| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister's response to this Question proves that the Department of Health is now taking over responsibility for the allowances which was traditionally the role of the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Government guarantee that they will use the same upgrading system for these charges in the future as was used by the previous department?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that I would be wise to say that I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the establishment of the National Care Standards Commission will have an important effect on these issues? I refer in particular to the communication of information to older people when they enter residential care and also to their relatives.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, we have great confidence in the National Care Standards Commission. It will be an important vehicle in taking forward the national service framework for older people and the Government's commitment to improve the standard of care to older people in our society. We shall watch its work with interest and wish it Godspeed as it starts its work this year.
Business of the House: Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Privy Seal to advance the Committee stage of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill from Thursday 7th February to this day.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of amnesty period]:
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 1, line 7, leave out "2007" and insert "2005"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 is about the message that is being sent to the paramilitaries on decommissioning. In the other place an amendment was moved to bring the extension of the Bill forward for one year only. At Second Reading I made quite clear my views on the Government's handling of the decommissioning issue since they have been in power. They do not need repeating.
However, what is still open for discussion and debate—and should be—is the length of time that should be put in the Bill as an extension. It can be argued that one year under the present political system is perhaps not enough. Noble Lords on this side of the Committee are as anxious to keep the peace process going forward as I am sure the Government are. But there are messages to be sent. The message must be that the Government today are determined to see the decommissioning issue through; to tackle it; to do everything they can to make it happen; and to be clearly responsible for it.
My argument is that as the Bill is worded it carries the extension through to 2007 which is beyond the life of this Parliament and this Government. That shows a quite clear abdication of the problem by the present Government. I am sure that that is not their intention. But they should correct that situation. I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal will take that matter away and give it serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I have been happy to add my name to the amendment. I touched on the matter in general on another occasion and, as I am aware of the relation between this amendment and Amendment No. 2, I shall venture an opinion on a slightly different aspect. There must be greater priority and precision. We simply cannot let an issue as vital as this continue on and on without any clear determination or explanation at any time of for how long we shall put up with such a charade.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: When one uses an imperative, it normally implies that one has authority and if that imperative is flouted, sanction is available and there is the will to exert that sanction. I support my noble friend's amendment because for a long time now Ministers have been saying that decommissioning should take place and that it must take place. Of course, Her Majesty's Government have authority to say that but, unfortunately, in circumstances with which we are all too familiar, they have failed to secure any but a single tranche of decommissioning from the
IRA and one from one of the equally vile loyalist paramilitary organisations. On the other hand, no sanction has been exerted. On the contrary, it is hard to identify any objective of Sinn Fein that has not been yielded unto it.The Bill now takes account of the envisaged possibility that five years may elapse with decommissioning still at least incomplete at the end of it. We must ask: does that matter? In my view, harm has already been done. First, the authority and credibility of the commission has surely been harmed. I do not believe that I was alone in reading an implication—an inference—into the statement from General de Chastelaine after the decommissioning in October that more was expected, and soon. That has not happened.
Secondly, the authority of Her Majesty's Government has undoubtedly been diminished by reason of nothing more having been yielded up by way of decommissioning and nothing having been done by way of sanction. Thirdly, it is right for us at least to note that the morale of Unionists—moderate Unionists—in Northern Ireland has been deeply harmed by that turn of events. When their morale declines to a dangerous level—as it may well have done—the possible consequences are too dangerous to need enumerating.
If we passed my noble friend's amendment, that would at least show that this Parliament, while having the sponge all too readily at hand, was not prepared to chuck it in, as it will be seen to be doing if the Bill is left unamended. That would show that, even at this stage, this Parliament was prepared to envisage serving out its term with that imperative disobeyed.
3.15 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: I rise to support the amendment, but first I must declare an interest. Not only do I live in Northern Ireland, but I have recently become a member of the Northern Ireland policing board. However, my views on arms decommissioning have not changed as a result of that, and anything that I say is not with the authority of any other member of that board.
Decommissioning was originally set out to take place over two years. That was achieved by majority vote in the north and south of Ireland on the Belfast agreement. There are many occasions on which the Belfast agreement is thrown in our faces in Northern Ireland. People say, "This was agreed, therefore we do it." The Government have followed that line.
I wonder what gives the Government the authority to keep extending—frankly, it appears to us, in the hope that we forget about it—something that was approved by such a majority in both the north and south of Ireland. It is clearly the wish of everyone there to see arms taken out of the equation on all sides of the terrorist divide. It is sad that, if the Government do not accept the amendment, their integrity will be undermined.
People in Northern Ireland believe that the Government wish to see the end of this problem, but it does not do the Government a great deal of good to be
seen to be bringing forward legislation that puts it all further and further back. The sooner that the problem is solved the better for everybody—not only in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom as a whole.
Lord Fitt: As I entered your Lordships' Chamber this afternoon, I ran into a mass exodus of the vast majority of noble Lords from the House. That indicated to me that there is no great concern in your Lordships' House about the Bill, which is of such concern to the people of Northern Ireland. I was not here for the Second Reading debate, but I read an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, who seemed to chide the House with the fact that only Unionist Members had spoken during the debate.
That is perfectly understandable, because it was Unionist Members who were subjected to a mass campaign of murder and mayhem by the activities of the IRA during the past 30 years. Not only Unionists were victims. I myself was a victim of terrorism in Northern Ireland by both sides—both the IRA and the so-called loyalist terrorists who murdered my closest friends.
The Bill and its ramifications are of tremendous concern to the people of Northern Ireland. I intervene in this debate to try to bring some reality to the Government Front Bench. It has repeatedly been said that the decommissioning of illegal arms in Northern Ireland by both sections—the loyalists and the Republicans—was part of the Belfast agreement. Since then, concession after concession has been made in a most overt way to the Republicans, but also to the loyalist paramilitaries.
I should like to pose the Minister a question that I heard in Belfast all last week. Ordinary people in the streets—who know what the Bill is about and who know that further concessions have been made to the paramilitary organisations for another five years—have asked me, and I ask the Minister on the Front Bench, the following question. What would happen if a statement were issued next week by P. O'Neill, which is the IRA's pseudonym, which said: "We are not going to decommission any of our arms. We are telling you now in straightforward terms that we are not going to decommission any further arms"? What sanction do the Government have at their disposal against that statement? The answer is, "Absolutely none".
I read some of the speeches made at Second Reading. One speaker suggested that we should bring our influence to bear on other countries so that they might apply some pressure to the IRA and other organisations. That is not possible. There are many countries who support what the IRA and the loyalist organisations have been doing over the past 30 years. In effect, we are saying that other countries should apply pressure to the IRA on decommissioning. That is not a possibility; it will not help.
It may be that America will try to apply such pressure. It has itself been the victim of terrorism. It may be that American influence could be applied to
the IRA. However, I doubt that the vast majority of Irish-Americans, who have given active moral and financial support to the IRA over the years, will, all of a sudden, put sincere pressure on the IRA to bring about decommissioning.I do not believe—I say this with great regret—that the IRA will decommission any more guns. It is a heartbreak to have to say that, but the fact is that the Government are letting the IRA off the hook by saying that they will give them another five years. The IRA must be laughing up their sleeves at the Government and at every concession that has been made in recent years in all the agreements and discussions that have taken place—particularly those at Weston Park. I believe that it was at Weston Park that they arrived at the conclusion that there would be an extension for another five years.
I listened to Radio 4 this morning. I heard clips from New York where many elected representatives from Northern Ireland are instead of being at Stormont and in Northern Ireland where the problem is. They are all in America. I do not know what they hope to achieve from those discussions. They would be better staying in Northern Ireland and trying to reach an accommodation.
My main reason for speaking in the debate—I repeat that I say this with great regret—is that the Government have made concession after concession until they have no more sanctions that can force the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries to engage in further decommissioning of their arms. There is nothing with which the Government can threaten them. Those paramilitary organisations—loyalist and republican—can say to the Government, "You can talk as much as you like; we will hold onto our arms".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page