestic terrorism, too. If Diplock courts are not available, is the Secretary of State saying that we must re-examine how we deal with breaches of control orders?

As I have said, I am confident that we are seeing an end to paramilitarism, and it is extremely unlikely that control orders will prove to be necessary in a normalised environment in Northern Ireland. However, the option of issuing control orders in response to an exceptional situation in the interests of public safety would be available to any future Secretary of State, myself included.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the procedure. He has said that a statutory instrument will be used if the provisions must be extended into a third year. If we must extend the provisions for an extra year beyond 2007, would it not be more appropriate for the whole House to vote?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we have developed a procedure for handling these matters in a Northern Ireland context that has worked quite well.

As I have said, if the enabling environment is not sustained, we should not hesitate to take the option of extending the provisions for a further year. We will not leave the police and other agencies without the tools that they need to protect the people of Northern Ireland.

In addition to those assurances, it should be borne in mind that the UK now has some of the strongest and most effective permanent counter-terrorism legislation in the world, which applies as much to Northern Ireland as it does to the rest of the UK. As I said earlier, the House will consider another terrorism Bill later in the week.

As well as maintaining the part VII provisions for the normalisation period, the Bill makes some small but important reforms to counter-terrorism arrangements. The first reform will allow the Attorney-General to remove any case from the Diplock system if he believes that it does not relate to terrorism in Northern Ireland. Currently a small number of offences must be tried under Diplock regardless of whether they are related to Northern Ireland terrorism or not.

Diplock courts were brought in because of the penetration of paramilitaries in the community in Northern Ireland, and the risk of intimidation that that created. They should not have to be used in cases in which that risk does not arise, and the Bill corrects the anomaly.

The proposed changes will also give the Attorney-General discretion in regard to all the offences in schedule 9 to the Terrorism Act 2000, allowing him to deschedule any offence that is not deemed to be relevant to terrorism in Northern Ireland. Lord Carlile has said

"This seems to me a sensible and useful change."

The Bill provides that should any individual breach a control order in Northern Ireland, the case could be handled as a scheduled offence if appropriate. It also creates a power to make any necessary interim provisions to ensure a smooth transition to normalised arrangements.

A measured approach is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the criminal justice agencies under normalised conditions, and I believe that that is what we have achieved with the Bill. Security normalisation is a goal for which we must strive. We all want Northern Ireland to be a safe place. But normalisation can only occur if the conditions are right, and we will not take chances with the safety of the people of Northern Ireland or the effective operation of the justice system. That is why the Bill extends the provisions for a further period rather than letting them expire in February next year, and keeps open the option of retaining them until 2008.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I begin by associating the Opposition with the Secretary of State's words of thanks and appreciation to Lord Carlile of Berriew. There is no doubt that his annual reports on the operation of the part VII powers provide a very thorough and impartial analysis, which I think all Members who take an interest in these matters find very valuable.

I agree with the Government that it is right to extend the part VII powers further, and if there is a Division tonight I shall encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government. I also agree with the principle that we should continue to treat them as exceptional powers—as measures that are justified by the gravity of the security situation in Northern Ireland. I therefore think it right for these exceptional measures to continue to be subject to a time limit, to the need for regular parliamentary scrutiny and renewal, or indeed to both.

When I first read the Bill, I was concerned by what seemed to me to be an implicit message from the Government that after 2008 at the latest, none of the powers would be needed. I feel that the House has been given a degree of assurance by the Secretary of State that the Government recognise that that might not turn out to be so, and that certain exceptional powers might continue to be necessary after 2008. That appeared to be borne out by the Independent Monitoring Commission's most recent report.

The IMC described the Ulster Volunteer Force as "active, violent and ruthless" and commented that

"it remains an extremely dangerous organisation".

It said that the Ulster Defence Association was

"an active threat to the rule of law in Northern Ireland".

It commented on the Loyalist Volunteer Force and, although I, too, welcome last night's statement from the LVF, we shall judge it by what it does and what it ceases to do from now on rather than by the statement that it put out over the weekend.

I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's scepticism, which is shared on these Benches, about statements by paramilitary organisations that have a history of murder and mayhem. However, will he join me in expressing gratitude to the church leaders and representatives, community leaders and political representatives who worked hard on the ground to bring about both an end to the feud between the UVF and the LVF, which resulted in four tragic deaths in the summer, and the LVF's statement that it is standing its units down? Does he agree that precisely that sort of positive pressure from the Unionist community can lead to results? He will note that the LVF's statement was issued without any concessions being made to it.

I am happy to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the clergymen and community leaders. In the two years that I have held my current responsibilities, it has been borne in on me that, although the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland is frequently attributed to differences in religion, on the ground, clergymen and religious leaders of all denominations often lead the way in trying to build trust between people from different communities.

May I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's point and agree with those that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) made? The leadership that clergymen and community leaders have shown in difficult conditions is exemplary. They have produced an outcome and I hope that the influence of their outstanding leadership can be extended to the activities of the UVF and the UDA.

I agree with the Secretary of State and am grateful for those remarks.

Coming from Belfast, North, which has suffered terribly because of the feud, I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and of other hon. Members. Does the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) agree that it is tragic that so many people have had to die this summer because of that feud? In my constituency, the family of Craig McCausland are still looking for justice for the murder of their loved one. The Government, the police and everyone must continue that quest for justice on behalf of the bereaved families. Although I welcome the positive development, the quest for justice must go on.

The quest for justice must certainly continue and no Government of any political colour could ever believe it right to neglect the raw grief of victims and their families. The sense of loss and injustice remains for many years after murder or attack by terrorists, whatever the paramilitary organisation.

The IMC commented on not only loyalist but republican paramilitary groups. It described the so-called Real IRA as "violent, dangerous and determined". Given the events of recent months and the responsibility of the Provisional IRA for the majority of the murders in Northern Ireland over three decades of the troubles, perhaps the IMC's most significant comments were about PIRA.

I take slight issue with the Secretary of State's comment—which I paraphrase—that no one could deny that there had been a fundamental change in the security situation in Northern Ireland over the past few months. I certainly hope that the IRA's statement and the act of decommissioning will herald such a fundamental transformation, but I am still waiting for additional evidence of it.

Paragraph 3.13 of the IMC report states quite plainly that

"the leadership of the republican movement has shown a capacity in the past to turn on and off the tap of violence."

Paragraph 3.18 goes on to say of the provisionals that

"it is too early to be drawing firm conclusions about possible overall changes in behaviour".

The attitude of the British Government towards the normalisation programme and towards other measures—particularly those that the republican movement itself wants to see happen—should be conditioned by those words of caution and scepticism uttered by the Independent Monitoring Commission.

Before we can be convinced that the transformation that the Secretary of State described is complete, we need clear evidence of further changes—some practical and some ideological in character. On the practical side, we need to see the decommissioning not only of weapons—important though that step undoubtedly was—but of the paramilitary organisations and the paramilitary command structure. If the republican movement has fundamentally changed, and if that change is indeed permanent and irreversible, it should have no need of a private army. If, on the other hand, the republican movement tells us that it needs the structure of the IRA in order to impose discipline on its followers and to ensure that everyone is signed up to the move towards democracy, what does that tell us about the hearts and minds of its many followers? At the very least, it surely leaves a question mark over the extent and genuine nature of the move by the republican movement towards democracy.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a third possible reason why the IRA might be reluctant to dismantle its paramilitary structures? That is its record of criminal activity, which amounts to a mafia-type operation involving the robbing of banks and many other activities that it would be loth to give up, even if it has called off the political war.

My hon. Friend is undoubtedly right. Republican and loyalist paramilitary groups use crime as a means of financing their organisations and providing a livelihood for large numbers of activists, and as a means—through protection rackets and the like—of imposing their control and their rule over republican or loyalist estates, rather than submitting to the rule of law, which is what we would expect any democratic political movement to do.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best test to which the IRA could be put would be to ask it to give up its ill-gotten gains, and to give back the money that it stole from the bank, to prove to the people that it had quit its criminality?

The hon. Gentleman is right. Although I have genuinely welcomed the statements and actions that have come from the provisional republican movement over the past few months, I cannot drive out of my mind either the fact that those same republicans were talking a year ago about a comprehensive political agreement for Northern Ireland while planning the Northern bank raid. In addition, earlier this year, we had that appalling murder in the centre of Belfast, in which it seems that the forensic clean-up operation was carried out by people who had knowledge of what needed to be done to stop the police having any clues as to the perpetrators. Certainly, a great deal of comment has come from people living in that area to the effect that known members of the Provisional IRA were behind that clean-up operation. Of course, people in that republican bar who witnessed the murder have been very reluctant to come forward, and I have yet to hear the leaders of provisional Sinn Fein urge their supporters who have information about murder or other serious crime to come forward with that to the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the courts so that people can be brought to justice.

It should also be underlined that the family is now driven out of the area completely. The last member of a family who have been there for something like 200 years has now moved out.

The hon. Gentleman is again right. The fact that members of the McCartney family have had to move house because of the brave public stand that they took offers its own eloquent comment that, as yet, we are very far from a normal state of affairs in Northern Ireland.

Is not the way in which people have behaved towards the McCartney family another aspect of terrorism in the literal sense?

My hon. Friend puts it very well.

We require a profound ideological change from an organisation that regards itself, as the IRA's constitution asserts, as the legitimate government of Ireland, both north and south, to show that it has become a genuinely democratic organisation that supports the police and upholds the rule of law. I have no problem with debating or fighting elections against a democratic movement that loathes the partition of Ireland and yearns for a united Irish republic, provided that that body accepts the principle that constitutional change can come only through the free consent of the people, and works within the constitutional structures of Northern Ireland, within the rule of law, in order to achieve its objectives.

For the purposes of this argument, let us be optimistic—let us lay the scepticism to one side and assume that the Provisional IRA completes that transition from terrorism to democracy. What, then, would be the situation in 2007 or 2008? We have seen little concrete evidence yet that the major loyalist paramilitaries are about to cease their violence, intimidation or involvement in crime. We know, too, that dissident republicans remain a serious threat. The independent assessor of military complaints procedures, in his report for 2004, listed 44 serious incidents attributed to republican dissidents, and only weeks ago we saw a vicious attack on the deputy chairman of the Policing Board, leaving that brave man with severe injuries as a consequence. I find it impossible to believe, even on the most optimistic assumptions that we can make this afternoon, that by 2008 we will be in a position in which none of the part VII powers continue to be needed. As Lord Carlile put it in his most recent report, at paragraph 2.9:

"It seems reasonably likely that syndicated crime with a paramilitary connection . . . is a clear and potentially permanent part of the criminal intelligence picture of Northern Ireland".

He continued in paragraph 2.11:

"On both sides of the sectarian divide, there continues a clear danger of intimidation within living and working neighbourhoods".

As the Independent Monitoring Commission pointed out:

"Unreported acts of intimidation are far more numerous than acts of violence, are often traumatic in their impact and are not recorded in statistics."

If we are trying to ensure that we have in place a system of criminal justice procedure that gives law-abiding citizens the courage to come forward with information and not to fear retaliation, we need to be aware that that fear of paramilitaries remains acute.

The Northern Ireland Office's most recent statistical bulletin, number 11/2005, showed that no fewer than 40 per cent. of people interviewed said that they were unlikely to report someone if they knew that that person had been involved in serious crime. We all know the reasons for that reluctance. It is not sympathy for the criminals. It is fear. It is terror of retaliation against oneself or one's family.

So what will happen in 2007 or 2008? The Secretary of State said that he is still considering possible options. He has known for a long time, as did his predecessor, that part VII would have to be replaced by February 2006, so I suspect that a review of some sort must have taken place in the Northern Ireland Office. I wonder whether, sitting in a pending tray at Hillsborough, there are revised proposals that are ready to be made if and when that proves necessary, or do the Government have in mind relying on powers incorporated into United Kingdom counter-terrorist and criminal justice legislation? For example, does the Secretary of State expect the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that allow for non-jury trials in cases of possible jury tampering to be applied after 2007 or 2008 to Northern Ireland for the sort of cases that we have been debating?

There are various detailed matters in the Bill that we may wish to explore further in Standing Committee, but I want to touch briefly on three further points.

Since the hon. Gentleman's party has shown a notable reluctance in the House to support any Government legislation that removes juries from trials, can he confirm for the record that, if the Secretary of State were to opt for that, he and his colleagues would fully support the use of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland under the procedures already available in Northern Ireland—they came into force last year—under the Criminal Justice Act 2003?

I see no problem in principle with that. The position of my party has always been that we regard jury trial in all parts of the United Kingdom as an important liberty that we would wish to see suspended only in the most exceptional circumstances, which was why, throughout the duration of emergency powers legislation, those powers were subject to regular renewal by Parliament. We have taken issue with the Government over recent counter-terrorist legislation that proposed removing the right of trial by jury not for fear that the jury would be tampered with or subject to intimidation, but for other reasons that they gave to justify that.

You highlighted some of the things that the Government could be doing and I was interested in your remarks about the understandable and shared concern about terrorism in Northern Ireland. Are you saying—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Lady must be careful about using the word "you".

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in an ideal world, his party would prefer to see a further extension of the part VII measures for a longer period than until 2008?

We should extend the powers if that is necessary to provide the protection that is needed by the people of Northern Ireland against intimidation and violence. I endorse completely the Secretary of State's comments that defending the right of the people of Northern Ireland to live secure lives, free from threat, should be the first priority of any Government and any legislation. The combination of time limits, the requirement for regular parliamentary renewal of powers and the certificating-out procedure has provided flexibility in the application of these powers to particular cases. The Secretary of State said that we have seen a steady reduction in the number of cases in which it was considered necessary and appropriate to have the case tried before a judge sitting alone.

Clearly, I want to see the day when Northern Ireland can do without any emergency powers of this nature. However, after 30 years of terrorism, during which the terrorist organisations have become so entrenched in the life of Northern Ireland, we must not jump too easily or rapidly to the conclusion that we will be able to dispense with emergency powers quickly.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not, as I would like other hon. Members, particularly those from Northern Ireland, to have the opportunity to speak.

Lord Carlile expressed concern about delays in the processing of scheduled offences. In his last report he said that that was taking longer in 2004 than in 2000, even though there were significantly fewer such cases to be processed. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether the situation has now improved and, if not, whether the Government are considering the use of powers under sections 72 and 73 of part VII to make statutory regulations to impose time limits on those cases.

I have a question about the private security industry. In England and Wales, the system relies on enhanced criminal records checks, which include not just information about convictions but details of police intelligence about the individuals concerned. The reason for the different approach in Northern Ireland, and as seen in the Bill, is that successive Governments have worried about the prospect of people from a paramilitary background being in receipt of evidence about police intelligence held against them, including, obviously, details of the informer who may have provided the police with that intelligence.

Do the Government think it likely, or even possible, that in the foreseeable future we will be in a position where we could allow the disclosure of police intelligence to people being vetted for a post in the private security industry in Northern Ireland? Does not that again suggest that some type of arrangement unique to Northern Ireland will continue to be needed after 2008?

Do we need the powers brought in after the Omagh bombing under which the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible as evidence in respect of membership of a specified organisation? My understanding is that, in practice, this power has never been used. As the Secretary of State knows, my party has always been uneasy about the idea of specification, whereby we have two categories of illegal terrorist organisations. In one category, specified organisations, the word of the police counts as evidence of membership. In the other category, non-specified but proscribed organisations, police evidence does not count in the same way. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two about that.

I want to finish by touching briefly on an issue that was raised earlier in interventions: this Bill's relationship to the Government's policy on terrorists on the run. I hope, as others have expressed the hope, that we will get the opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals fairly soon, and before we have to decide on the content of such legislation, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), said in an intervention. Frankly, I find it frustrating that members of Sinn Fein have seen, so they tell me, the Government's proposals and are happy with them, but that my party and, I think, the Liberal Democrats, have not had access to the details of what the Government have in mind.

Indeed. Does the hon. Gentleman not sometimes feel that it is by being stroppy and naughty that one gets the Minister's attention? Would it not be more helpful if, at those times when various parties and supportive organisations are not "kicking up", they still felt included in the process; otherwise, the Government merely store up future problems for themselves?

The Government should share their thoughts with Parliament in the very near future and give us ample opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny.

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Does he agree that if ever a subject lent itself to pre-legislative scrutiny, this—if one is hoping to achieve a consensus—is it?

I agree.

The Government have shown good sense and proper caution in introducing this Bill today to renew part VII powers. I hope that they will show the same good sense and proper caution when they approach the question of people who are on the run from justice. But for the purposes of today's debate, we believe that this Bill is necessary and it has our support.

It is more than two years since I was given the opportunity to speak on Northern Ireland matters before the House. My silence has been caused not by any reticence on my part, but by the fact that between July 2003 and May 2005 I served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who was Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office. I pay tribute to the excellent job that he did and to the commitment that he brought to all his ministerial posts. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). He was an excellent Secretary of State who was respected by Members in all parts of this House, and by all parties involved in Northern Ireland.

This is a cautious Bill—and rightly so, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said—and I was certainly reassured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's commitment that his priority must always be the safety and security of the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that he has the whole House's support in saying that.

This could well be an historic moment. I say that cautiously, because historic moments in Northern Ireland history often turn out to be no more than a footnote. In this regard, I think of the great example of the Sunningdale agreement; none the less, this could prove to be such a moment. The measures contained in the Bill and in part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 have been renewed annually since the early 1970s, and today could be the very last time that we renew such powers in a debate on the Floor of the House. If so, everyone involved in Northern Ireland matters, and everyone in Northern Ireland, should celebrate. Of course, it remains to be seen whether primary legislation will have to be introduced in 2008 to enact further measures. I share the Government's hope that that will not be necessary.

I hope that the IRA statement of 28 July announcing the end of its armed campaign will turn out to be an historic moment rather than a footnote. I fully understand why the Unionist parties and their supporters are cynical and sceptical about such announcements, but if in 1995 the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) had foreseen that the IRA would make such an announcement, with an international body overseeing and verifying that decommissioning had taken place, I cannot believe that his reaction would have been anything other than euphoric. Some suspicion arises from the fact that the 1998 Belfast agreement committed the IRA to decommissioning entirely by May 2000. If what has taken place over the summer and in the past month had happened in April and May 2000, a great deal of the understandable cynicism and suspicion in the Unionist community would have been prevented. We all expected and hoped that the IRA would decommission to the extent that it seems to have now—unfortunately, five years too late.

May I firmly but gently remind the hon. Gentleman that great offence was caused by the long-awaited statement on 28 July, in which the IRA claimed that its campaign was legitimate? There was no word of apology at all, which caused great offence not just across the Unionist Protestant community but among all families, whether Catholic or of no faith at all, whose relatives had been murdered by members of the IRA. There was not a word of regret, so if the hon. Gentleman thought that we would all jump up and down on 28 July we certainly did not.

The hon. Lady is quite correct. She has been present in the House when I have said on more than one occasion that the decommissioning of weapons should not be regarded as a concession but as a basic minimum requirement of any party that hopes to be taken seriously in the democratic process. I agree with what she said.

Throughout the debate, especially since 1997 to 1998, there has been an almost unspoken threat or intimidation when dealing with paramilitaries on both sides. The suggestion was that we ought to make political progress because if we did not X, Y and Z might return to violence. I do not accept that any of the so-called concessions by the Government are based on that threat but, nevertheless, the debate on Northern Ireland has been conducted under a thinly veiled threat of a return to violence by the main paramilitaries. If that is indeed the case, it must end now. There is no longer any excuse for suggesting that political progress must be achieved at the end of a barrel. The hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the possible disbandment of the IRA, and I sympathise with his concerns. He will understand that the demand for the IRA to disband was not included in the Belfast agreement.

Total decommissioning was not in the Belfast agreement.

Decommissioning was included in the agreement, but the disbandment of the IRA was not. We would all prefer the IRA formally to disband, but I hope that that will not be used as an excuse for progress on the peace process to pause or end completely.

This is a very important issue. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not taking a softer line than the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic, who is on record as saying that the IRA should and must disband. Indeed, the former leader of the SDLP has also said that it must do so. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that Sinn Fein could be in government and still allied to an organisation that is illegal under the law but has not disbanded or dismantled.

I am certainly not suggesting that the IRA, with its current structure, could be maintained in a democratic Northern Ireland. I know that it has been mooted that it could become some kind of veterans' society or similar social organisation. I make no comment about whether that is a good or bad thing, but if that were the chosen option I hope that no party in Northern Ireland would prevent further progress to a more democratic, devolved Northern Ireland for that reason.

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from on this point, but does he recognise that one of the major impediments to progress in Northern Ireland is Sinn Fein's failure to support the police and the rule of the law? If republicans are to be recognised as fully embracing democracy, they have to support the police and the rule of law. One cannot be in government as a law maker and not support those who are tasked with upholding the law. That is the crucial issue, because if Sinn Fein do that, what need has the IRA to exist?

In making a passing comment, I feel as though I have kicked a wasps' nest. The hon. Gentleman is correct, and the priority must of course be to ensure that the nationalist community co-operates fully with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That is the minimum that should be expected and anything that gets in the way of that and acts as a buffer between the nationalist community and the police must not be tolerated. I am on the record as saying that I hope that the IRA disbands, but I hope—no, I demand—that whatever form it takes in the future it must not in any way interfere with the rule of law, as represented by the PSNI.

May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the conference at Leeds castle? The DUP set out its plan honestly and openly, but at the very time we were talking to the Government—we did not talk to IRA-Sinn Fein—IRA-Sinn Fein negotiators were planning the bank raid. That is not what we said, but what the Minister for Justice from the Irish Republic said.

The hon. Gentleman will not catch me trying to justify or defend the appalling behaviour of Sinn Fein negotiators at Leeds castle. As he rightly says, they and their cohorts in the IRA were planning a major bank robbery as they negotiated to join a devolved Government. That is unacceptable.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I divulge the details of a personal conversation that we had at Leeds castle. We met outside the members' cloakroom and I asked him, "Ian, will you be First Minister?" He replied, "I don't know, I just don't know." I walked away thinking, with all due respect, that that was the most positive thing that I had heard him say during 20 years of Northern Ireland politics.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate and raised the genuine concern that if the provisions of part VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 needed to be in force, the Government could not justify reinstating the allowances of Sinn Fein Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I remind the hon. Lady that throughout the whole period from 1999 when Sinn Fein Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly were receiving their allowances, section 7 powers were in force. There is thus no contradiction in the Government's policy to give back those allowances to Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. As someone who voted to remove allowances from Sinn Fein Members of the House, I hope to have the opportunity in the near future to vote to reinstate them as a direct result of developments over the summer.

It is a tragedy that Members representing Sinn Fein in the House have chosen not to take their seats and so, once again, are not here to represent their constituents on a matter of crucial importance. When I last pressed a Sinn Fein Member about why they would not take up their seats, I pointed out that their ideological, ethical and moral objections to entering this place were exactly the same as those they had raised against sitting in the Dail and in the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, in both of which they now sit.

There are two points to be made, as there are two sets of allowances. The allowance to the Sinn Fein group in the Assembly was withdrawn by the Government, quite rightly, after an ad hoc report from the Independent Monitoring Commission, which the Government introduced under legislation in the House as an independent body to monitor paramilitary activity. Last December, there was a serious bank robbery and two families were held under threat of violence. On the back of an IMC report and its recommendation to the Government, which the Government upheld, the financial penalty to Sinn Fein was to last 12 months. However, within days of the IMC report this year, and with only a month to look at IRA activity, the Government moved to reinstate Sinn Fein's allowances. In a few weeks, the Secretary of State will recommend that Sinn Fein allowances in the House—

Order. Interventions are getting longer and longer. I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) will have got the hon. Lady's point.

I understand the hon. Lady's frustration at that development. My view, but possibly not the Government's—although I suspect it is—is that it was right to recognise the significant announcements made by the IRA over the summer. In re-establishing the allowances, the Government formally recognised that the IRA and Sinn Fein are closely linked, but that, given what happened over the summer, denying the allowances could not continue to be justified. However, I accept that the hon. Lady will disagree.

The hon. Member for North Antrim mentioned the word "capitulation" in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He knows better than anyone that the words we use in Northern Ireland debates matter a great deal. I am frustrated when debates are defined by language that, whether deliberately intended to or not, causes anxiety in a particular part of the community. For instance, why must every advance be described as a concession or a surrender? Progress in Northern Ireland cannot and should not be measured by assuming that every development of the peace process can be described as a concession, a snub or a gain in a column headed Unionist or nationalist.

I finish by paying tribute to David Trimble, who as leader of the Ulster Unionist party delivered huge progress not only for the part of the community that he represented but for the whole community in Northern Ireland. He was, with John Hume, a well-deserved recipient of the Nobel peace prize. His absence from the House takes something away from our debates. Many Labour Members, while not necessarily agreeing with everything that he said during his career in this place, understood the huge contribution he made to peace in the Province. I hope that in a year or so I will be able to stand here and make similar comments about the hon. Member for North Antrim and the contribution that he may or may not make during the next year.

I spoke during the debate on the Second Reading of the Terrorism Act 2000, and specifically about part VIII of that Act, to which the Bill refers. At the time, I welcomed the fact that those measures were to be in place for only five years and subject to renewal by Parliament by statutory instrument every 12 months. I have served on every committee that debated the annual review of those sections of the Act. That review was important because Parliament had to have the ability to consider the provisions regularly and to make its own judgment of the situation in Northern Ireland and of whether those provisions remained necessary.

In that context, it has obviously been absolutely essential to have the benefit of studying the annual reports of my noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew. Indeed, in my judgment his work has underpinned much of the guidance that the Government have used to make their decisions subsequently. His work has been invaluable—not just because he happens to be the former Member of Parliament for Montgomeryshire. Unfortunately, given the time frame needed to place the Bill on to the statute book before the provisions run out in February, we are not able to see his deliberations on the operation of part VII of the 2000 Act in the current year, but I shall look very closely at his latest report when it is published. In that sense, it was very important that we had access to the letter that has subsequently been shared with those hon. Members who are in the Chamber today. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for having made that arrangement, which has been helpful in informing the debate.

We welcome the fact that part VII will be extended only for a very limited time—indeed, until the end of July 2007. As we have already discussed, there is provision in the Bill for the sections that are then in force to continue, but no later than 1 August 2008—again, with specific parliamentary approval by statutory instrument. I understand that that can be achieved only by positive affirmation in the Commons and in another place, and I see the Minister nodding on that score. Lord Carlile welcomes that check, and I think that it is important, too, because Parliament simply must be able to look regularly and closely at whether such measures are indeed necessary in Northern Ireland.

Of course I had hoped, as probably everyone had hoped in 2000, that we would have made sufficient progress in the long march towards peace and the normalisation of the Province to make part VII irrelevant at some point during the five-year lifetime that was placed on it. Although some progress has been made in recent weeks particularly, there has been such turmoil in the intervening years that the provisions of part VII are evidently still necessary. Although the IRA statement in July and the subsequent decommissioning of IRA weapons were significant events, they took a long time to happen. It is five and a half years after all paramilitary activities were meant to have come to an end, and seven and a half years since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. In fact, that very delay has meant that we find ourselves debating part VII again.

We have had insufficient time to judge whether the IRA has decommissioned not just its weapons, but its activities. The signs from the latest IMC report are encouraging and I look forward to its next report in January, but I feel that the jury is still out on the long term. Until recently, similar progress has not been made in relation to loyalist violence or dissident republicans. The violence that we saw over the summer was truly horrific, and the loyalist paramilitaries demonstrated in no uncertain terms why it is necessary for part VII of the 2000 Act to remain in force.

Constant reference is being made to violence on the loyalist side over the summer—it is quite right that that should be deplored. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that there was also vicious violence on the part of republicans against the police, with the use of blast bombs and other lethal attacks over the summer period, not least at Ardoyne on 12 July. Hon. Members should bear that in mind and recognise that there has been violence on both sides.

The hon. Gentleman is completely right to put that on record. People who live on the mainland of the United Kingdom sometimes do not recognise that an underlying level of violence continues in republican and loyalist communities. Normalisation in the Province cannot simply be achieved by violence disappearing from news reports. Violence must disappear on the ground in the Province and true lawful behaviour must be introduced.

The Ulster Defence Association has, however, at least continued its talks with the Decommissioning Commission. But perhaps the most significant development took place this morning, when the Loyalist Volunteer Force announced its intention to stand down. As we have already heard, the feud between the Ulster Volunteer Force and the LVF has had a devastating effect on the loyalist community. What will matter, once again, will be the Independent Monitoring Commission report in January on whether LVF violence has indeed come to an end.

I shall move on to the details of the Bill. I am pleased that over the past five years the Government have largely accepted the recommendations put forward in the annual reports written by my noble Friend Lord Carlile of Berriew.

I am especially pleased that the Government do not wish to resurrect sections 70 and 71 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which were repealed earlier this year. Those provisions allowed the Secretary of State to make directions for young persons charged with a scheduled offence to be held in adult prisons while on remand. The powers come from a time when young persons were held in remand homes. Those homes were insecure and serious problems were presented in the management of some of their remand population. Thankfully, there have been great advances in the youth justice system in Northern Ireland over recent years and Hydebank young offenders centre and the juvenile justice centre are now able to provide the security required. Those developments are welcome and the Government are right to ensure that those sections do not return to the statute book.

Lord Carlile raised worries about section 108 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in his 2004 report on the operation of part VII of the Act. That section makes provisions on evidence that may lead a court to conclude that a section 11 offence—membership of a proscribed organisation—has been committed. Subsections (2) and (3) of section 108 render admissible under a section 11 charge hearsay evidence that would not otherwise be admissible. The evidence must be given orally by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent. If it is the opinion of that officer that the accused belongs to an organisation that is specified, the statement "shall be admissible" as evidence of the matter stated.

Lord Carlile found in 2004 that section 108 had not been used. Paragraph 19.7 of his report states:

"I am totally unpersuaded by the arguments for its retention . . . Section 108 could be repealed without any measurable disadvantage to the cause of public protection from terrorism. It is a provision that lies uncomfortably in the broader context of normalisation and the Good Friday Agreement."

However, section 108 will continue to remain in force under the Bill.

Would it not be right to underline the fact that the provision was copied from the law in the south of Ireland, where it still exists and a police officer can give such evidence in court?

If I were a parliamentary representative in the south of Ireland, I would be making exactly the same point. The provision simply does not stand up to scrutiny both of its practical benefit, on which Lord Carlile has commented, and of its principle of diluting the burden of proof when someone is charged with such a serious offence. How can the soon-to-be right hon. Gentleman and the Minister justify keeping the section in force when Lord Carlile of Berriew, who has been listened to in almost every other respect and has successfully advised the Government, has said that it should be repealed? As we do not have Lord Carlile's assessment of the use of the section in full during the course of the year, will the Minister tell us of any instances when it has been used in the past 12 months, because I have yet to hear that evidence?

In February's debate to renew part VII provisions, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised concerns about section 75, which provides for non-jury trial in Northern Ireland—a Diplock trial. Although it is fair to recognise Lord Carlile's assessment that Northern Ireland judges apply rigorous standards to the quality of evidence in non-jury trials, he recommended in his last report that the Government should consider moving from employing one judge in non-jury trials to a three-judge court. He states:

"A three judge court would command greater confidence in one part of the community, without diminishing confidence rationally elsewhere."

As part of the normalisation process in Northern Ireland, we have to move in that direction. We would all prefer it if the circumstances allowed us to return to full jury trials in Northern Ireland, but without pre-empting what might be in my noble Friend's report in the coming months, I suspect that we are not there yet. A three-judge court would demonstrate that we are moving towards the restoration of a normal judicial process in Northern Ireland. What discussions have taken place since February to move the situation on? Are the Government considering how we can make progress on that crucial issue?

The Secretary of State made encouraging noises about considering the issue, at least in the broader context. Will the Minister confirm that he will give serious consideration to an amendment tabled in Committee to create a three-judge court environment? I can see absolutely no downside for the Government in making that move forward, but a considerable improvement—an upside—among certain sectors of the Northern Ireland community in their faith that the courts will be fairer.

There are also ways in the 2000 Act to reintroduce parts currently repealed, in particular as set out in clause 2. That would require primary legislation. We very much agree that that is the right way forward, but what time do the Government foresee for those debates, because they must be more than merely tokenistic?

Despite concerns about specific sections, it is important to ensure that part VII provisions remain in force for the time being. However, I shall study with the greatest interest and in detail the next IMC report and Lord Carlile's report. Once again, the more that the Government can provide as an advance indication of where they might be going, the more useful that would be.

There is one irony that cannot go unmentioned, however. The Bill is in large part based on the historical and political experience of the Province and is thus in keeping with a mature understanding of the motivations of the terrorists, as well as the reality of terrorist acts. Let us remember the reason for the Bill. The 2000 Act tidied up and extended previous counter-terrorism legislation and put counter-terrorism laws on a permanent footing. It was intended to combat all forms of terrorism, not just terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It provides a range of measures designed to prevent terrorism, supports the investigation of terrorist crime and extends UK-wide.

Why have the Government failed to understand the contradiction between the judgments they make about Northern Ireland, which can lead to informed and consensual solutions, such as this Bill, and the unjoined-up approach that they take to international terrorism as a whole? Why is it that the very things that bring us together on this Bill should not have counted one jot in the many terrorist debates and Bills that have been thrown at us in recent weeks in the international context? Why is it that right hon. and hon. Members can talk rationally about these things in the Members' Tea Room and agree that there is an inconsistency between how we deal with Northern Ireland terrorism and international terrorism, and yet we are presented with a malignant, aggressive and unlistening Government when it comes to tackling terrorism in the rest of the UK?

Rubbish.

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman explain why so many hon. Members in these debates feel that the Government somehow differentiate good and sane terrorists in Northern Ireland, but bad and insane terrorists from elsewhere? How can it be consistent to deal with the Northern Ireland terrorist while simply seeking to oppress the opportunities to terrorise everywhere else? I must ask why the Government are obsessed with negotiating on problems in Northern Ireland—on many occasions I agree with them—but simply seek to incarcerate suspected terrorists on the mainland using some of the very worst historical methods, such as internment, perhaps only by another name?

I had not intended to intervene and I shall try not to stray too much from the purpose of the debate, but the hon. Gentleman has been present at enough of these debates to understand the valid argument that, as far as republican terrorism is concerned, there was always a way to negotiate, in that they held various political views, which even if one did not agree with them, one could negotiate on; whereas with other types of terrorism, such as Islamism, there is no negotiation, since the death of innocent people is the end aim of those terrorists, and therefore there is no point in negotiating.

The hon. Gentleman's comments simply serve to underline the frustration that many of us feel about the Government's approach towards the issue: the schizophrenic assumption that the terrorists of Northern Ireland are in some way different from the terrorists from elsewhere. In essence, if what the hon. Gentleman says is correct, we must draw the conclusion that he believes that the terrorists in Northern Ireland were in some way motivated, while the terrorists who perpetrate their international war of terror, to use the Government's own phrase, have no motive. What frustrates those of us who have sought to participate proactively in both those debates is the fact that there can be no such rational distinction. Our frustration has been compounded by the fact that on occasion the Government have sought to make unilateral deals with Sinn Fein and, indirectly, with the IRA, while those people who have been supportive of the peace process have been virtually ignored. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made that point very well, and it is a matter of great annoyance to those of us who have sought the peaceful and democratic route that those who have not been peaceful have been treated in a different way.