---

Lord Smith of Clifton: Everyone wants decommissioning, of course. The question is what priority one should put on it, as we move towards a more normal situation in Northern Ireland. Decommissioning became too much of an aspiration in the endless negotiations both prior to the conclusion of the Belfast agreement and subsequently. If memory serves me right, it was the noble Lord, Lord Eames, who made that comment some months ago in your Lordships' House.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about who is likely to be able to bring the most persuasive pressure on the IRA and others, but we probably disagree about where it might come from, or the way in which it will come. Little further will be achieved by continuing to grandstand the republicans on the issue. Further decommissioning will come about in the near future only when and if the United States Administration deliver another ultimatum to Sinn Fein. That is the realpolitik of the situation.

We can stamp our feet and scream as much as we like, but it will have absolutely no effect on the IRA. We can all agree on that. Therefore, continuing to have decommissioning times that come and go is debilitating to the wider process. That is why, on these Benches, we think that we should go for a

4 Feb 2002 : Column 466

quinquennium, before the issue comes up again, in the great hope that the development of democracy in Northern Ireland overtakes the issue and that, if necessary, the United States Administration will use their good offices again to apply pressure for decommissioning.

At the moment—thank goodness—the republican guns are reasonably silent, as opposed to those of the loyalist paramilitaries whose current campaign of murder, bombing and mayhem is perhaps the biggest risk to security in Northern Ireland. For that reason, we do not support the amendment.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am one of the host—the vast majority—of Members of your Lordships' House who take little part in debates on the affairs of Northern Ireland. I speak now only because the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made me feel ashamed of not having done so before.

One of the reasons why I have not spoken is that I do not know what I would like the Government to do. The difficulty is—I place no blame for it—that once one feels obliged to sit down and talk to men of violence, who will not hesitate to use violence and who have no scruples or any thought of remorse afterwards, it is difficult to get up again and resume a policy of strength. However, at least the amendment offers to people such as myself an opportunity to express—briefly—a sense of the failure of this country even to make a pretence of standing up to such people and saying that we cannot go any further until the business of decommissioning—which was a commitment—is taken to its end and fulfilled. We have not done so.

The noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux of Killead and Lord Fitt, referred to the people of Northern Ireland. I would find it difficult to explain to the people of Northern Ireland, at one and the same time, that we were giving further time for the fulfilment of a solemn obligation and that, in addition, we would publicly afford a welcome to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, previously denied, to those who, although elected to Parliament, have not seen fit or felt able to take the traditional oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen and to the things for which this country stands. Had either of those two tenants of rooms in the Palace of Westminster ever expressed any grain of remorse or pity towards those whom they have hurt, one might, I suppose, feel differently. As it is, the amendment offers us at least a chance of saying that enough is enough, and, even if it is not passed into law, of indicating the sickness and shame over concessions which many of us feel we have been forced into making to men who have so far shown themselves to be wicked and totally unwilling to forsake the ways of violence.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Desai: I did not speak in the Second Reading debate but I have contributed to Northern Ireland debates and scrupulously attended many of them.

As acknowledged even by people supporting Amendment No. 1, passing it will not make a jot of difference to anything which happens. It will simply

4 Feb 2002 : Column 467

make the Government look ridiculous. I am not speaking on behalf of the Government; I never do. But let me try and explain what I feel happened in Northern Ireland.

The IRA were not defeated, nor did they give in. Her Majesty's troops were not defeated, nor did they give in. Therefore there was a truce. As my noble friend Lord Fitt said, it is not within the power of Her Majesty's Government to implement any pre-emptive notice to the IRA saying, "If you do not do this, we will do X". Whatever that "X" was, it would simply harm the process which has been taking place.

This is a tricky situation in which we have not found ourselves before. Long ago, perhaps in colonies far away, it happened, but I do not want to repeat those stories. Because of the peculiar location of Northern Ireland and the jurisdiction, this is a process in which we will have to be patient. It will happen. Indeed, if we think about it, decommissioning is much further forward than it was two years ago. I know events move slowly, but we have progressed.

Patience is required because this is a tricky situation. It is important to remember that the guns are silent—that is, the guns on the Irish side. Other movements are sprouting up all over the place, but at least the Provisional IRA guns are silent. We must exercise a lot of patience and see this process through. It is no good doing things which only make us look more impotent. Therefore I urge the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, having moved this amendment and having heard the discussion, to withdraw it. It will not be helpful.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I strongly support Amendment No. 1 for a number of reasons. The first is that we still have to demonstrate to the majority of people in Northern Ireland that we seriously wish to protect them against the gun. As already stated, the IRA have never given anything without getting enormous concessions in return. The time for concessions has to stop and the people must be reassured that the Government have at least enough belief in themselves not to appease. They may say, "Another year". We may have to do that. But they must not give the IRA another five years. To the ordinary people of Northern Ireland that would be a complete betrayal.

The Americans also will respect us more and do more if we are seen to stick to our guns—a rather unfortunate phrase—and not allow any more delay than is absolutely necessary. Anything else is appeasement. If the noble Lord will forgive me, it is not true to say that the gun is silent. It has stopped killing policemen and soldiers temporarily. It has not stopped killing their own communities and it has not stopped violence. The paramilitaries are reigning supreme.

Meanwhile, in the South, the Taoiseach, the Irish Government and the Irish parties are saying (whether or not they can stick to their guns over it) that if they ever have to form a government, they will never form it with Sinn Fein. If they can take that stand over the IRA, surely we, who are in Northern Ireland by rights

4 Feb 2002 : Column 468

because the majority chose to stay in the United Kingdom—let me remind the Committee of that—can say that enough is enough. It will not serve our relations with the people or create any trust in the people if we do not say enough is enough.

Unfortunately, the Government still have more concessions in their quiver. They can still give amnesty to the people on the run; they can withdraw more troops; they can destroy more observation towers; they can back down over all sorts of major issues in relation to the police; they can still destroy the Special Branch. All those are things the IRA still want. At the very least we ought to be getting something in return.

I accept that decommissioning is unreal because the IRA can simply go out and buy more arms. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the people of Northern Ireland believe that the Government are prepared to stand up for their rights and insist that the bargain is kept. We do not have the right simply to say, "It is in the interests of the peace process". What peace process? When we look at the streets of Northern Ireland, what peace process do we see? The Government have no choice but to extend as far as the law allows. I accept that if the decommissioning Act lapsed, that would create a new situation. I suppose there will have to be an extension. But it should not be for longer than is absolutely necessary.

I feel strongly that, in the name of a totally illusory peace process, we do not have the right to give away any more than has been given already, particularly since the people of Northern Ireland must now be wondering whether they are going to be sold down the river in the future through the successes of the IRA in electoral fraud.

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I too have not spoken on Northern Ireland, though it is my part of the world. This amendment says something that is extremely important and I want to challenge only one suggestion—that it is realpolitik not to vote for the amendment. It is not. It is comfortable and cosy, but it is not realpolitik. Realpolitik has to take into account the real forces that are ranged for and against the amendment.

We know that it is extraordinarily difficult for moderate unionists to continue to support the amendment. A signal from this Chamber and from this Parliament would be extremely important. I can only agree with other Members of the Committee who have said that simply to push decommissioning away into the mid-distance or Never Never Land is to give the wrong signal at this time. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

---