Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

---

 
Column Number: 1
Column Number: 2
 

Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman:

†Mr. Alan Hurst

†Clarke, Mr. Tony (Northampton, South) (Lab)
†Coaker, Vernon (Gedling) (Lab)
†Cunningham, Tony (Workington) (Lab)
†Fitzsimons, Mrs. Lorna (Rochdale) (Lab)
†Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, Cathcart) (Lab)
†Hermon, Lady (North Down) (UUP)
†Heyes, Mr. David (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
†Joyce, Mr. Eric (Falkirk, West) (Lab)
†Lidington, Mr. David (Aylesbury) (Con)
†Luff, Mr. Peter (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con)
†McGrady, Mr. Eddie (South Down) (SDLP)
Maples, Mr. John (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
†O-pik, Lembit (Montgomeryshire) (LD)
†Owen, Albert (Ynys Mo(r)n) (Lab)
†Pearson, Mr. Ian (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland)
†Reed, Mr. Andy (Loughborough) (Lab/Co-op)
†Robinson, Mr. Peter (Belfast, East) (DUP)
†Shaw, Jonathan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Shepherd, Mr. Richard (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
†Wright, David (Telford) (Lab)

Sîan Jones, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Column Number: 3
 

Wednesday 9 February 2005

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2005

2.30 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2005.

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Hurst. A copy of the order was laid before the House on 26 January. It is the third order extending the amnesty period during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme. It gives immunity from prosecution for the offences set out in the schedule to the 1997 Act which might be committed during the decommissioning process.

The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Act 2002 amended the 1997 Act to extend the amnesty period to the end of 26 February 2003, subject to further extensions, up to and including 26 February 2007. The purpose of the order before the Committee today is to extend the period until the end of 23 February next year.

I am very much aware of the anomaly in bringing the order before hon. Members today, given the recent statements made by the Provisional IRA. Nevertheless, it is important to leave a way open so that organisations that want to move away from violence and disarm can do so. Since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, the Government have consistently expressed the view that decommissioning has been, and remains, a vital element in the removal once and for all of violence from politics in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning, an end to paramilitary and criminal activity, and restoration of a stable and inclusive devolved Government remain our goals. It is important to have the legislation in place to allow us to continue to seek progress on decommissioning. We shall continue to urge all paramilitary groups, both republican and loyalist, to decommission their weapons.

I want to take the opportunity, as my predecessor, my good and right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), did in a similar debate last year, to pay tribute to General John de Chastelain and his colleagues. We thank them for their commitment, perseverance and integrity.

Lady Hermon (North Down) (UUP): I believe that the Independent Monitoring Commission was created 10 years ago; how much has it cost?

 
Column Number: 4
 

Mr. Pearson: I do not have the exact figures to hand, but from memory it is in the region of £3.5 million over 10 years. However, I do not want to mislead the Committee by pretending that that is an exact figure.

The people of Northern Ireland, and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland, voted for the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. They understood that for the agreement to succeed all sides would have to work together to create a peaceful, inclusive future for all. Their vote opened the way for those associated with paramilitary groups to campaign for all their goals through peaceful and democratic means. By now the people of Northern Ireland could reasonably have expected those parties who have links with such organisations to have delivered in full their side of the deal, and it is more than disappointing that, some seven years on, they are still waiting for full and complete decommissioning.

The Government will renew their efforts to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are rewarded for their patience and long suffering. We want the completion of the decommissioning process, and a peaceful future for all. The order is part of that process and I commend it to the Committee.

2.34 pm

Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Hurst.

The Minister introduced the order in tones of disappointment and regret, and that is understandable. I should add that we should not be just disappointed at what has happened and what has been said in recent weeks. It is not a matter for disappointment; it is a blatant scandal that organisations that claim to be committed to exclusively democratic and peaceful politics still hold out the possession of guns and explosives as a macabre bargaining chip in a process of political negotiation. I am sure that all Committee members believe that if people are committed to peaceful and democratic politics they do not need guns or explosives, and they do not need private armies or criminal gangs to do their bidding; instead, they should rely on the power of speech and argument and the verdict of the ballot box, and on those alone.

I will not vote against the order today. I still think on balance that it is better to have this arrangement in place than not.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on what he has said? Is it better for us to continue to placate these people? Criminals is what they are, so should they not be treated as common criminals? Should we not go after the illegally held weapons, ammunition and explosives?

Mr. Lidington: We should certainly go after the weapons and the ammunition, and we should go after people who have committed crimes of any sort in Northern Ireland. The order extends an amnesty concerning only weapons and explosives that are being decommissioned. There is nothing preventing the police, or any other law enforcement agency north or
 
Column Number: 5
 
south of the border on the island of Ireland, from apprehending criminals and confiscating illegal weapons and explosives wherever they find them, and I hope that that will happen.

When I met the Irish Justice Minister last week, I was left in no doubt about his strong personal commitment to using the full rigour of the law and the enforcement agencies against crime within his jurisdiction. It is in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regardless of the background they come from, for both Governments and both jurisdictions to work single-mindedly to defeat organised crime.

I want to pose a couple of questions for the Minister to address when he replies. The first of them is about the loyalist paramilitary gangs, and in particular the Ulster Defence Association. The UDA said through the Ulster Political Research Group that it would engage with the Decommissioning Commission. As a consequence, the Secretary of State introduced, and Parliament approved, the order to despecify the UDA. Will the Minister tell the Committee what, if any, progress has been made on that front since those steps were taken? When I read media reports and the statements of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, I find evidence that people who are thought to be prominent in the UDA are still involved in crime. I also read reports that the police and the Government fear a split between those within loyalism who genuinely want to move permanently into democratic politics and those who are wedded to guns and gangsterism. Will the Minister give an assessment of how he rates the chances of achieving some decommissioning from that quarter over the next 12 months?

I turn to the republicans. We were told by Mr. P. O’Neill the other week that the Provisional IRA was taking off the table its offer made in November and December to decommission all its illegal weapons and explosives. However, its apologists in Sinn Fein do not believe that there is any illegality in their holding those weapons; they appear to believe that any action that they undertake, either in Northern Ireland or in the Republic of Ireland, is by definition not a crime. In light of recent events, can the Minister hold out any hope that republicans are likely to engage in, or even talk about, decommissioning during the 12 months before this order expires?

I note that under the enabling legislation, extensions of the amnesty period by order are permitted only until February 2007. I would expect that by now Ministers were turning their minds to what, if anything, would follow that expiry date. Would the entire machinery be allowed to lapse? Do they think it likely that the provision would have to be renewed? I note in passing a coincidence: the final expiry of the extension period coincides with the year in which the next elections to the Dail Eireann are due. One might hope that that would provide the necessary imperative for people on the republican side to do what they promised way back in 1998, but have signally failed to deliver on.

 
Column Number: 6
 

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those points. As I said, I shall not oppose the order, although I take that position with a certain amount of misgiving because the situation with which Parliament is confronted is profoundly unsatisfactory.

2.42 pm

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): Like others, I am very pleased to be serving under your guidance this afternoon, Mr. Hurst.

It is with a sense of weariness that one comes to renew this legislation yet again. There is also a sense of extreme disappointment that so little has happened in real terms since it was put on the statute book. I have always sustained the argument that the Good Friday agreement, which the Minister said should be implemented in full, is the base requirement whereby paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland would cease. It was both the fact and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement those eight or nine years ago that decommissioning would commence immediately—I was there, as they say. Indeed, the expectation was that within 12 or 18 months illegal armed gangs—paramilitary, criminal or otherwise—in Northern Ireland would be brought to a halt. That has not happened.

It has always surprised me that over those years two sovereign Governments, British and Irish, have sustained in their sovereignty and jurisdiction the credibility of having an alternative army—fully equipped and ready for action—parallel to their own armed forces. For me, that was a total contradiction. Instead of the decommissioning of weapons being treated as a fact and a requirement in itself, it was brought willy-nilly, and very unfortunately, into the political negotiating system. Once that happened, it was against the interests of the paramilitaries and their political representatives, on both sides, to be forthcoming with decommissioning.

As long as those people held weapons back, they had a bargaining chip at the negotiating table, which they played time and again. If one were ironic, one would look at the negotiations over the years and see that the same things were promised time and again in successive so-called agreements with Governments. However, each time that they were promised, some additional political or financial advantage was granted to those who were negotiating for the paramilitaries through their political party.

We all know that both sides—IRA-Sinn Fein, and the UDA, the Progressive Unionist party and others—are identical personages that go off at intervals to consult with themselves to bring back the answers that they already had before they went. We tolerate these anomalies, or little idiosyncrasies, in the process as a political debate in Northern Ireland.

Although I would like to be corrected if I am wrong, it strikes me that since the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 was passed, there seems to have been a dearth of arms discovery. The quantum of arms found outside the few legalised decommissionings is virtually non-existent. We all know that there are arms dumps in various places in
 
Column Number: 7
 
both jurisdictions, although I hasten to add that I do not know where they are. We just know that they are there, and the people who we are negotiating with know where they are. However, the security forces—north and south—have never seemed to be able to make a major arms find since the 1997 Act was passed. I find that very odd in a community that is quite small and interlinked, and where everyone knows what happened yesterday in every town in the whole of Northern Ireland and the south of Ireland.

Leaving that aside, as I said before, the important thing is that once both Governments brought the process of decommissioning into the political bargaining, that enabled the paramilitaries to dictate the progress of the political scenario and frustrate it entirely. That was their intention. It was not their intention to make it easy for the democratic parties to come to an agreement; they intended to prevent that from happening, yet the process is almost exclusively geared round whether the IRA army council—or whatever the corresponding council is for the Ulster Volunteer Force or the UDA—will agree to something. Piecemeal, they have fed tantalising bits of decommissioning, or promises of decommissioning, to the process and each time they have been rewarded, like a Pavlovian dog, with a little titbit of either political advantage or financial benefit. If that stops—we are assured now by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that it has stopped; we will live and see whether that is so—the process of peace becomes a reality.

I do not want to get into exclusiveness and inclusiveness, which have gained new and enormous political dimensions in Northern Ireland, but until that message is delivered, in the sense that there is going to be no change, we will not get decommissioning, which is sad, because it is too strong a political weapon, never mind a military weapon.

Until we convey that message through Sinn Fein to themselves and the army council, and in the same way with the loyalist paramilitaries, political dialogue cannot have real meaning. That means—I want to underscore this—that in the meantime there is freedom, virtually, for the armed paramilitaries to roam our communities. I tell the Committee straight that, insidiously, they are taking over our communities in nearly every aspect we can think of. The fascism that is there now is horrendous, and unless we stop it, and stop it quickly, the situation will become irrecoverable.

The whole moral fabric of the negotiations, which put democratic politics into disrepute, is having an effect on people as well, because they see that a reward is given, or a blind eye turned, to paramilitary activities. In my community—which is particularly non-violent, thank God—extortion, protection, creaming off drugs and so-called restorative justice through punishment beatings are the order of the day. I am sure that such things are reflected in many other communities, but they are not dramatic enough—the
 
Column Number: 8
 
paramilitaries no longer use guns; they use baseball bats. They are starting to use guns again in the so-called adoration shootings, but that is another story.

This must be stopped; these people must be vigorously pursued, irrespective of whether they come to an agreement at a negotiating table. I do not want to sound preachy, but if that is not done soon, our whole moral fabric will deteriorate; it deteriorates rapidly when people we know are involved in such acts, and who receive benefit from their involvement, get away with it on a daily basis.

I urge the Minister to say in his winding-up speech whether it is the Government’s intention to treat the so-called Northern Bank robbery as the final straw, as the Prime Minister stated in conjunction with the Taoiseach. I do not know why it should be the final straw, because there were equally big robberies in other years. All that happened in the Northern Bank heist is that the robbers got away with £26.5 million, which is more money than they expected. If they had taken only £1 million or £2 million or £3 million, it would have been the same as the raids at Gallahers, Makro and elsewhere, and it would have passed without comment. However, because they got an extra cash bonanza, it became a big event. There is no morality there. That was no worse a crime than all the others before. A debt was alleged to be the trigger. The real crime is the suffering imposed on the two families—the McMullan family, who are my constituents and friends and who were brutalised by the IRA in that process, and the Ward family of west Belfast.

If the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will stand firm this time, then maybe next year we can get to the stage where we do not have to renew this order.

2.52 pm

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I have to say that I find myself standing here subjugating my feelings to my values yet again. My values tell me to support the order, but my feelings tell me to withdraw my co-operation from the Government in respect of Northern Ireland matters.

We seem to be running Northern Ireland by order, and we all know why. We decide matters of great importance, and we are asked to do so on trust from the Government’s information and without the Government expecting, or feeling a need, to share information with us. How can the Government expect us to carry on in these circumstances, accepting their good faith, if they do not respond in like measure when important announcements have to be made? Today’s events offer a classic example: sadly, the Prime Minister made a unilateral apology without having consulted Opposition parties.

I recognise that Committee members have not gathered to discuss the apology to the Conlans and the Maguire family for their wrongful arrest and prosecution. For the record, I agree with that apology, so I have not even got an issue with what the Government have done.

 
Column Number: 9
 

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has directed himself correctly; we are not discussing that.

Lembit Öpik: The next thing I was going to say, Mr. Hurst, is that that relates to this process because of the frustration that we felt then and, to an extent, feel now about being taken for granted when it is easy for the Government to get things through and being consulted only when they think there is a problem.

Returning to what we are discussing today, I serve notice to the Minister that he cannot assume the continued co-operation of Opposition parties if he seeks to consult us only when the Government are required by parliamentary etiquette to do so.

This is an important order in the context of the peace process. I say to the Minister in explicit terms and for the record—I have made these comments privately—that Ministers must give a great deal more consideration to the degree to which they respect the need for information among Opposition spokespeople, some of whom have worked for a long while, which in my case means almost eight years, to support the Government in their important work on the peace process. For that reason, I feel disinclined to co-operate with the Government. However, it is the responsibility of a professional politician who is values focused to consider the issue; in that context, I find myself required to support the order.

In the euphoria that followed the Good Friday agreement, there was an expectation that decommissioning could occur by 2002, which was the latest date set in the 1997 Act. We know that it took almost that long to achieve the beginning of decommissioning, and we can assume that it will take a deal longer to achieve total decommissioning. That is, in simple terms, why I recognise that the amnesty must be extended.

It has also been recognised that decommissioning is a process. I do not think that anyone ever really expected the IRA to decommission all its weapons at once. There were too many elements of negotiation and brinkmanship in the process for that to be a plausible expectation. So, while decommissioning has taken place in limited measure, we are still nowhere near seeing the total decommissioning process come to a halt.

As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, we are disappointed that the IRA has, for example, now withdrawn its offer of progress on decommissioning. I am more of an optimist about that than many, because I remember that the IRA has made and withdrawn similar offers in the past. I regard that as part of the negotiation process that has become all too familiar in Northern Ireland.

I would counsel the IRA, which I am sure has assiduously collected a file of all the orders and our debates in Parliament, to consider whether withdrawing its offer was the wisest thing to do. If it wants to demonstrate that it is genuinely committed to peace and democracy, avoid accusations in the future and show that it can be trusted, withdrawing offers of progress is not always the best way to achieve that.

 
Column Number: 10
 

Unlike others, I have tended to regard statements made by the IRA in the peace process as fairly reliable. We could have a debate on that, but this would probably not be the appropriate venue. I am more concerned about the attitudes that underlie the apparent withdrawal of co-operation on the core issue of decommissioning. That is obviously a matter for the IRA, which will make political, as well as military, judgments.

As an avid supporter of the Good Friday agreement who believes, with the Government, that that has been our best chance for a lasting peace since the beginning of the troubles, I hope that the IRA considers its strategic and its tactical position in making such statements. When dealing with the IRA and all paramilitary groups that claim to be on ceasefire, the Government need to look for a clear and unequivocal statement that such groups are committed to that. As I said during debates on previous orders and shall say again, it seems to the Liberal Democrats that paragraph 13 of the joint declaration is the best way to demonstrate that very thing. The paragraph could not be clearer: it is unequivocal and was agreed on by the relevant organisations and parties.

The paragraph means an end to paramilitary assaults, exiles and so forth. Let us make no bones about it: the punishment beatings, which should be called paramilitary beatings, are a form of underlying violence that would simply not be tolerated on the mainland of the United Kingdom. In our judgment, they have been discounted as a violation of the ceasefires. Again, I press the Minister to reconsider the extent to which such things are allowed to continue, at least at a passive level, as if to say that such matters are not as important as the mainstream troubles that have gone before.

Has the Minister seen or heard of any contact between the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and any loyalist paramilitary group, particularly the UDA and the Ulster Freedom Fighters? The Government despecified them last year. In a statement, the Secretary of State said that his decision to despecify was based on a number of reasons, one of which was confirmation that they will re-engage with the Decommissioning Commission.

To that extent, I assume that there have been signs of progress; I hope the Minister can assure us that there have been. If not, why have he and the Government not come forward and told us, and what do they plan to do to ensure that that aspiration is achieved? What are the Government doing to encourage other loyalist groups to engage with the IICD?

The Liberal Democrats do not believe that there should be any place in a democratic society for illegally held weapons and have always called for full decommissioning by loyalist and republican paramilitary groups.

We have been supportive of the progress that has been made to date. To return to my earlier point, I believe that in this context—leaving aside the appalling process associated with it—the apology made by the Prime Minister is an important element in
 
Column Number: 11
 
the peace process and could be significant in prompting paramilitary organisations to consider whether they have been sufficiently proactive in carrying out their half of the decommissioning deal.

We had always hoped that by now we would be further down the line towards total decommissioning, but we have started on the process and it would be wrong to give the IRA in particular any reason not to decommission its weapons. Notwithstanding the serious and direct criticisms that I have made of the process of events today, we are pleased that the Government have been proactive about the apology. We accept the need for the order, but hope that the Minister will respond to the serious points that I have made with more than just weak words.

3.1 pm

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): I, too, am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr. Hurst; it is the only thing that makes it bearable that, in contrast to previous years, when we dealt with such orders in the Chamber, we are now pushed upstairs, as it were. I hope that that is not an indication of the Government’s view of the importance of decommissioning.

I have a high regard for the Minister, but I fear that he did not fully colour in the background to the issue in his opening remarks. The reality is that when the Belfast agreement was drawn up, the expectation was clearly expressed that decommissioning would be completed in two years, and the legislation accommodated that. In arguing for the legislation the Government said that it was necessary so that the Belfast agreement could be implemented, and that it provided a timetable within which the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries would have to act. To some extent they were asked to decommission within a given period.

The Belfast agreement required nothing of the IRA—nor, indeed, of loyalist paramilitaries—in relation to decommissioning. It required of the signatories only that they make their best endeavours to bring it about. Therefore, it was not a condition of the agreement. Regrettably, no decommissioning happened in that period.

Against advice, the period was extended, without the least indication that the paramilitary organisations would be given a limited period in which to act. They were given a clear indication that if the extension period ran out, a further one would be given, so there was no incentive for them to divvy up within a short period.

Once again the Minister has come to the House to add another period to the seven years that have already passed, without suggesting that the time is running out. We can be certain that if the Government do not use a stick the paramilitary organisations, which have consistently stretched anything the Government have provided for them, will use every available minute.

 
Column Number: 12
 

We once again face the ritual, similar to that under the prevention of terrorism Acts and the emergency provisions Acts, of coming along every year to extend the relevant time, with the ritual becoming even more important than the issue to which it relates. We will come back year after year with the Government telling us that we must give paramilitary organisations the opportunity to do the decent thing, with every one of us knowing in our hearts that they have not the slightest intention of doing so. We intend, no doubt, to fool the electorate out there that because this provision exists, something might happen down the road.

Let us look at the record of the paramilitary organisations in this respect. Decommissioning was clearly tied up with a requirement for entry into government and, regrettably, the Ulster Unionist party permitted the IRA’s political representatives to have a place in government without any decommissioning whatsoever taking place. When the IRA’s behaviour became an issue and government was suspended, those people came back once again, without any decommissioning having taken place. On the third occasion that they returned, still no decommissioning had taken place, but the leader of the Ulster Unionist party satisfied himself with the fact that two gentleman—Cyril Ramaphosa and Mr. Ahtisaari—were being permitted to peep into one or two of the IRA’s dumps that had been designated for that purpose, and they would be allowed to return, from time to time, just to make sure that the weapons in those specified dumps were still there. However, still nothing was decommissioned.

We then had what we were told were three acts of putting weapons beyond use. However, I found out in our recent discussions with the Government, leading up to December’s comprehensive agreement, that every one of our attempts to have a clear inventory of what had been put beyond use thus far was resisted, with clear indications being given that an inventory might be embarrassing because of the sparsity of the weapons that had been put beyond use. Some security sources have indicated that we are talking about no more than 2 or 3 per cent. of the weaponry being put beyond use so far.

As far as the IRA is concerned we have had a minimal response, and the reality is that since the legislation was framed the IRA has brought in more weaponry than it has decommissioned. It says something about the success of the Government’s policy that, although the legislation has been in place for many years, the IRA has more weapons at its disposal now than at any time in its history.

As far as loyalist paramilitaries are concerned, there was a token decommissioning from the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which was done to a drum roll to indicate that it was a major event, but mightily few weapons were being decommissioned and there has been nothing else since, and nothing from any other loyalist paramilitary organisation.

For all the legislation and all the years, the Minister has very little to show for this Government policy. When we looked at decommissioning in the run-up to the comprehensive agreement, my colleagues and I
 
Column Number: 13
 
were determined that we would not follow in the footsteps of those who went before—although I accept that a majority in the House and the majority of the people in Northern Ireland supported them—who argued that is better to go into government with the IRA’s representatives and try to wean them off terrorism, rather than to say, “Here are the entry rules. When you meet them you can come into government.”

During those negotiations we insisted on the alternative: before those people were entitled to be in government, they had to show that all their weapons had been decommissioned in a verifiable and transparent manner and within a clear timetable. Completion was the key. There had to be complete decommissioning, with no tokenism, no holding back or reserving any weapons unto themselves for whatever purpose. In addition, there had to be a complete end to all their terrorist paramilitary activity and all their criminal activity.

We regarded those as the standards that we would expect of any party that is to form part of a Government. Although it took them a long time to come round, the Government, by the comprehensive agreement that was published, clearly nailed their colours to that mast, as did the Government of the Irish Republic. The approach has also been endorsed by the Government of the United States, for what that is worth.

The IRA and their political representatives know what must be done if they are to form part of any future Government in Northern Ireland. The people in Northern Ireland are prepared to leave it there. We are not in the business of chasing after the IRA or, worse still, saying, “We will stand still until you catch up with us. The speed at which Northern Ireland gets democracy will be dictated by the length of time that it takes you to reform yourselves.” That effectively is what is being said.

The situation was clear when the republican movement refused to sign up to the comprehensive agreement: it did not want certainty on an issue such as decommissioning. It would have been no use to the people of Northern Ireland to have decommissioning carried out in the same manner as the three minor acts of putting weapons beyond use. Nobody knew which weapons had been decommissioned, how or where that had been done, or what proportion of the overall stockpile they were.

There had to be an openness and a visual aspect to what was to take place. It was on the question of that visibility that the IRA is purported to have turned down the comprehensive agreement. I say “purported”, because I rather suspect that it had more trouble with other elements of that agreement—those that would have closed down its criminal empire.

That was the position in December. The IRA has now put out two statements. The first indicated that the offer that it put out immediately after the comprehensive agreement, which fell short of its statement in that agreement in some respects, has now been taken off the table. That indicates to everyone that it has gone back into its paramilitary shell, that it is hardening its position and that it is unlikely not only
 
Column Number: 14
 
to hold its previous position but to move the necessary further step to meet the requirements of the community in Northern Ireland and of the Government.

I say to the Government that in those circumstances they should be moving on. They should not be concerning themselves about extensions or the possible impact on the IRA. If the Minister really wants decommissioning, I guarantee that the best way to get it is to go on without the paramilitaries. Nothing would bring them to their senses quicker than knowing that the political process is not being held to ransom by them, but is going ahead without them, and that, as the train has left the station, they had better starting meeting the terms, paying for the ticket and catching up.

Although I share many of the misgivings that have been expressed by other members of this Committee, I do not reach the same conclusion as them, which is that we should provide another extension. The Minister could have come to this Committee and said, “We have given the paramilitaries many chances before. We will give them a last chance”. He might then just have been able to persuade some in this Committee that it was worth while providing that further extension. It is clear from the Minister’s remarks that when they work their way through this period, they will look to the next one.

I agree with the Minister on something. I have great respect for General de Chastelain, Andrew Sens, the staff of the commission and those who served on it before. It must be the most frustrating, if not worrying, job that the Government invite people to carry out on behalf of the community.

---

Prepared 10 February 2005