| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: When a number of years ago my noble friend Lord Molyneaux asked me to write a paper on decommissioning, I did so in the belief that the Government of the United Kingdom would at least understand the nature of what I had written. The example we had in years prior to that of NATO and the Warsaw pact countries holding each other at bay with a large range of weapons and then moving slowly but inexorably towards a disarmament
process that allowed a more normal relationship to exist was an important example and one that should be applied on the micro-scale to our situation in Northern Ireland.Many of us never believed that we could persuade the terrorist organisations that there was an option—terrorism or democracy—and that they should choose democracy unless we made it patently clear that we were prepared, whatever the sins of the past, whatever the atrocities of the past, to provide a vehicle whereby those who had been terrorists could move fully into the democratic structure. That has been a long and painful journey from 1994. It led to a situation which many of my tradition and many of the nationalist tradition in Northern Ireland failed to understand. We believed that before we achieved a foolproof example of terrorist organisations eschewing forever terrorism we could bring them, bit by bit, within the democratic process. That in itself was a contradiction, but many of us believed—sadly we have been proven wrong—that the Government could be depended upon to ensure that inexorable progress would be made.
Look at the situation today in terms of international terrorism and consider how the Government, along with our western allies, have adopted a most uncompromising approach to anyone or any organisation which indulges in terrorism, which has arms and explosives it is prepared to use against civilian populations, and then look at the way in which the Prime Minister has accommodated those who have not made any significant move towards disarmament.
We are told that one of the reasons we are so concerned with modern international terrorism is that there are stockpiles of poison gases and weapons, including nuclear weapons, that have to be dealt with before the bin Ladens can get their hands on them. On the microscale, it is no different for the civilian population in Northern Ireland. We have to see the detonators and explosives—the catalysts for the huge bombs that we have suffered from over the years—and the guns removed, whoever may succeed. Someone said that the guns are silent today, but who is to tell me that organisations which will use these weapons will not spring up in two years, five years or 10 years time? After 30 years, how can we build a democracy—a true, sharing democracy—on the uncertainty created by guns within our society?
There are many anomalies in what is happening to us within our own United Kingdom. I heard someone say that the IRA had not been defeated, nor had our forces been defeated. In fact, our forces are being asked to act as though they have been defeated. We see that in terms of what is happening to the police.
I do not want to infringe on the protocol of your Lordships' House by talking for too long on this subject. Suffice to say that within the leaderships accepted by the democratic process—particularly in terms of Sinn Fein— there are those who are within the leadership of the IRA. I do not put too fine a point on it if I say that Gerry Adams is, ex officio, a member of the IRA army council because he is the president of Sinn Fein. It is now accepted that Martin McGuinness
was a Chief of Staff of the IRA. He is now, for better or for worse, the Minister for Education. Mr Doherty—recently elected to another place—is also a member or an ex-member of the IRA army council.For the Government to pretend that these people need to be subsidised by half-a-million pounds per year—year in, year out—in order to keep alive a peace process from which their tradition as well as mine could benefit, is unacceptable. For that reason I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has brought forward the amendment. I hope that we will be able to put into the context of national and international politics what we are trying to achieve by the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for being the third member of the Committee to pre-empt his speech as he was about to make it. I had not intended to speak, but a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—reinforced by the subsequent reference made to it by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth—brings me to my feet.
Let me put my remarks in context. We all know the details and the terms of the Belfast agreement. There is an element of crying over spilt milk that the terms were as they were and that they were without sanctions, in particular in regard to the responsibility of parties to make "best endeavours" on decommissioning. None on these Benches was privy to the thinking of the Government when they negotiated the Belfast agreement on those particular terms—that will be a matter for historians.
Nor is it my part to defend the Government—I cannot tell whether or not I should give the Government the benefit of the doubt—but, as a bystander, I cannot help remarking that just as fatigue no doubt assaulted and assailed other parties to the agreement in the watches of the night on the morning of that Good Friday when the agreement was being finally determined, the Government and their advisers were not themselves immune to fatigue either, and the full implications of what they were doing may not have been clear to them in terms of what has subsequently developed.
None of us knows what endeavours—it is "best endeavours" that were meant to be made—the IRA or any of the other paramilitaries have made over recent years, although we know the fact of the decommissioning which occurred last autumn.
The phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which brought me to my feet—and to which my noble friend Lady Park referred—was "the guns are silent". It is in that context and in that atmosphere that we are debating these matters today. I have no emotional capital tied up in the report produced in the previous Parliament in another place by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs on the behaviour of the paramilitaries towards those they were sending into exile, but it is worth mentioning the histograms drawn up on page 58 of Volume 2, which is devoted to evidence. They show that after the cease-fires in 1994
and 1998, there is no marked difference in the amount of punishments which have been administered, but there is a very marked difference in the use of the gun. There have been a great many more shooting incidents since the cease-fire in 1998 than there were after the cease-fire in 1994.One is ineluctably drawn to the conclusion that the paramilitaries on either side are simply pushing their luck to see where are the limits in the use of the gun, but it would be quite wrong to say—although I understand the terms in which the noble Lord used the phrase—that the guns are silent. The guns are noisier than they were before the Belfast agreement and after the 1994 cease-fire in that regard.
I support the argument that we should maintain the pressure in this House. The nation as a whole attaches importance to the issue of "best endeavours"—they are not empty words—and the horizon for decommissioning should not be unduly extended.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Some harsh words have been used in the debate: "abdication of responsibility", "charade" and "integrity undermined". Then there was the rhetorical question from the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth: "What peace process?". The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, spoke of failure.
I do not believe that it has been a story of unmitigated failure. The Assembly is working—not perfectly, but with a growing spirit of co-operation, and that is a remarkable achievement in terms of the centuries of history of which we know. It is truly irresponsible not to recognise that.
It is not responsible to overlook the fact that the historic constitutional claim of the Irish Republic has been given up, following a referendum. These are not perfect solutions to difficult questions. However, I suggest that the history of the past five years has not been one of entire gloom.
It is just as well to bear in mind what is being proposed; namely, the original Bill and what would be the consequence of the amendment were it to be passed. The original Act, introduced when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, set out a scheme that was not intended to be a time-frame for decommissioning. It was never put forward on that basis. It was put forward, as I understand it, on the basis that this was the usual period for time-limited Acts. It is important to remind ourselves that the original Act—and it would remain the case were it to be amended—is subject to annual renewal by Parliament on the affirmative procedure. That is the basis of the existing Act, which expires at the end of this month, and it would be the basis of any continuation if your Lordships allow it.
Therefore, we are not saying that this is a time-frame for decommissioning of five years—nor, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, of three years. What we are disputing is whether or not there should be an extension of the Act. I repeat the important point that the Act is subject to annual extension on the basis of the affirmative procedure.
My noble friend Lord Fitt asked what would be the sanctions if the IRA made the declaration of which he spoke. The answer is that there is the parliamentary sanction, because Parliament does not have to approve on the affirmative procedure what it does not seek to do.
The real difference here is not whether we should ever have engaged in discussions with the IRA or with other armed groups. That is not the question. The short question to which the amendment draws our minds is: should there be an extension of the order-making power for three years (as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seeks) or should it be an extension of the ability of the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative process, for five years? That is the difference between us. I respectfully suggest that the prudent course, subject to the constraints of parliamentary power, which has to be supreme, every year, is to go for the extension on the basis on which the original Act was introduced.
I very much hope that in three years' time, let alone in five years' time, this provision will not be required. Those who know Northern Ireland better than I do may be gloomier in that context. However, I revert to what I said on an earlier occasion. If the human mind and the human heart can change, whether it be the loyalist criminals or the Irish Republican Army criminals, do we need the mechanism provided by the Bill—described by the noble and learned Lord as a possessory amnesty? I believe that we do. If the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the Committee, I ask Members of the Committee—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page