I beg to move,

That the direction given by the Secretary of State under section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 1st April 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The direction before us removed Sinn Fein's entitlement to financial assistance under the financial assistance scheme available to the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly for 12 months from 29 April 2005. The approval of both Houses is of course required, and I am pleased to inform the House that on 14 June the House of Lords approved the motion, which was moved by Lord Rooker.

The background to the direction will be familiar to hon. Members. The matters to which it relates have been debated here on a number of occasions. I therefore intend to be brief, but it may be helpful to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I summarise the key events before turning to the substance of the direction.

The direction follows the Independent Monitoring Commission's fourth report, laid in Parliament and published on 10 February, which covered the Northern bank robbery and other crimes that it attributed to the Provisional IRA. The IMC's report, at paragraph 14, said that Sinn Fein must bear its responsibility for the incidents to which it referred, and it recommended that the Secretary of State consider exercising the powers that he has in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly to impose financial measures on Sinn Fein.

The House will recall that the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend Mr. Murphy, made a statement in the House on 11 January, in the immediate aftermath of the Northern bank robbery. That statement set out the impact of the robbery on the political process and its damaging effect on the Government's efforts to restore the devolved institutions. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work as Secretary of State in support of the Northern Ireland Office during his time in office. I worked with him previously as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Welsh Office, and I know his integrity and commitment to the job.

My right hon. Friend made a further statement on 22 February after the publication of the IMC report. He said that having reflected on the IMC report, he had concluded that it would be appropriate to make a direction to remove Sinn Fein's entitlement to financial assistance and that the direction would be for 12 months, the maximum period permitted under the legislation. As required, he would take into account any representations made by Sinn Fein before reaching a final decision. Having provided Sinn Fein with an opportunity to make representations, my right hon. Friend decided that it would be appropriate to make a direction, and he did so on 1 April. A further debate took place in this House on 10 March on the separate matter of the suspension of Sinn Fein's entitlement to Westminster allowances for 12 months.

With regard to the substance of the direction, it removes Sinn Fein's entitlement to payments under the financial assistance for political parties scheme for 12 months from 29 April 2005. It is the second direction against Sinn Fein, because a similar financial penalty was imposed from 29 April 2004 to 28 April 2005 following the IMC's first report in April 2004. That report attributed an attempted abduction to the Provisional IRA, and the IMC recommended that financial measures be imposed on Sinn Fein.

In the various debates that I have mentioned, there was general support for action against Sinn Fein. The need for the direction reflects the problems—ongoing paramilitary activity and criminality—that have blighted the political process in Northern Ireland, and both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made it clear that that must stop in order for progress to be made.

It gives me no pleasure to have to bring this matter before the House. As the Secretary of State said yesterday at Northern Ireland questions, we hope that in the period ahead we shall see movement from the Provisional IRA that ensures that the final transition to exclusively peaceful and democratic means is achieved. On the assumption that such movement occurs, the IMC will continue to play an important role in attesting that the reality matches the Provisional IRA's commitments. Moreover, it has a responsibility in relation to all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland from whatever source.

I pay tribute to the members of the IMC for their reports to date and for their contribution to promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and in doing so I commend the direction to the House.

I thank the Minister for setting out the background to the motion, which, as he has made clear, extends the financial penalties against Sinn Fein at Stormont for a further 12 months by giving effect to the direction signed by the former Secretary of State on 1 April this year.

As the Minister said, the IMC reports on the relationship between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA provide the background to the debate and the continuing involvement of that republican organisation in crime and paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. It is worth reminding ourselves of the first IMC report published in 2004, which made plain what the members of the IMC considered to be the relationship between the two parts of the republican movement. In respect of the leadership of Sinn Fein, it stated:

"Some members, including some senior members, of Sinn Fein are also members, including, in some cases, senior members of PIRA".

The Government have made the same point in more cautious language—Ministers have referred to the inextricable link between Sinn Fein and PIRA—and it has also recently been made in very direct terms by the Minister of Justice in the Republic of Ireland.

Since last April, a further four IMC reports have been published. The fourth report, published in February, was categoric in its verdict that the Provisional IRA was responsible for the Northern bank robbery in December and for three other major robberies last year. It repeated the point that had the Northern Ireland Assembly been sitting, the IMC would have recommended the exclusion of Sinn Fein from office in the devolved Executive.

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the Chief Constable recently reported that, short of killing members of the security forces, the Provisional IRA was engaged in all the other forms of paramilitary and terrorist activity? That adds further weight to his comments about the IMC report.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the Chief Constable's verdict.

The IMC's views have been supported not only by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland but the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana. The most recent report, which was published in May and to which the Minister referred, concluded that the Provisional IRA continues to carry out paramilitary and criminal activity and that it is still recruiting, training and gathering intelligence.

Perhaps most worryingly, given the emphasis on and expectation of an IRA statement and action to decommission weapons, the IMC referred to the discovery in September last year of

"10,000 rounds of PIRA ammunition suitable for use in assault rifles, a type not previously found in Northern Ireland and manufactured since the Belfast Agreement".

The IMC concluded that

"PIRA remains a highly active organisation" and that while

"there is no present evidence that it intends to resume a campaign of violence . . . its capacity remains should that become the intention".

The Conservative party therefore has no hesitation in supporting the motion.

The debate takes place against a backdrop of intense speculation about the IRA's response to the speech made in April by Gerry Adams. The debate and the IMC reports on which the measure rests are a salutary reminder of how far the IRA has to go. If there is to be progress towards an inclusive Executive, the IRA response must be clear and unambiguous, not only in words but in deeds. There can be no further room for fudge or ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, I fear that the blunt truth is that there will be no agreement.

There needs to be an end to all forms of criminal and paramilitary activity. There has to be complete decommissioning and republicans must accept the legitimacy of the police and the criminal justice system and support those institutions rather than try to undermine them. There must be what the Prime Minister described as far back as 1998 as the

"dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".

The IRA must be disbanded as an effective paramilitary organisation. That will need to be transparent, and effectively and independently verified. I realise that the Government do not feel comfortable with the word "disbandment", although I note that the Minister for Justice in the Republic of Ireland is a bit less shy of using the term. Ultimately, the process must be about that.

I want to probe the Government on a final point. If, when the IRA statement is made, they believe that it and the IRA's subsequent actions amount to sufficient evidence that the organisation has gone out of business, surely their logic would lead them to ask whether that was also a sufficient basis for de-proscribing the Provisional IRA as an illegal organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The logic would be that if the Provisional IRA had ceased to be a terrorist organisation, the need for it to be illegal would no longer exist. Conversely, if the IRA had not done enough to merit de-proscription, how could it have done enough to merit inclusion in a devolved Executive? It would be very strange to have Ministers in government inextricably linked to an organisation that Governments in London and Dublin believed had to remain illegal even though it had moved into what has been termed a new mode.

We genuinely wish the Government well in their efforts to secure a comprehensive agreement and restore devolved government to Northern Ireland, but inclusivity can be based only on all parties accepting the same standards of democracy. There can no longer be different rules for some but not others. This is what we shall insist upon when we consider our response to whatever the IRA says over coming weeks and months. In the meantime, current IRA activity more than justifies the modest sanction that is before the House today.

I welcome the Minister to his new job. Having worked with the Prime Minister for a long time this is his reward—the Northern Ireland portfolio.

We support the order and we recognise that it is necessary to implement these sanctions against parties that are not participating fully in the peace process. We cannot allow the process to be delayed by paramilitaries and those connected to them without there being some form of sanction. As I said when the sanctions were suggested, they seem to be a regrettable necessity.

Looking back, I remind the House that I was frustrated and somewhat annoyed when we were told to take on trust the fact that the IRA had conducted the Northern bank robbery, but subsequently it has become quite clear from the comments of the Independent Monitoring Commission and others that the IRA seems to be responsible for that robbery. In addition, the murder of Robert McCartney has caused the most recent crisis in the peace process. Only further action from paramilitaries can help to move the process forward again by positively demonstrating that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. While we generally think of the IRA in that context, it obviously applies to all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland.

As the House will recall, I raised an interesting proposal from the Alliance party on 10 benchmarks, which might be helpful in measuring more objectively the distance the paramilitaries have come. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has agreed to meet David Ford, the leader of the Alliance party, to discuss those further.

I suggest to the House that the 10 points are worthy of brief consideration, and the Alliance party says that they should be used to assess the sincerity with which the principles of the peace process are being adhered to. First, paramilitaries must declare an end to all involvement in any paramilitary and criminal activity, and through exclusively lawful means ensure that their activists desist immediately. Secondly, where individual republicans are involved in paramilitary or criminal activity, others must pass on any information to the lawful authorities and urge others to do likewise. The IRA must accept that obstruction of justice is a crime.

Thirdly, the republican movement must accept the full legitimacy of both the northern and southern states with respect to policing and criminal justice, including definitions of what constitutes a crime. Fourthly, all IRA front organisations and organised crime networks must be dismantled.

Fifthly, the IRA army council must end all recruitment, training and intelligence gathering, and stand down all its rank and file members. Once that is carried out and weapons are decommissioned, the organisation, including all command structures, must disband. Sixthly, the republican movement must renounce the right to engage in community policing or what is termed "internal housekeeping". There must be an end to all paramilitary beatings and shootings.

Seventhly, the practice of exiling both inside and outside Northern Ireland must come to an end. Crucially, assurances must be given to those exiled that they can return to Northern Ireland in safety. Those assurances must be carried through. Eighthly, all illegally held weapons and explosives must be decommissioned under the aegis of the Decommissioning Commission. Ninthly, republicans must co-operate fully with the commission for the disappeared and both police services in recovering the remains of the disappeared.

Finally, republicans must give a commitment not to export their terrorist techniques and expertise to other organisations internationally, either through direct training or other consultancy services, in line with the Terrorism Act 2000.

I accept that there will be different views about those 10 points. I hope, however, that the Minister can indicate that he recognises the benefit of having objective measures that consider not just the front-line violence that characterised the troubles for so long but the underlying and ongoing violence about which anybody involved in matters relating to the Province knows.

In that context, I counsel the Minister not to allow a recurring error in dealings with the IRA to happen again. On several occasions, it seems to me that unilateral deals have been done with paramilitaries, excluding the pro-agreement parties. Understandably, that has been frustrating for those parties that have consistently shown commitment and good faith in the process. It would be extremely unhelpful if, following some sort of statement from the IRA, it looks once again as if the Government have decided to do a back-door deal without involving all the other parties involved in the peace process. Will the Minister assure me that he will not allow that to happen again?

That being said, it seems that the sanctions must remain for now. Until a significant change occurs on the part of the paramilitaries, and particularly the IRA, and especially with regard to the underlying violence that continues in the Province, we must recognise that these financial sanctions need to be in place. I am pleased and find it helpful that Sinn Fein has a small staffing presence on the premises, which I find useful in terms of understanding their thinking and what is going on. That is a separate matter, however, and for now I feel that the Liberal Democrats are obliged to support what is a regrettable necessity.

I support the provision of the Secretary of State to impose sanctions on those associated with terror and criminality but regard the penalties as so small in relative terms as to make them irrelevant to those whom they are supposed to hurt. Do we really think that this House is hurting Sinn Fein-IRA by denying them such a miserable number of pounds when they have millions in store and are probably looking for millions more? It is almost laughable.

I was just saying to myself that if the situation in Northern Ireland were happening in any other part of this United Kingdom, these Benches would be filled. Were someone from that part of the United Kingdom saying that terrorists who had broken loose in Lancashire and Yorkshire must be brought into the Government, they would be laughed out of the House. Some of the things that the Alliance party has said now, I said years ago, and I was laughed out of court and told that I was a madman for saying them. In fact, I was told that never would any southern politician agree to the IRA being disbanded. Those things are now being argued over, however, and strong statements have been made not by Protestants or Orangemen or those who, according to some new Members of the House, are divisive, but by the Front Bench of Dail Eireann today. Statements are on record today that the only way this matter can be dealt with is through the disbandment of the IRA. It must go.

If the House does not agree with that, it need not say on another occasion that it will do this, that or the other thing. There are those who are propelling themselves, and trying to compel others, down the road of rebellion and republicanism, and on the loyalist side, too, there have been all types of violence. If we tolerate that, we will have no progress towards peace. We should face up to that. This is not a time for argument but for facing hard facts.

If some of us had said what the Independent Monitoring Commission said, the response would have been "Oh, you are romanticising". However, the activities of the Provisional IRA, as outlined by the IMC, illustrate how far republicans remain from committing themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The involvement of armed republicans in the Northern Ireland bank raid and other major robberies has reinforced the message that they are in the robbery and stealing business and the business of destroying peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The previous Secretary of State made a statement earlier this year about the Northern Ireland bank robbery, in which £26.5 million was stolen. He said that

"a highly organised and brutal gang kidnapped the families of two staff from the bank headquarters in Belfast, threatening them with death unless the individuals co-operated in the execution of the largest robbery that ever took place in these islands".—[Hansard, 22 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 170.]

There is the former Secretary of State indicting the IRA for that robbery, and I ask today whether these are the sort of people that the House wants to place in a regional government of the United Kingdom and whether the House wants to carry out a campaign against the democrats who say no to them.

I am not speaking today purely for Protestants. I am speaking for many Roman Catholics and for many people who are neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic but of another religion. They have all come to the same agreement. I received a message during the election from a Roman Catholic priest who said, "Ian, please stand firm and do not move for our people, as many Catholic people living in areas where republicans are in a majority are tormented to death by the activities of Sinn Fein-IRA." He said that anyone living in such an area would be tormented to death, so it is not only the Protestant people who are saying this. It goes across the board.

Never before have so many people of all views and persuasions in Northern Ireland said that all this must end and be finished with once and for all. They are saying that anyone who wants to be in government must do so on the same basis as anyone else—by embracing democracy and only democracy because everything else is out. However, the problem is that the Government have never made it clear that the train will leave the platform without them. I issue a solemn warning to the Government, as I did personally and brutally frankly to the Taoiseach yesterday: if the Taoiseach and Mr. Blair try to make something out of an IRA statement that is not in it and if the statement is not followed with immediate action to prove its veracity, the situation will be even worse because people will say that the Governments are not prepared to stop this and that they are with those men and their activities.

The Independent Monitoring Commission was set up and approved by the Government—not by us; we had nothing to do with it—and I have to say that it has proved to be upright and honourable. We did not support its setting up. We thought that there were enough international bodies looking into Northern Ireland without having more foreigners coming in. However, the commission has been honourable and honest in facing up to facts. These are the facts and they should not be taken as facts from me, the Democratic Unionists or other loyalists, but as the facts from the IMC.

It is interesting to note that at the end of September the police discovered 10,000 rounds of ammunition suitable for use in assault rifles of a type not previously found in the Province, so there is new weaponry. That may have been only part of a larger consignment, and it demonstrates PIRA's continuing efforts to maintain its preparedness. The IMC said that intelligence it had received led it to believe that PIRA members had been involved in the murder of Robert McCartney, and that the killers had acted on the orders of a local commander. Furthermore, they had then sought to obstruct the police investigation, forensically cleansing the scene of the crime and intimidating witnesses.

I welcome the fact that people have been arrested for that. I trust that the truth will be brought out vigorously by the prosecuting officers of the Crown, and that the people who committed the murder will be called to account. I salute the sisters and partner of Mr. McCartney for their bold stand across the world to obtain justice for the one who was killed; but he is only one of hundreds and hundreds.

Members should go with me to see the people who are vegetables and have been forgotten. They should go and see the people who have no legs, or no arms, or cannot see. After the Abercorn bombing, arranged by Gerry Adams when he was in charge of the IRA, a member of my congregation was a vegetable for more than 10 years. I used to visit her regularly. Poor woman. We should consider not only the people who died, but the people who lost any enjoyment of life, and also the people who attend to them with all the tenderness of love, while knowing that those whom they are loving cannot understand that they are loved. I say to the House that we have a responsibility to stand up now.

In the light of the targeting, recruiting, rearming and intelligence gathering, and every other sordid scam and criminal and murderous activity carried out by the Provisional IRA, does my hon. Friend agree that there can be no fudging? The organisation must be totally dismantled.

I entirely agree. I remind my hon. Friend that we sat in Stormont and listened to a debate on taking care of our children. Who spoke? Mr. McGuinness. He lectured us on how we should bring up our children. I was very angry, and I asked the Speaker if I could intervene. At last I had the opportunity. I said, "You, Mr. McGuinness, were the man who sent to the manse of my hon. Friend Dr. McCrea, on a Sunday evening, gunmen to do what? To murder his children in their beds. The gunmen fired 46 bullets into the bedroom of those children. Thanks to God's mercy, they were not all taken away. Then you have the audacity to say to me 'I will teach you how you should bring up your children'." We have reached a sorry low when all that the House can do to a man like Mr. McGuinness is say "Pay a few thousand pounds, and at the end of the year we will think about you again."

When we think about what PIRA has done, when we think of the killing of Mr. McCartney and—these are, of course, modern deeds—the arson attack on a fuel depot in September, and the fact that PIRA has continued to carry out shootings and assaults, we must surely say that it is time to come to grips with the organisation.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the courage and bravery of the McCartney sisters after the brutal murder of Robert McCartney. Recently the body of Gareth O'Connor was found after he had been abducted by the IRA. Does my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness should be called on to go the second line, and make it clear that information should be provided in connection with that case and hundreds of others, not just in connection with the McCartney case? Should they not be asked to take action against their people if they do not come forward with information on all those cases?

Yes, but that action is not going to take place. No one on the Government side of the House, or even in the Irish Republic, is pushing for it, as my hon. Friend and I very well know.

I do not know what we have to do, as public representatives, to urge that the pathway of stern justice must now be taken and that these people must be brought to book for their crimes. I do not want innocent people to suffer, but I want those who have done these vile deeds to be called to account by the court of law in a proper, organised way, so that the people can have justice done. There are people in Northern Ireland who do not even know where those whom the IRA murdered are buried; it will not give up the dead bodies of their loved ones. Sometimes I sit and hold a mother's hand and she says to me, "Ian, if only I could get the body and we could carry it and have a Christian burial, I would have sweet relief. I can't get my son back again, but oh if I only had his body." There are people in the IRA who come to the negotiating table—who come to Downing street and sit down with the Prime Minister—who know, but will not tell, and then I am asked to share power with them.

We made it clear at every meeting that we attended in our negotiations that anything under discussion could take place only under two conditions: first, complete decommissioning that was verifiable and satisfied everyone; and secondly, a cessation of crime. The only people who can tell us that it has ceased are the people who are living in these areas, and they are on their backs.

I said to the Taoiseach yesterday: "I want to be brutally frank with you. When you, and Members of your Government, can stand up and tell the people of Northern Ireland, 'We could now receive the IRA into our Government and enter into a coalition', then the people of Northern Ireland will perhaps begin to believe that it is possible." That is the test. It is all right for two Members of the southern Government—the Taoiseach and his Justice Minister—to argue about disbanding, not being able to use a name, and so on, but these things are inextricably linked. If one cuts two things that are inextricably linked together, they must both fall and be different at the end of the operation.

I, personally, cannot and will not negotiate on that basis, because I am bound by a strict mandate. I got that mandate in spite of fierce odds raised against us by people who said that it could not be done in a party that has ruled Northern Ireland and in which we were all born and bred. I was in the Unionist party for years, the Lord forgive me for my sins. I fought its campaigns and won it seats that it could never have won. I was in it all the way, but then I saw, sadly, betrayals that I personally could not tolerate. Because of that, I had to raise the standard. I did that at a time when no man who rose up in Ulster and challenged official Unionism ever lived. One man—an excellent politician—challenged it, and he was so pressured that he committed suicide. I have survived, and I will tell the House why—because the people now want the truth.

I plead with the Government not to make a big show of what Adams says. Let us test it. If the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach say, "This is great, we never saw anything like it in our lives, look what has been accomplished", it will be the same as it was at the time of the last so-called decommissioning, when the man who occupied the seat in this House where I stand now said, "This is the greatest day in Northern Ireland's history." Within 24 hours, he was saying, "I have to take back everything I've said."

Let us go forward on the one path. Let truth and justice prevail and let there be clarity of speech on all sides. Let people be honest, one with the other, and then we will get somewhere. I am glad that some tiny punishment will take place, but it is far too tiny and it comes far too late.

If anybody thinks that how the Government and others handle the issue of Sinn Fein is a small matter, let them look around the Chamber. For many years, my hon. Friend Rev. Ian Paisley and I sat alone as representatives of the Democratic Unionist party. We were encouraged in later years when my hon. Friend Dr. McCrea joined us—at the time, he represented Mid-Ulster—but look at our ranks today.

It is regrettable that when we are dealing with a key issue affecting the constitutional future of Northern Ireland and the safety of its people, the three members of the Social, Democratic and Labour party have gone home or found somewhere else more enjoyable in the House. The large ranks of the Ulster Unionist party seem to have disappeared as well. However, the Minister will not get off easily, because the DUP is here in strength.

Nobody present today would argue that the Government are wrong to penalise Sinn Fein-IRA, but some will question whether their plans are appropriate and sufficient. Perhaps the Minister, when he winds up, could address another issue. As we understand it, the direction deals with funds from this House for parliamentary parties. However, the original direction suspended funds for both Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist party, which the Minister did not mention, at an Assembly level—although it was the decision of the Secretary of State. What happens to Assembly funds for parties that have not met the necessary standards according to the Independent Monitoring Commission and are in default? After all, the IMC report's strictures are addressed not only to Sinn Fein, but to the PUP. Indeed, paragraph 9.9 of the IMC's fifth report, recommends that

"the Secretary of State continues the financial measures in force in respect of the Progressive Unionist Party in the Northern Ireland Assembly."

Will the Secretary of State issue a further direction on that issue?

At the moment, the Secretary of State is considering that aspect of the report in detail and a further announcement will be made once that consideration has taken place.

I am grateful for that clarification, but the anomaly could still arise that the Secretary of State decides to cease funding Sinn Fein from Westminster, but permits Sinn Fein to be funded from Stormont. That would be inconsistent, so I am not sure why the Secretary of State dallies on the issue.

The Government attempted to bring the republican movement along by bringing it in to the political fold. They hoped that they could wean republicans off violence and criminality and that republicans would be so grateful that they would become new-born democrats. The reality, of course, has been very different: they have come into the fold, but they have brought their bad habits with them. They have not given up their past. They hold on to their weapons, continue with paramilitary activity, and still have the largest criminal empire in the whole of these islands. Those are the facts and to this date, nothing in connection with that behaviour has changed.

The IMC's fifth report makes it clear that the Provisional IRA is an active paramilitary organisation, that it is still engaged in all types of paramilitary and criminal activity, and that it has a high state of readiness for paramilitary action. It is in the light of that reality that the Government must look not just at this issue, but at a series of issues.

During the House's original debate on this issue, we argued that if the Government were serious in wanting to impose a penalty on Sinn Fein, they would have to consider a meaningful one. I find it difficult to think of any penalty that will have less impact on the republican movement than a fine of £100,000 or so. In just the past six months, this organisation has carried out a bank robbery, driving off with £26.5 million. It engages in ongoing racketeering, fuel smuggling and the sale of all manner of counterfeit goods. It has its operations along the border. It intimidates developers and builders, who have to pay it regularly. All that has gone on consistently. When I was a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we gauged that some £10 million a year was probably coming in from such activity. These republicans also license drug dealers, whom they permit to sell drugs in their area, and they punish savagely those dealers who do not pay them for the right to sell drugs in their area.

So we are talking about organised crime of a type that we have never seen before in the United Kingdom. It is major business, and the Government's hope and expectation is that the lure of government places in a Northern Ireland Assembly might be sufficient to wean the republican movement away from this major business. Anybody who looked at what happened last December should have learned a lesson. Last December, we were negotiating with Her Majesty's Government, and having talks with the Government of the Irish Republic on matters pertaining to the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Moreover, meetings were taking place principally between Sinn Fein and the Government of the Irish Republic, but also Her Majesty's Government.

While all that was going on and we were discussing in good faith how we might set up an Executive in Northern Ireland, the Sinn Fein leadership, the main participants in which are synonymous in their principles with the leadership of the IRA, were planning a bank heist. While they talked to Ministers about ending criminality, they were considering the details of their next criminal exploit. Does that not indicate something of the mindset of the organisation with which we are dealing today? It indicates clearly that these people's hope, expectation and intention—whatever the wording used on that occasion—was to give up certain elements of their paramilitary activity, but not those which allow them to keep control of their areas. A knee-capping here, an exiling there—they still want to be able to carry out such activities, to keep their rule imposed on the people in the Catholic enclaves. The one thing that they will never give up is their criminality.

The republicans do not consider themselves to be involved in criminality, as we know. According to their theology, they are the legitimate Government. As the Assembly Member for Foyle said, activities carried out in the name of that Government are legitimate, not criminal. To take one specific case, the McConville murder was therefore not considered to be a criminal event. The republican organisation feels that it has the legal authority to rule on the whole of the island of Ireland, and that everything that it does is therefore legitimate.

To deal with those people, the Minister must learn a new language—the language of republicanspeak. It is very different from what the facts or history of Ireland suggest.

The republicans' intention to maintain their criminal empire and paramilitary control of their areas will not be changed in any way by the paltry penalty imposed by the order. We need a root-and-branch punishment of the republican movement. If the Minister wants to impose a penalty, he must do so at every level of government.

In local government, councillors take an oath when they are elected that they will not engage in any activity that promotes a paramilitary organisation. I think that the republicans have about 120 councillors: each one promotes an organisation that is inextricably linked to paramilitary activity, and is therefore in breach of that pledge. No action has ever been taken against them under the law. We need effective legislation to ensure that there are financial penalties at all levels of government—local, Assembly, Westminster and European. After all, it is this House that pays the salaries of UK Members of the European Parliament.

If the Government want to be serious, they must act in the way that I have set out. If they do not do so, it will be clear that the order is merely a matter for public consumption, so that people think that the Government are doing something. In reality, however, it will have no impact on events.

My hon. Friend is right to point out the derisory amount of the sanction to be imposed on Sinn Fein, and the lack of other sanctions. Does he agree that another major defect of the order and the proposed sanction is that it will run out after one year? After that, Sinn Fein will automatically regain its entitlement to the full payments. Would not it be far better to ensure that, once a sanction is applied, the Government must return to this House—and the other place—to gain approval for Sinn Fein receiving money in the future?

That approach would be much more sensible. The House should have to make a determination, based on all the facts, as to whether funds should be given to that organisation.

So far, there has been no mention in the debate of the fact that Sinn Fein should not get the money in the first place. The Sinn Fein Members are not hon. Members in the way that the rest of us are, as they have never taken the Oath and so cannot take their seats.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I want to make it clear that the order relates to Assembly allowances, and not to allowances in this House. The penalty of £120,000 applies to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The question to which we must return, then, is why the PUP is not covered by the order. Both parties are in the Assembly, and both were dealt with by the Government at the same time, in the first instance. The Government need to offer a better explanation of why the link has been broken in this respect.

Our argument is that the penalty should be imposed at all levels of government. The House should have a role in making a determination, based on the facts, about whether funds should be made available. That would be much better than the ritual of the Government seeking extensions to the provisions in the order.

During the last number of weeks—conveniently, it must be said, at the very cusp of the general election to this House—the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA indicated that he was calling on his friends and colleagues in the IRA to bring their activities to an end, or words to that effect. Conveniently, during the rest of the election campaign we were told that that was a powerful statement made by the president of Sinn Fein, that we should all warm to him as a result of it, that it had great promise and that there was cause for hope. The election, of course, is out of the way. A statement from the IRA responding to Mr. Adams's remarks has still not been made. According to the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic yesterday, it will be further delayed, and may come before the end of the summer.

I strongly endorse the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim. There is a tendency on the part of the Government, and an even greater tendency on the part of the fifth estate—our good friends in the media—to take every word that falls from the lips of republicans and indicate that this is something quite unique, quite exceptional, something to be applauded. Then, probably about six months later, they realise that actually there were out-clauses: the carefully crafted words used in the statement allowed the IRA to do something that they had not quite imagined in the first instance. May I, with my hon. Friend, urge the Government to treat any statement from the IRA with the maximum of caution? It is essential that the Government do not take any action based on a statement from Mr. Adams or the IRA. Promises will not cut the delf in Northern Ireland; delivery, and delivery only, will be able to convince people in Northern Ireland that real change has taken place.

There are three critical areas. The first is the decommissioning of weapons—weapons that have been used to kill and maim and threaten in Northern Ireland for generations. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim mentioned the attempt to kill my hon. Friend Dr. McCrea. There was equally an attempt to use those same guns to kill my hon. Friend Mr. Dodds. There are few on this side of the House who have not been threatened or attacked by the Provisional IRA. These are vital issues—life-and-death issues. These are not cold, inanimate objects that people can sign away and deal with in a business-like fashion. They are weapons that have been used to kill and have left devastation behind them, and when we are dealing with this issue, the people out there need to be convinced that the weapons have gone, and gone for good.

The leader of the Ulster Unionist party thought it was sufficient to have some activity taking place in the dark, in a hole in the corner, and for General de Chastelain to come along and tell us that something had happened—although he was unable to tell us how anything had been decommissioned, unable to tell us what had been decomissioned, and unable to give us an inventory of what had been destroyed, if it had been destroyed, or to tell us where it had been destroyed. We were all supposed to be convinced that the IRA had done something of real import on the basis of that report.

If people are to be convinced, they need to have all of the weapons completely destroyed. They need it to be done in a way that is obviously, from the point of view of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, done in a verifiable way, but we need a transparency that we have not had to date—a transparency that we have argued must include the presence of witnesses and the existence of photographs to show every stage of that operation. That is an essential component if the IRA wants to convince people that it has turned over a new leaf and that the weapons are gone for good.

People talk about the requirement to get the IRA quickly into government, as we heard yesterday; they say that there should be no vacuum. However, there must be an absolute requirement that nothing must happen until people are convinced that the republican movement has changed. It must change by handing over its weapons to be destroyed in a way that convinces people. Unless it does so, it will take longer for people to be convinced, and it should be clearly warned about that.

The second issue is paramilitary activity. Even as we speak, the IRA's paramilitary structures continue. The IMC report refers to the training that is still going on; young people are being trained in the use of firearms in what we are told is a peacetime situation. The report states that there have been new discoveries of ammunition, which indicates that new weaponry has been brought into the Province—hardly the action of an organisation that has moved into a new mode of entirely and exclusively peaceful means. Obviously, the IRA must end the exiling of people from Northern Ireland and the targeting of members of the security forces and key people in Northern Ireland. The requirement is that it should dismantle and disband its whole organisation. That is what will be needed to convince people in Northern Ireland that the IRA has gone, and gone for good.

The third issue is criminality. When we met the IMC, its members made it clear that they would need six months to assess properly whether criminality had come to an end. It is essential that the IMC is given all the time it needs so that it can report that its work is at an end and criminality is a thing of the past. However, we shall not use only the IMC as our judge as to whether that has happened; the people whom we represent are better placed to tell us about the activities of republicans locally.

In conclusion, although we shall support the measure, we believe that it is inadequate and less effective than it could be. If the Government want progress in Northern Ireland, the real way to do it is not to try to bring Sinn Fein along by enticements and concessions, but for everybody else to move on and force Sinn Fein to catch up. The surest way to get movement from the republican movement is to show its members that they no longer have a veto and that they cannot hold back the process of democracy in Northern Ireland. When the rest of the democratic world moves on, Sinn Fein will have to follow and it will do so on the terms of the democratic world, rather than the democratic world making concessions to bring Sinn Fein on board.

This is my first opportunity, apart from putting the occasional question, to address the House since the general election. I am delighted to have been returned by the electorate of my constituency for the first time as a Democratic Unionist. I had the honour to be elected for my party. There were some people who said that we could not do it, that the electorate would turn against me for stealing their votes, but the electorate gave their response. I am delighted to have their endorsement once again, and to be part of a team representing the Unionist community, and all the people of Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons.

When I was first elected in 1997, I was part of an Ulster Unionist party team of 10 Members of Parliament. Today, that team is reduced to one. There are lessons to be drawn from that, in so far as they reflect the shift in opinion that has taken place in the Unionist community. That is important when we are considering the issues before the House. Whereas back in 1998 there might have been some tolerance within the Unionist community and latitude given to Sinn Fein-IRA, that is not the view of the overwhelming majority of Unionists today.

It is worth bearing in mind that the IRA's first ceasefire was in 1994. Here we are in June 2005 and we are reflecting on, among other things, an IMC report that, in paragraph 2.13, says:

"We conclude therefore that PIRA remains a highly active organisation. We note that in November 2004 two men were convicted of PIRA membership at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin, and a further five in February of this year. We believe that PIRA is at present determined to maintain its effectiveness, both in terms of organised crime, control in republican areas, and the potential for terrorism."

We are 11 years on from the first ceasefire, but that is the report of an independent commission on the Provisional IRA.

We were told that there would be a period of transition; we were told that we had to be patient and that, in time, we would see the fruits of the peace process as it was described. It has been a long time but now even media commentators take the view that the transition has to be completed now and that the time for flexibility, latitude and transition is gone. That is the reality.

We should not be here today debating further sanctions against an organisation that has effectively been given a veto by the Government over political progress in Northern Ireland. I, like other hon. Members on this Bench, am a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I cannot exercise the mandate in that Assembly that was given to me by the people of my constituency because it is suspended on the ground that the Provisional IRA was engaging in the kind of terrorist activity reflected in the IMC report.The people whom we represent are denied local accountable government in Northern Ireland because of the activities of the Provisional IRA.

We are all sitting around. Day in and day out, we wait for this statement to come from the IRA and we are told that there cannot be any progress until the IRA makes a statement. That effectively means that the army council of the IRA determines the pace of political progress in Northern Ireland. The rest of us have to sit on our hands and wait for P. O'Neill to deliver a statement, and then things will begin to happen. That is the reality of where politics is in Northern Ireland today, 11 years on from the first IRA ceasefire.That is simply not good enough. We cannot in a democracy allow a terrorist organisation to dictate the political agenda.

Is that not disgusting given that the Justice Minister of a foreign jurisdiction acknowledges that two of the leading members of that terrorist organisation, Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, are members of the army council? Instead of parading them in and out of Downing street, surely justice demands that they be paraded before a court and found guilty of crimes.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am delighted to see him back in the House again representing South Antrim. I wish him many years in that position. He is absolutely right. It is absurd that two Members of this House refuse to take their seats. They are Members of Parliament and Members of the Assembly, but also senior members of the IRA army council. They are feted by this Government and the Irish Government as some kind of statesmen. The Irish Prime Minister tells us that he has met them on five occasions in recent times to discuss the political process in Northern Ireland.

Negotiations seemed to be going on during the election. The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, flew into Belfast to hold secret talks with the leadership of Sinn Fein-IRA. However, all the time my party, which represents the majority in Northern Ireland and is the largest political party in Northern Ireland, is constantly told that it cannot put forward a democratic way of moving the political process ahead.

The issue was last debated in the House on 22 February, when the then Secretary of State, Mr. Murphy, said that suggestions had been made in some quarters that the Assembly should be restored and that if it failed to take action to exclude Sinn Fein, he should take action himself using the powers available to him to do that. It is in the gift of the Government to deal with the issue and move the political process forward in Northern Ireland, so I simply ask why they are not doing so.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there can be no fudging whatsoever on the whole decommissioning issue. Will he join me in condemning the targeting and intimidation of members of the Royal Irish Regiment and their families, and of members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and their families? Not a month goes past in my constituency without members of the security forces, along with their families, being intimidated. Their children cannot go into shops, or go to school in different areas.

I thank my hon. Friend David Simpson—it has been a while since I have been able to make that particular comment. He is of course absolutely right. During Northern Ireland questions yesterday I raised the way in which the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service battalions are being treated. There is uncertainty about their future and their morale is low. They are being kept in the dark, yet at the same time their members are targeted and their members' families are intimidated. I understand the difficulties involved in thinking ahead about the future deployment of the regiment and the Home Service battalions, but will the Minister understand at a human level the difficulty of the situation for the soldiers and their families because uncertainty surrounds them, yet they still face threats and intimidation? At the same time, they watch the political process and see how the people responsible for such threats and intimidation continue to be treated as though they are democrats.

It is time to remove the veto that the IRA has over the political process. I am told that the statement we were promised will be delayed until perhaps August—when the parade season has ended. There is a desire to see how the summer goes before the statement is made, so we will have yet further weeks and months of delay and procrastination. Why does one have to delay to become a democrat? One either is a democrat, or one is not, but on the basis of the IMC report, Sinn Fein-IRA clearly are not democratic in their entirety or committed to exclusively peaceful means. I tell the Minister that the Secretary of State should take the initiative. He should recall the Assembly. The Assembly should then move to exclude Sinn Fein, but if it is not excluded, he should use his powers to do that. The Social Democratic and Labour party is absent from the House today, and also absent is its courage to step forward and enter a voluntary coalition with the rest of the democratic parties. Perhaps it is time to put things up to that party as well.

I want to touch on two other issues on the subject of the financial sanctions, which the Minister has announced will be continued. Between 1999 and 2004, some £14 million was given to ex-prisoners' groups in Northern Ireland through funding for various projects. Now that is a lot of money. The majority of it has gone to republican ex-prisoners groups. I could list those, but I am afraid that my grasp of the Irish language would fail me. Suffice it to say, we are talking about a great deal of public money going into ex-prisoners groups.

Contrast that with the treatment of some of the victims groups. Families Acting for Innocent Relatives is based in south Armagh. It received a letter yesterday from the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister saying that its application for peace and reconciliation funding for its memorial centre in south Armagh had been rejected. FAIR was looking for £200,000 of capital funding for the purchase of that centre, which provides valuable support to the victims of terrorism.

South Armagh has been described as bandit country. It was a hotbed of IRA activity. Many people were murdered there. I think of atrocities such as Kingsmill, where 10 Protestant workers were lined up against a minibus and shot down in cold blood, and the attacks on Tullyvallen Orange hall and Darkley gospel hall. I could go on. There is a litany of atrocities carried out by the IRA in south Armagh. FAIR is a victims group, representing a large number of those victims and their families. It applied for £200,000 of capital funding for a project for a memorial centre and it was turned down. Yet £14 million has gone to ex-prisoners groups since 1999. Surely there is an inequity that the Government need to consider.

If the Government are in the business of applying financial sanctions and are not prepared to fund the victims, they should have the decency to cut off the funding to the ex-prisoners groups. When we consider some of the activities covered by the IMC report, we find that the people on the front line of those riotous situations who order the beatings and shootings are often the people who were released from prison and who are benefiting from the funding from the ex-prisoners groups.

My final point is on released prisoners and sanctions. When the Government included in the Belfast agreement the provision for the early release of terrorist prisoners in Northern Ireland, it was an emotive issue. We deeply opposed it. Provisions were built into the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 which enabled the Sentence Review Commission, established by the Act, to review the release of any prisoner who was deemed to represent a threat to public safety.

The Minister may be aware of the recent situation involving one of those released prisoners, Sean Kelly—the infamous Shankill bomber—who, along with his accomplice Thomas Begley, murdered nine innocent people on the Shankill road. When Kelly was imprisoned, the judge said that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted of nine murders and given nine life sentences, but he was released after just seven years in prison under the terms of the Belfast agreement. That is less than one year in prison for each life Kelly destroyed. Yet on three occasions, he has been pictured in the Ardoyne at a riotous situation. I am not going to go into the detail of what Kelly may or may not have been doing. I simply pose the question to the Minister: has the Secretary of State, using his statutory power, referred the case of Sean Kelly to the Sentence Review Commission?

The Ardoyne is in my constituency. My hon. Friend is right to make the valid and correct point about that infamous IRA killer, who only two weeks ago was pictured in the front line of a riot when attacks were made on Protestant homes in the Twaddell avenue area. It is essential that the Minister addresses that as a matter of urgency and provides reassurance to my constituents in particular.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right, and he will know at first hand the sense of deep frustration felt by his constituents in north Belfast, particularly on the Shankill road, about the manner in which Kelly continues to be present at riotous situations while the Government turn a blind eye.

I contrast that with the case of Ken Barrett, who was recently convicted of the murder of the solicitor Pat Finucane. Barrett is alleged to have been one of the Ulster Defence Association team that murdered Pat Finucane—the Ulster Freedom Fighters team. Recently, Barrett applied for early release under the terms of the Belfast agreement, as his crime had been committed before 10 April 1998. He was therefore eligible to apply for early release. His application was rejected by the Sentence Review Commission on the basis that he was a danger to the public. I simply pose to the Minister, and through him to the Secretary of State, this question: how is Ken Barrett more of a danger to the public than Sean Kelly? I think that we are entitled to an honest answer to that question.

I am not here today arguing for the release of any prisoner: let me make that absolutely clear. It is the double standards that are the issue. If somebody murders nine Protestants on the Shankill road, they walk free; if somebody murders a Roman Catholic solicitor in Belfast, they stay in prison. Is Pat Finucane's life worth more than that of one of the children whom Sean Kelly murdered in that fish shop on the Shankill road? I do not think that the people of the Shankill would accept that the life of one of those children whom he murdered is any less valuable than that of Pat Finucane, so why do the Government act as they do, through the Sentence Review Commission, which is supposed to be independent? We just wonder why it happens to be that the people who are returned to prison or stay there happen to be those who murdered republicans, and that those who murdered Protestants are those who are set free—and when they are free, they seem to be able to engage in whatever activity they wish, without any sanction. I hope that the Minister will address those issues.

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the helpful comments that hon. Members from all parts of the House have made today.

First, I wish to be clear on the direction, which does indeed remove Sinn Fein's entitlement to funding under the financial assistance for political parties scheme. That is the funding that is available to parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the purpose of the direction is to reflect the removal of the funds available in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Despite many of the comments made by hon. Members, there is a general welcome for the direction. I welcome the support of Rev. Ian Paisley, who I know has had to leave—I understand the reasons why that is the case—and of Mr. Lidington, as well as from other hon. Members. It is clear that the IMC has reached a measured conclusion about the level of Provisional IRA activity, which has led to the issue of the direction and to its being recommended to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has accepted that recommendation and accepted the IMC's report in its entirety, which is why the motion is before us.

Much of what hon. Members have said obviously expresses the wish to go further than the direction, but we are implementing the wishes of the IMC in its recommendations to the Secretary of State. There is also clear agreement in all parts of the House with regard to the need for an end to paramilitary and criminal activity. I emphasise that the objective of the Government in taking forward the peace process—indeed, it is a precondition for continuing the peace process—is that that paramilitary and criminal activity ceases. The Government and all hon. Members await any statement from the Provisional IRA to assist in that process, if and when it comes, and I know that all hon. Members agree on that objective.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury for his support on the objectives in the IMC report and on ending criminal and paramilitary activity. He has indicated that he wants to examine the question of the proscription of the IRA, which we must take one step at a time. We have examined paramilitary and criminal activity, and we have set out Government policy on those issues.

Lembit Öpik, who spoke for the Liberals, mentioned David Ford's 10-point plan. I intend to meet Mr. Ford very shortly, and I have no doubt that we will discuss the 10 points in detail.

In addition to his remarks about paramilitary and criminal activity, which I fully understand, I share the view of the hon. Member for North Antrim about the bravery of the McCartney sisters, who have had the courage to stand up for their beliefs in difficult circumstances over the past few months. As I have said, all hon. Members await with interest an IRA statement on those matters.

The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) have indicated their concern about the penalty for the Provisional IRA. Hon. Members know that a £120,000 penalty will be imposed in this financial year as a result of the IMC report should this House approve the motion tonight. Under current legislation, 12 months is the maximum period for which the Government can impose the directive, but we will examine that issue, and if criminal and paramilitary activity continues further orders cannot be ruled out, if the IMC recommends them. A penalty of £120,000 is severe and it will hinder Sinn Fein's operations in the Assembly.

Mr. Donaldson said that he is pleased to be back in the House. May I say that we are all pleased to be back in the House? I also welcome the hon. Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) to the House—I know that the hon. Member for South Antrim has returned to the House after an absence of some years, and I know what a pleasure it is.

We hope to make progress on some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I cannot comment on the cases that he has mentioned this evening involving Sean Kelly and Ken Barrett, but I recognise the points that he has made. However, it is not for me to comment on those cases this evening because they fall outside the scope of the directive.

I want to emphasise to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government are committed to taking the peace process forward, and we are committed to ending paramilitary and criminal activity in Northern Ireland. That is the basis under which this House is considering the order this evening, and that is the reason why we have accepted the IMC recommendation. The Provisional IRA has been identified as having a responsibility and an involvement in serious incidents of a criminal and paramilitary nature in Northern Ireland, which I say more in sorrow than in anger.

That is acceptable to neither hon. Members on both sides of the House or the Government, which is why we have introduced the order tonight. I want to see the order passed this evening as it has been in another place. We want to see a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity in order to achieve the objective of the hon. Members for Belfast, North, for Lagan Valley and for Belfast, East—the restoration of the Assembly so that people in Northern Ireland can make decisions in their own communities on behalf of their own communities. As a direct rule Minister, dealing with two Departments in Northern Ireland, I am acutely aware of that need.

I give hon. Members the assurance that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Government team and I are committed to trying to restore the Assembly at an early date, subject to a peaceful conclusion and an end to paramilitary and criminal activities in Northern Ireland. We all share that objective and that is the reason for tabling the motion today.The IMC has recognised that paramilitary and criminal activity continues and we cannot therefore support Sinn Fein in the Assembly.

I hope that I have answered some of points that were made in the short time that I had. Time is pressing. I commend the motion and I hope that we can agree to it this evening to achieve the objectives that we all share.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the direction given by the Secretary of State under section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 1st April 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.