| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.38 am
Mr. Ingram: In the short time available we have had a good debate covering a wide range of issues on a crucial and important aspect of what we now have to deal with in Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for their support for the order and for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) also indicated support for the order, and set out a number of points that I shall deal with in due course.
I first want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I understand that at the weekend he made what was called a conciliatory speech at his council meeting. I have not seen a transcript of it, so perhaps he will pass it to me because I should like to know exactly what he was saying that was conciliatory. If it was conciliatory, that is an improvement on his previous position, and I would welcome it if he is now beginning to understand that there is a way forward. However, if his speech today was consistent with what he said on Saturday, I am not so sure that it was conciliatory, because he got so many matters wrong. I should like to deal with those matters now.
The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the Government were delivering on the Good Friday agreement. We are delivering on the agreement. However, I think that he was also questioning whether it was wise to do so. I remind him that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for the agreement. Although he has the right to dissent and to question the people's judgment, I suggest to him that, at all times, he should keep very much in mind the underlying desire of the people of Northern Ireland and of the vast majority of people across the island of Ireland.
I also advise the hon. Gentleman, if I may, to take the wise counsel of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has grasped the enormity of the issues at stake and the ways in which the matter has to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman realises that it has to be dealt with forcefully--he is certainly direct in his arguments--but he also tries to look for ways in which we can move the whole process forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked various questions about the way in which the Act would be applied. I suspect that he--I dealt with the subject also in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)--has not read the Act to which we are referring. He tried to define very specifically the nature of the whole decommissioning process, but his definition was not consistent with the Act.
Perhaps I should again put on the record the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On 12 January, he said:
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the early release of prisoners and the grief and the hurt that that brings. We have exchanged views in this Chamber and elsewhere on that subject, and I well understand the specific issue. However, he then referred to "other concessions to terrorists" without defining what those concessions were. Was one of the concessions the Human Rights Act 1998? I do not think that that was a concession to terrorists. Was it the creation of the equality provisions? I do not believe that they were a concession to terrorists.
Was normalisation of the security profile a concession? I do not believe that that was a concession to terrorists. When the Government move forward on normalising the security profile in Northern Ireland, our actions are consistent with the views of the Chief Constable and the best security advice available. It is not a straightforward political judgment, as we have to take best advice. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that trying to normalise society is a concession, I do not know what type of society he wants.
Is it a concession to review the criminal justice system?
Mr. Ingram:
Such a view is not what the people of Northern Ireland voted for when they supported the Good Friday agreement. Is it a concession to examine the whole question of the future of policing in Northern Ireland? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Such a view is not what the people of Northern Ireland voted for, and it is not what the Good Friday agreement said.
I well understand why the hon. Gentlemen respond as they do, saying that those are concessions to terrorists. However, the actions are about trying to create a very specific type of better society in Northern Ireland--a society that was well defined by those who debated and designed the Good Friday agreement, which was then put to a referendum of the people. Although the hon. Gentlemen are entitled to their view, I ask the hon. Member for Lagan Valley to bear in mind the fact that he is out of kilter with the vast majority of his fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
I always listen closely to the speeches of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. However, may I ask him perhaps to get his language right for once? It may help his judgment as we move forward. He genuinely wants a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, but the way in which we achieve it is important.
It is easy to be a critic and to say that we should stand still or look back to some wonderful period in the past, but that is not the reality for the people of Northern Ireland, and it has not been the policy of the Government or the previous Administration in trying to develop a different environment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman needs to get his language right to begin to understand the breadth of the debate and to look for a new basis for his judgments. There may be political judgments involved. He may be interested in a future bid for the leadership of his party; I do not know. I am not interested in the internal politics of the Ulster Unionists--I am interested in what is right for all the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Donaldson:
My concern is to ensure that there is progress. Everybody agrees that there is not progress
Mr. Ingram:
Judgment requires alternatives. The hon. Gentleman has not given us any. How do we move the process forward? Is it simply by saying that things are going to fail, being a constant critic and trying to undermine what the people have voted for?
Mr. Donaldson:
Link prisoner releases to decommissioning.
Mr. Ingram:
I have always said that that is a difficult part of the process. The previous Administration took it on board when there was no ceasefire. Different circumstances applied and there have been attempts to define what happened differently, but terrorist prisoners were being released early when there was no ceasefire. We now have substantial ceasefires from the main terrorist and paramilitary organisations. If that is not progress, I do not know what is. A look at the statistics for the number of people killed, maimed and injured over the past 30 years shows what progress has been made. The stage that we are at is not enough. It must be improved on, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others are seeking to achieve that.
"The methods of decommissioning are for General de Chastelain to determine, providing that the weapons are destroyed or made permanently inaccessible and that there is independent verification of the destruction or the putting beyond use that has occurred."
My right hon. Friend went on to say:
"I have great confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues to ensure that that process is properly verified."--[Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 260.]
My right hon. Friend made a very clear statement consistent with the laws under which the general and his colleagues have to act, and of which the Government have
to take full cognisance. I am not so sure that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley really does understand the Act, but I hope that today's debate has helped him on that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |