House of Commons
Wednesday 9 February 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be further considered on Wednesday 16 February.
NORTHERN IRELAND
The Secretary of State was asked--
Security
1. Mr. Tony Clarke (Northampton, South): What recent progress has been made to create a more normal security environment. [107673]
3. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [107675]
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram):
The security strategy paper that was published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 22 December 1999 outlines the progress made and the further steps that the Government intend to take towards achieving normality, depending on the threat level. In assessing that threat level, we will act on the professional advice of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and our security advisers. I want to make it clear that we will not relax our guard. The safety of the public remains at all times paramount.
Mr. Clarke:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and particularly welcome the publication of the Government's strategy. Following the bomb attack in Irvinestown, will he ensure that, while working towards a more normal security environment, we redouble efforts to ensure that those who are working outside the peace process are swiftly brought to justice?
Mr. Ingram:
Obviously, the attack in Irvinestown should be and was rightly condemned by everyone associated with taking forward normalisation in Northern Ireland. It was condemned across the board by political parties and others. In taking forward the process, we must ensure that we do not drop our guard. Even with all the successes of the Garda Siochana in the Republic of
Mr. Paterson:
The Minister says that the safety of the public remains paramount, but yesterday the Northern Ireland Human Rights Bureau told me that, since the agreement, there have been 13 murders, 147 shootings and 422 beatings, as well as nearly 1,000 armed bank robberies in which 3,000 members of the public were held up at gun point. Is it sensible to continue to plan the break-up of the RUC and to release murdering terrorists?
Mr. Ingram:
The hon. Gentleman would do better to rely on official statistics, rather than the source that he quoted. He has got it totally wrong.
Mr. Paterson:
Which one is wrong?
Mr. Ingram:
The hon. Gentleman could easily ask written questions to gain such information, but I personally undertake to ensure that he is provided with the accurate statistics. It is not the case that we intend to break up the RUC, as the hon. Gentleman says. I remind him that the future of policing in Northern Ireland was part of the Good Friday agreement. I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports that agreement. If so, he should give a fair wind to the difficult decisions that we have to take on the future of policing there.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann):
May I refer the Minister to the Irvinestown bomb incident? I am aware that, in official circles, it is thought that the Real IRA, based around Dundalk, is more dangerous than Continuity IRA, which is based around the Fermanagh borders. This is the third bombing in Fermanagh by Continuity IRA. Consequently, there needs to be particular vigilance on the Fermanagh borders. Does the Minister agree that nothing could be more foolish than to decide now to demolish the patrol bases on the Fermanagh border? That incident shows the clear need to retain those patrol bases. The suggestion that the bases should be demolished as a political gesture, which has been made from time to time, should now be dropped entirely.
Mr. Ingram:
Any bombing incident or killing by any dissident group has to be condemned whatever happens in Northern Ireland. Of course, we had the tragic circumstances of Omagh and there have been other incidents during the peace since the Good Friday agreement was agreed by the various parties who signed up to it. We have always said that this is not a perfect peace. We have always highlighted the potential dangers contained within it. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he will understand that Ministers and the Secretary of State will always act on any matter--either the specific matters that he raised or the wider agenda--on the basis of the best advice from the Chief Constable and our security advisers.
Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down):
Would the Minister agree that the commencement of decommissioning would be a great asset in the pursuance of normal security? Does he also agree that that is the dear and earnest wish of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland and these isles in general? Does he agree
Mr. Ingram:
We had a very thorough-going debate on that issue yesterday, following last week's statement by the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend made a significant contribution to that debate. We have a situation that we now have to deal with. Although there is a very real lack of confidence in various aspects of the way forward under the Good Friday agreement, I know that, like me, my hon. Friend believes that decommissioning and normalisation should happen, and that, in many ways, the two will go hand in hand. The more normalised Northern Ireland becomes, the greater will become the pressure on those who want to use the bomb and the bullet not to do so. Their communities will put that pressure on them. I am sure that the issues raised by my hon. Friend will continue to be addressed in the coming days.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
In the context of normalisation, will the Patten recommendations on police be implemented even if the Assembly is suspended?
Mr. Ingram:
We have made it clear that the Patten recommendations, which have now been analysed and proposed by the Secretary of State, are part of the Good Friday agreement. We have said that we want to continue with the Good Friday agreement. Therefore, the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell):
Does the Minister accept that, after the bombing at Irvinestown on Sunday, there must be one absolutely clear message from both sides of the House to the men of violence--that they will never, ever succeed, and that what they are doing is totally counterproductive to achieving what they want?
Mr. Ingram:
I share that sentiment with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that every hon. Member wants decommissioning. The sentiment was also expressed in the Good Friday agreement. It is also what the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland want. They want a peaceful future and an end to the violence that they have known for the past 30 years.
Mr. MacKay:
Does the Minister accept that, after Irvinestown and other incidents, when there is very clearly still a terrorist threat, it would be quite wrong to implement recommendations in the Patten report that are security sensitive? Will he now give a guarantee to the House that those particular recommendations will not be implemented until there is no longer a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Ingram:
I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman has heard the answers that have been given by Ministers before; if he has, he has not absorbed them. We have made it clear that the threat level always has to be taken into account. The Secretary of State made that clear in announcing the way forward on the recommendations flowing from the Patten report. Clearly, we have to take
Terrorist and Paramilitary Violence
2. Helen Jones (Warrington, North): What discussions he has had with the Office of First and Deputy First Minister relating to victims of terrorist and paramilitary violence. [107674]
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I had a constructive and positive meeting with the First and Deputy First Ministers on Monday 31 January to discuss how victims' issues can be best addressed. It was agreed that a co-ordinated approach is essential to ensure that victims are treated with the respect that they deserve.
Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, in the past 30 years, there have been too many victims and too many damaged people, both in Northern Ireland and on this side of the Irish sea? Will he assure those victims and their families that, through this very difficult time, both he and those with whom he is in discussions will redouble their efforts to ensure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland--which is what most of those victims and their families want?
Mr. Ingram: I do not think that I could add very much to the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, who has articulated both past events and the problems associated with victims and survivors of the violence. The best way forward is to achieve a lasting peace, so that we have no more such victims or survivors.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey): While I condemn all acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland, may I ask the Minister to acknowledge that much of the money that was collected by the Noraid organisation, in North America, was to help the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland, but that, more often than not, that aid found its way into the IRA's hands to buy arms, thereby creating victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland? Would there be merit in considering an extra payment to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland pro rata for the arms surrendered, thereby giving an incentive to both sides to do so?
Mr. Ingram: We are always prepared to listen to new and innovative ideas, and that suggestion has not been put to me before. It would be hard to quantify that proposal, but, as the Minister with responsibility for this issue, I would be prepared to look at such ideas to see whether there is a practical way forward. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion.
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley): Does the Minister agree that the best way to ensure real peace in Northern Ireland and to ensure that there are no more victims is to take the arms out of circulation and
to have them decommissioned? In the absence of decommissioning, surely it would be wrong to hurl further insult upon the hurt of the victims of terrorist violence by continuing with the early release of terrorist prisoners, when those terrorist organisations are failing to deliver on their obligations under the agreement.
Mr. Ingram: We have always made it clear that one of the most difficult aspects of the agreement was the early release of prisoners. We always hoped that more progress would be made on a parallel basis on all other aspects of the agreement. It is a vexed and difficult question and, as the Minister who has to deal regularly with victims and survivors of terrible acts, I well understand the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I suggest to him that he could serve the interests of those victims and survivors better by working alongside his right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and by helping in the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman is making in support of the Good Friday agreement.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): Has the Minister thought beyond decommissioning, as residual punishment beatings, exilings and intimidations will still take place? People will have difficulty in reporting these incidents to the RUC and the state because of fears of intimidation. Would not the setting up of an independent anti-intimidation unit with international support alert us to the problems of continuing gangsterism? Would that be helpful in terms of developing democracy in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Ingram: When we talk about moving towards a normalised society, we do not mean that it will be a criminal-free society, as that is not the nature of any society now. We must ensure that the RUC and the other agencies of the Government with responsibility for tackling violent crime have all the means at their disposal, so that the victims of violence and those who may wish to give evidence against those carrying out such acts have the full protection and support of all the agencies of the state.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): How can the Government's ethical policy towards Austria in relation to the inclusion of Mr. Haider's party in Government be equated with the policy pressurising democrats of all descriptions to serve in an Executive with representatives of a terrorist organisation that remains armed and has murdered 2,500 British citizens?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not easily pressured. Usually, he takes great umbrage when he is pressured, so I would never seek to pressure him into doing anything. The establishment of the Executive was agreed by the parties that supported the Good Friday agreement, which itself was supported by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. I should have thought that he, as a democrat, would be prepared to bow to the wish of the majority.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |