| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I asked the question on early warning systems. I understand that there has
been some monitoring of the volcano in Goma. I am unable to say more about early warning systems but I shall write to my noble friend.I regret that I did not answer the question on EU aid. The sum of 5 million euros—that may translate to £3.1 million; I have been unable to do the maths in the time—has been made available by the EU. In addition, individual member states can contribute. The Government of Belgium have pledged 1.25 million euros; the Government of France, 300,000 euros; the Government of Germany, 1.3 million euros; and Sweden 467,000 US dollars.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. One of my nieces is the head of the operations for relief and development in the Congo for the Irish charity, Concern, and may be in Goma today.
Pursuant to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when the Minister provides further information about the seismological resourcing and forecasting can the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government believe that those resources are adequately funded? Can she also clarify whether the volcanic monitoring equipment was looted before or after the eruption?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in answer to another question, I understand that the equipment was looted after the eruption but that has not been confirmed. It is an unconfirmed press report.
On the seismological issue, perhaps I may place in the Library of the House a letter answering questions raised by noble Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the aid provided directly from the United Kingdom, which we all applaud, is separate from, and additional to, this country's share of the European Union aid which has also been provided?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that. We have pledged £2 million. That is in addition to the money which has been pledged by the European Union.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the urgent, immediate and necessary support which is very much welcomed and also referred to recovery. Are we likely to make some contribution towards recovery, and on what basis? I have read reports that the volcano is continuously active and potentially exceedingly damaging. One has to ask the difficult question: is recovery or rebuilding a large town in an area so exposed to that risk the best way to recovery?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, when we have discussed humanitarian crises in the past, noble Lords have always been concerned about the recovery element. It is very early for us to know what any reconstruction effort may look like. The situation is complicated by the fact that we do not at present have a development assistance programme with the DRC because of the conflict which currently exists within the DRC, with different parts of the country being controlled by
different groups. It is, therefore, too soon to say what might happen in Goma and what contribution, if any, the British Government might make.I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the issue. As soon as we have any further information, I shall share it with your Lordships.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Minister has answered in part my question. However, I should still like to ask it. It is fairly well known, alas, that this is an extremely divided country. How far does the writ of Kinshasa run in Goma? Will it be difficult for the Government to provide support without the risk that it will go straight into the pockets of Ministers in Kinshasa? I hope very much that all aid that we are giving is through international organisations. How will it be possible to discuss with the government at the head of the country the real problems which exist? I should like to know more about how we are dealing with that.
4 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We are channelling our humanitarian effort through NGOs. Of the £1 million that has so far been allocated from the £2 million total, some has gone to the Red Cross, some to Merlin and some to other organisations. The area of the DRC in question is controlled by RCD Goma and not by the Government of the DRC. That makes any discussion of long-term reconstruction difficult.
The Government are making efforts to look at peace and security in the area. We very much want implementation of the Lusaka agreement, which has a number of complementary elements within it, including the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the active involvement of the different groups within the inter-Congolese dialogue process. The next stage of that dialogue process will take place probably at the end of February in South Africa. In addition to that, we use every opportunity to engage in discussions not only with President Kabila and with leaders of the rebel movements, but also with the presidents of Uganda and Rwanda, for instance. Burundi has some interest because of the activities of the Interahamwe. Your Lordships will know that the conflict has also touched Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia.
The situation is extremely complicated. We think that the implementation of the Lusaka agreement is the best way forward and we shall do all we can to promote that.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, on the question asked by my noble friend Lady Park, is it not important that the Government, when rightly dealing with locally established NGOs in Goma, should also establish good relationships with whoever is in charge in Goma? Is it not the case that two or three years ago, when the latest civil war swept through Bukavu, further south at the southern end of Lake Kivu, a great deal of property was lost by NGOs which failed to take into account the views of their representatives on the ground who had made deals with the general in
charge? Is it not important to deal with those who are effectively in charge and not allow ourselves to be deflected by amour propre in Kinshasa?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right. It is important in terms of co-ordination that we deal with the authorities that exist on the ground. RCD Goma plays that role in Goma at the moment. In addition to talking to its representatives locally about the current situation, we are engaged with them at a broader level on the wider process of inter-Congolese dialogue. We are well aware of the difficulties that exist and the importance of keeping a dialogue process going with all the different groups represented in the DRC. The dialogue process has been difficult at times. At the last phase the dialogue broke down, but we are confident that we shall make progress at the next stage.
It is important to point out that we see some of the tensions currently emerging through the dialogue process as positive signs, because at least the groups are talking. The difficulties are being discussed rather than the groups constantly going back to using violence and arms.
Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
4.4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
If passed, the Bill will extend the maximum length of the period during which legal immunity may be provided in a decommissioning scheme. It does so by amending Section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, under which the power to provide legal immunity would otherwise expire on 27th February this year.
Clause 1(2) initially extends the maximum period during which legal immunity may be provided to end at midnight on 26th February 2003. Under the 1997 Act, the Secretary of State has the power, by order, to extend the relevant period further. Such an extension may not run for more than 12 months after the order is made, or five years after the 1997 Act was passed.
Subsection 1(3)—your Lordships may regard this as important—does not affect the former condition. Each order would still therefore be subject to a maximum duration of 12 months. However, 27th February 2007 is substituted for the original five-year period. The effect of that is to extend the order-making power for a further five years beyond the expiry of the current period.
Clause 1(4) provides for retrospective effect, if necessary. That means that anything done in accordance with a decommissioning scheme, even if this Bill is not enacted by 26th February, would, after enactment, fall within the legal immunity provided. In short, the Bill extends the existing arrangements for
one further year, with the possibility of further extensions, subject, of course, to parliamentary approval.An integral part of the peace process has been to try to convince those who were previously committed to violence, including those brought up in the traditions of physical force republicanism, that there is another, better, way. Almost five years ago, when she introduced the original Bill, Lady Denton, whom we all remember with a good deal of personal respect as well as affection, said that the process of decommissioning would not take place overnight. Of course, she was right.
More recently, the political landscape has changed significantly in Northern Ireland. We now have the democratic institutions; the North-South bodies; stronger British-Irish relations; the principle of consent enshrined in the agreement; the removal of the Republic's historic territorial claim to Northern Ireland, formerly in Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution; the incorporation of human rights in all aspects of life by the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the establishment of the commission in Northern Ireland; the advancement of equal opportunities; and a new start in policing and criminal justice, on which we are about to embark.
In the past six months, we have seen formal cross-community support for policing; successful recruitment to the new police service from both traditions; further progress towards the normalisation of security arrangements; the publication of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and draft implementation plan; and the act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. As we have all agreed on numerous previous occasions, there is a long way to go, but substantial progress has been made.
We have been reminded again in the past fortnight that the conflict is plainly not yet over. We see this amendment to the law as a continuing opportunity to further that progress. We need the legislation to go beyond February, when legislative cover expires. It is not realistic to expect all arms from all organisations to be handed in by the end of next month. We must not allow the potential that we now have to make further progress to be thrown away because we have arrived at a deadline that, in the nature of things, was arbitrary.
We need to be realistic. We have seen the act of decommissioning. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in paying tribute to General de Chastelain and his colleagues in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. We are entitled to look to them as persons of integrity, diligence, skill and perseverance.
We look to the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. The pursuit of that objective must continue. We are providing a legal framework. That will remove an obstacle—not every obstacle—to decommissioning. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
4.9 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for describing the Bill so clearly. Before continuing, however, I should like to express our alarm that Jane Kennedy was very nearly seriously hurt last week. Our thoughts are with her good fortune.
Let us consider for a moment where I think we are in the Northern Ireland peace process as a whole. Clearly, as the noble and learned Lord has said, compared with a few years ago, there is a great deal in Northern Ireland about which we can be positive and from which we can take heart. After the protracted crisis of last summer and early autumn—precipitated by Mr Trimble's totally understandable decision to resign—there has been significant progress in the implementation of the Belfast agreement.
Furthermore, the executive and the Assembly, although not perfect in every respect, are by common consent bedding down well and delivering sound local administration for the people of Northern Ireland. What we have now is certainly an improvement on direct rule and is far more accountable to local needs.
Moreover, the police service is making the transition, however painful, from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Although there remain some serious difficulties over morale and operational effectiveness—as I made my views on this subject heard in your Lordships' House last week, I shall leave it there—the new policing board has made a positive start, albeit without Sinn Fein, especially in its unanimous approval of a new cap badge which includes, I am pleased to say, the Crown. Other aspects of the agreement are also being taken forward.
I have no doubt that life is immeasurably better for a great many people in Northern Ireland as a result of the agreement. Yet for all that has been achieved in recent years, two scars in particular continue to blot the Northern Ireland landscape. The first is the level of paramilitary violence and gangsterism, most notably in North Belfast, which last week saw the obscene murder of a young Roman Catholic postman. The second is the failure of the main paramilitary organisations to make more—in most cases, any—progress on decommissioning their illegally held arms and explosives.
The blunt truth is that while literally every other aspect of the agreement has been—or is well on the way to being—implemented, decommissioning lags way behind the rest. That in itself is one of the principal reasons for the dangerous loss of confidence in the agreement across the wider Unionist community. There have been years of concessions by Unionists, some very painful, but there is still no sign of the end to the armed struggle.
Of course we welcome the first act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA last October. We also accept the judgment of General de Chastelain that it was, in the words of his report, "significant", and that, again as his report says,
- "The material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives".
I do not underestimate the importance of that act either for the process as a whole or for the republican movement in particular. Anyone who knows the first thing about republicans will understand that it represented a huge psychological hurdle for them. We all hope that it marks the beginning of a clear transition to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
We should not blind ourselves to the reality of what brought about that act at this particular juncture. There was the undoubted pressure caused by Mr Trimble's resignation. There was also the revelation about suspected IRA links with Cuba and FARC terrorists in Colombia. There was also, of course, the renewed pressure placed on republicans by the United States administration following not only those events but the tragic events of 11th September.
The crucial point now, however, is that whatever brought it about, it must continue. As the US envoy, Richard Haas, put it in an admirable speech in New York, on 9th January,
- "decommissioning must be a process, not a single event".
On the day when Sinn Fein Members take up residence in this Palace, with their special status granted by the Government, they should be reminded again of their obligations, and they should get on and fulfil them. That means a process that leads to what is clearly stated in the Belfast agreement as
- "the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
In other words, there must be a cut-off point at which General de Chastelain—whose independence and integrity in these matters we fully respect—can say that to his satisfaction decommissioning has been completed.
I also stress that all paramilitary organisations must disarm, as our focus—not least because Sinn Fein Ministers are in the Executive—is often concentrated on the IRA. We should never forget that so-called loyalists also have an obligation to get rid of their illegal weapons. The threat from loyalist organisations, especially the UDA and its sub-contractors the UFF, remains very high. In the past three years, three quarters of all paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland have been committed by loyalists. Like their republican counterparts, they continue to engage in the most savage beatings, mutilations and shootings. They are involved in all kinds of Mafia-style gangsterism. In this context, it is right to remind loyalist political leaders that they too have a particular responsibility to use their influence to defuse some of the tensions that currently exist and to help bring about loyalist decommissioning.
Decommissioning should of course have been completed, under the terms of the agreement, within two years of the referendum, by 23rd May 2000. Had that happened, this Bill would not have been necessary. We are where we are because of the Government's total ineptitude in dealing with Sinn Fein/IRA over this matter so far; their continuing policy of appeasement; and, more recently, their double standards in relation to world terrorism. If a terrorist shoots a British or an American soldier in
Afghanistan, he is likely to forfeit his life, but those who have done the same in Northern Ireland receive an amnesty or have been released from gaol. In return for what? It has certainly not been in return for decommissioning.Furthermore, as I said, the Prime Minister's double standards for Westminster are being demonstrated today. He has played the world stage in good company, but his Government have totally failed to take on the challenges of terrorism at home. The regrettable truth is that the May 2000 deadline came and went without the decommissioning of a single bullet or ounce of Semtex; as I pointed out, decommissioning began only three months ago. The Government have therefore been forced to introduce this Bill to extend for a further five years the decommissioning regime, including the amnesty period, in the 1997 Act. It is here that we have a problem.
Surely the message that should be coming from the Government now is that decommissioning must take place as a matter of urgency. But that is not what the Bill as drafted does. It allows the paramilitaries the luxury of another five years in which to consider decommissioning their illegal weapons. In the opinion of the Opposition and, I know, of very many people in Northern Ireland, that is just too long. Surely in these circumstances it would have been more sensible, and would have at least conveyed a sense of urgency and importance on the part of the Government, to extend the legislation for a period that falls within the life of this Government.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, when the IRA announced a "cessation of military operations"—that was the phrase it used—I chanced to be in Downing Street, and I publicly welcomed the statement. I expressed the hope that those who had influence with terrorists of all shades would use that influence to persuade all of them to take the subsequent steps to the creation of an unconditional and permanent peace.
Before that decision was announced, Mr John Major and Mr Albert Reynolds were already engaged in negotiations. They subsequently intensified those discussions, to which I was not exactly an outsider, and they set out very clearly the path for any and all terrorists to follow.
The IRA leadership sought and obtained clarification from Her Majesty's Government on the proposals set out in the Major-Reynolds statement. That clarification phase was handled with great skill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In due course, they had talks with the IRA and the civil servants, later with Northern Ireland Ministers and eventually with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.
The key to understanding the process appeared in a report of Senator Mitchell's commission in these words:
- "Everyone with whom we spoke"—
- "agreed in principle, with the need for decommissioning".
- "The main principle of total disarmament [was agreed by] . . . all paramilitary organisations".
The language used in all such documents insisted upon a "progression" of decommissioning, in line with the Belfast agreement. It must be said that most of us believed that that foundation would be preserved. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, and as was reflected by the Leader of the House, it was not a question of a one-off stunt; it was to be a progression step by step, and step by step as between various paramilitary bodies.
When it became clear that that was a false assumption on our part, it was naturally expected that the sensible reaction of both governments would be a stoppage of the conveyor belt of concessions. In such circumstances a step-by-step process was, and would be, expected and understood. Now, two years on, the conveyor belt continues to deliver to one side only. The other side—the greater number of decent citizens, Protestant and Roman Catholic—now know that they have been conned. Their representatives have been hung out to dry, helplessly awaiting their inevitable fate when the assembly elections occur next year. That is something which should give us all food for thought.
Support for the representatives of the greater number of people of all shades plunges with every government concession to terrorists and fellow travellers of all shades. Apart from one derisory gesture, real decommissioning is no nearer than on the day the Belfast agreement was signed. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland fears that Ulster will become a cold house for those who longed for peace and harmony within a law-abiding community?
It is true that the Secretary of State has not publicly supported the recently declared aim of the Irish Foreign Minister of,
- "removing all traces of Britishness from Northern Ireland"—
Lest my earlier references to the Irish Government should appear somewhat harsh, perhaps in fairness I may quote a statement made by Mr Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, at the weekend. He had been asked to comment on the possibility of co-operation with Sinn Fein candidates should they be elected later this year. He said,
- "Sinn Fein has to resolve its relationship with the IRA before becoming part of a sovereign Irish government, exercising collective responsibility for justice and defence".
- "Even if the IRA were disbanded, all weapons put beyond use and there was a complete end to vigilantism and punishment attacks, North and South, and full support given to the police service of Northern Ireland, there would be insufficient time to establish confidence for government participation to be realistic".
It is passing strange that the Irish Government should be so forthright when Her Majesty's Government have already installed Sinn Fein in Cabinet in another part of the United Kingdom and have today installed Sinn Fein in the Palace of Westminster itself.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the report of the International Committee on Arms Decommissioning of 1996 said unequivocally that the decommissioning process should result in the complete destruction of the armaments, whether by handing them in for destruction or by destruction sur place in the presence of the commission. It was to have legal and technical advice available to receive and audit armaments and to observe and verify the decommissioning process, and to be able to call on the resources and relevant technical expertise of the British and Irish armies.
In its report of July 1999 the commission published an annex setting out its mandate which stated that in both the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997 (UK) and the Decommissioning Act 1997 (Ireland) it was specified that,
- "Methods and manners (schemes) to be used for decommissioning require the destruction of the arms being decommissioned",
- "at the request of the two governments the Canadian Armed Forces and the US Army have made available to the Commission on an as-required basis two officers who are experts on arms, ammunition and explosive ordnance disposal. These two officers have taken part in refresher training with the Defence Forces in both jurisdictions and they are called upon to join the Commission when needed".
The commission had already set up operations centres in Belfast and Dublin, consulted experts in forensic and destruction techniques, the disposal of residues etc., and explored the acquisition of commercial sources for vehicles and equipment. Its
scheme was in place by June 1998. It actually hoped, at that stage, to carry out decommissioning by 22nd May 2000 (already an extension from February 1999 when the amnesty period had ended). Its report, both then and in the next two years, reflected however a process of effortless political manipulation of the commission by the IRA.The February 2000 report quoted the IRA as "engaging frankly and helpfully", and described as "valuable progress" and "particularly significant" the assertion made to them by Mr McGuinness that,
- "the IRA will consider how to put arms and explosives beyond use in the context of the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict"—
The commission welcomed the IRA's commitment to sustain and enhance its contribution to a durable peace—and much more of the same, and it reports that,
- "The representatives indicated to us today the context in which the IRA will initiate a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use in a manner to ensure maximum public confidence".
In May 2000 three things happened. First, the British and Irish Governments asked the commission to consider with the paramilitary groups,
- "further proposals for decommissioning schemes beyond the two approved by them".
- "a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use",
Thirdly, the IRA agreed to a confidence-building measure to confirm that its arms remained secure. Independent inspectors were to scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the commission and that would be an ongoing process with regular inspections. There have been three such inspections, the last in May last year, when the inspectors said, as they had done in previous reports, that
- "the arms dumps held a substantial amount of military material including explosives and related equipment as well as weapons and other material. We confirm that the arms dumps have not been tampered with and that they have remained secure".
Moving to the IRA's next manipulation of the decommissioning process, we come to its offer of August 2001. This was around the time when, at an awkward moment for it, the PIRA connection with FARC in Colombia, and Sinn Fein/IRA's quasi-diplomatic link with Cuba (denied by Sinn Fein, but unfortunately confirmed by the Cuban Government) had both become public. The commission reported that the IRA had proposed a method—yet another one—for putting IRA arms completely and verifiably beyond use. The commission believed it would do so, and that it met the commission's remit in accordance with the Government's scheme and regulation. By the time this allegedly historic event, announced as such on 24th October last year by a euphoric Secretary of State, who believed it
- "took the peace process onto a new political level"
- "satisfied that it would not further the process of putting arms beyond use were we to provide further details of this event".
- "reflect more fully the Patten recommendations"
- "in response to yesterday's developments undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalisation—reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland as the security situation improves".
Although I have the greatest respect for the commission and I recognise that the Government have had little choice but to continue with this long and deplorable process, the IRA has taken the two governments for a ride over decommissioning since the beginning. It has used each report of the commission
to press further its own agenda of forcing ever more concessions on troop levels, policing and security—the IRA context. It has moved the whole process from the destruction of arms to putting them beyond use, but most of all it has gained both time and massive further concessions (and by its failure to act has, incidentally, given the loyalists an excuse not to act either).In the hope of getting some movement the governments have steadily weakened and diluted the whole process to a so-called "inspection of arms" which, unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, was conducted with none of the safeguards of military expertise which the Act specially provided. The process is hailed as confidence building, yet no one outside the commission is allowed to know how many arms or what explosives have been not destroyed but put beyond use.
The Government never stop talking about transparency. What could be more opaque than an event known only to the IRA and the commission, despite the fact that it is a matter of deep and proper public concern, and has been hailed as confidence building? Why does the commission think that it would not further the process of putting arms beyond use
- "to provide details of this event"?
The IRA has managed throughout the whole decommissioning saga to manipulate it to its own advantage and it seems clear that nothing will stop the Government from giving it more concessions whenever it asks for them in return for meaningless inspections or processes conducted in the dark. Both governments ought at least to admit to the people of Northern Ireland that the whole process of decommissioning has proved to be largely a series of victories for the IRA. It matters, not just because of the arms—we all know the IRA can go out and buy more when it needs them (and has done so in the last four years)—but because the people who believed things were really going to change see that, just as before, the IRA calls the tune.
It will be pointless to resist the Government's intention to extend the amnesty, if necessary up to 2007, and clear that the IRA will continue to use the process to secure even more of its objectives. Time is on its side and it is now playing the political card—including the ballot—with the guns behind its back. Can the noble and learned Lord at least assure us that there will be no more concessions on security, the police, the military presence or anything else on the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda and that now we have, for the first time, a US Government who perceive the threat
we should require Sinn Fein/IRA to end the violence against its own community, a point which I am glad to say the Secretary of State recognised in his statement in October, but I want to see some action? Of course the loyalists are just as bad, but that does not alter the Government's duty to refuse to promote the IRA's agenda. Incidentally, an invitation to Downing Street today to celebrate Sinn Fein/IRA's victory in winning the undeserved right to enter this House does not send a message of principle but rather of appeasement.4.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, of course we all wish that decommissioning had been completed by now. That was the fervent hope of everyone in this House and, indeed, of people in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the speeches today, with the exception of that of my noble friend on the Front Bench, have been extremely negative and have not given a balanced picture of what has happened in Northern Ireland.
We all know that progress in Northern Ireland is slow and has tended to be two steps forward and one and a half steps back. But we have made progress. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, portrayed such a negative impression of events, as did the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux. I do not think that it is fair or proper to say that the Government have appeased Sinn Fein or the IRA. The peace process demanded give and take on all sides. Of course, some concessions were made to one side, but some were also made to the other side. In the end I believe that we achieved a balanced package.
I accept that decommissioning has been far too slow and should have finished by now. However, we are where we are and it is not right to say that the Government's approach has been flawed or that the Government have helped only one side.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said that the Government installed Sinn Fein in government. That would suggest that there had been no elections in Northern Ireland and no agreed process whereby parties were given positions in the Executive based on the number of seats they had obtained in the Assembly. This debate has not had the balance that I would have wished.
There are, of course, strong negatives in Northern Ireland: the situation in north Belfast is—and has been— horrendous. There are unacceptable levels of paramilitary violence. People are being forced out of their homes, and there was the tragic murder of the postman. Those are all serious blots on Northern Ireland. However, there is a more positive side. Overall, the level of violence is lower. The number of murders, particularly of the security forces and of civilians through the troubles, is down. There is a ceasefire.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page