| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Will the Minister give way? Has any progress made since 1998 been the result of any initiative by the Government? Has it not in fact resulted from an initiative by David Trimble, who moved the democratic process to the very edge of survival in order to force Sinn Fein-IRA to make some move towards that process? How often is David Trimble going to have to carry the burden without the tangible support of this Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not believe that the question put is a true question. Mr Trimble has been extraordinarily courageous. He has looked for the support of the British Government and he has received it. It is no coincidence in my opinion—and I was talking to Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan only in the past few days, having had the privilege of meeting them in their office in the Assembly. David Trimble is a very courageous and considerable public servant. He is entitled to look for support from the British Government. However, I believe that this enabling legislation in part—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that is it not the total answer—offers the opportunity for progress. I do not believe that we should truly respect and honour the work of David Trimble were we not full-hearted in our support of what he, Mark Durkan and others have been able to do in the Assembly—and Seamus Mallon previously. This is an enabling measure which offers part of the answer to a problem that has beset us all for centuries.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank all my noble friends and other Members of the Committee who have contributed to this extremely thoughtful debate, as I hope the Committee will agree. In particular, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, to our discussions on Northern Ireland matters.
We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and to a lesser degree the noble Lord, Lord Smith, suggest that decommissioning should be part—it is not a necessary part—of the process. I hope that I am not going overboard in saying that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that a diktat from the United States, from the White House, could have a significant impact on the situation.
As I said in my opening remarks, the amendment and the debate that we have had are about messages. They are about sending to the paramilitaries another message from the Government that they will not put decommissioning on a long pole; that they are determined to make something happen one way or another.
The Minister remarked that the Assembly is working. I have complimented the Government previously on that point from this Dispatch Box. But I must also ask him: how long for? I have just returned from Northern Ireland, having spent what has been for me one of the more depressing weekends there. I spoke to people from several quarters, including members of the judiciary and the construction industry, and drivers. I have never felt the people of Northern Ireland, particularly of the Unionist persuasion, to be so deflated and demoralised—to say nothing of the figures for absenteeism in the Northern Ireland Police Service about which I heard.
The amendment is about sending a message to the paramilitaries and to a part of the United Kingdom whose people feel deserted, knocked about and not loved. It has an Assembly which is working, but which is coming up for re-election in the not-too-distant future. I hope that all Members of the Committee, and the Government, will agree with me that the best outcome of another election for the Assembly will be for the centre parties to remain in basic control of that Assembly. I hope that none of us wants polarisation outwards to the extremes of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
I firmly believe that this is an important amendment. Today may not be the day to press it. In the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said and other debates that we are going to have, for this afternoon I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 2:
- After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
The noble Lord said: This amendment is on the same lines as the previous one, although it may not appear so. It is again about the morale and understanding of the people of Northern Ireland. All the people of Northern Ireland deserve to know what Sinn Fein/IRA and other paramilitaries are doing with regard to decommissioning to take the violence out of Northern Irish politics. The amendment would require the commission that was established by the 1997 Act to lay a report before Parliament on the progress of decommissioning before the commencement of the Act. We do not want to delay the decommissioning process—indeed, we wish to speed it up. However, we want to see tangible progress and we would like to see independent verification of that progress.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve something. I believe that there has been significant decommissioning and so does David Trimble, but the people of Northern Ireland do not. There is no question of that.
My original thoughts when drafting the amendment went considerably wider—so wide that the Clerks would not allow me my way. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a list of the organisations and groups in contract today with the decommissioning commission in relation to decommissioning, together with details of the number of visits carried out by or on behalf of the commission in relation to decommissioning, a report into the extent to which the commission believes that the decommissioning scheme has been a success and other matters in relation to the decommissioning of firearms, ammunition and explosives. In short, the amendment is about attempting again to get an encouraging message across to the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning is real and is happening and that the whole process is a long way from being one-sided. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I indicated earlier that I might want to say a few words about this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said, we have been performing a real service in concentrating our attention on the imperative of making disarmament real and not a mere fiction. There must be some finality—we cannot go on drifting. Idle chatter about putting weapons beyond use, identifying unnamed bunkers, letters signed by the mythical P O'Neill and other meaningless phrases have devalued the word "decommissioning". When one seeks to cut through such verbiage, one is accused of demanding ceremonial surrender—which accusation is entirely without foundation.
My noble friend Lord Maginnis has triggered my memory and taken me back to a not unimportant discussion that he and I had in my room close on midnight a good many years ago. We were thinking about disarmament following conflict. He may remember my explanation of what happened to me 57 years ago. As the Second World War was drawing to an end, our small Royal Air Force unit was ordered to a place called Flensburg on the Danish frontier, about 120 miles behind the German lines. Your Lordships might ask what I was doing there. Our
When we got there, nearly 9,000 German officers and men insisted—there is a certain parallel here with what we are speaking about today—first on retaining their arms to defend themselves from the Russian armies, which were then moving westward, because the war had not finished. When we refused to fall for that one, they then wanted to assist us—if you please—in halting the westward march of the Russian divisions. As allies of a sort, we could not possibly fall for that one. The next demand was from the officers, who insisted on retaining their arms to preserve discipline over their own ranks. Another ploy was to negotiate honourable terms so that they would not lose face and appear defeated to their own supporters. Finally, they said that they would surrender only to British forces and not to the allied forces.
My commanding officer, who was a very impressive character, bluntly informed all present that we would only accept unconditional surrender on behalf of the supreme commander, General Eisenhower. Oddly enough, we achieved that within hours, two days before the war ended, although two of us got shot in the process.
The allied disarmament commission then swung into action. This is where we can derive a lesson from those events. Within five days it was operating. Over the years I have become convinced that if we had not been rock solid in those early days in carrying out the decisions that had been made by the big three at the Yalta conference some months before and if we, the allies, had embarked on an untidy, endless series of parleys, Britain and America could not possibly have resisted the subsequent years of Russian aggression. The occasional statement by Herr P O'Neill would have thrown the NATO organisation into confusion.
It is possible that some will try to persuade your Lordships that the surrender of terrorist weapons would be inappropriate because the republican terrorists were not defeated. Others have illustrated that that is not quite accurate. We must face the solid fact that when the IRA announced a cessation of military activities—and that is all that they have said thus far, after all the years—they were losing the struggle and well they knew it. For two years before they had been forced to accept almost 80 per cent of their atrocities being aborted as a result of penetration by the intelligence services. Secondly—and very regrettably—the so-called loyalist terrorists had been inflicting heavier casualties on the IRA than they themselves were inflicting. The IRA were forced to try a more productive ploy. As they look at the steady stream of concessions that have been referred to several times in the debate, they must feel well satisfied with the bargain that they made.
It is for all of us in both Houses of Parliament to decide whether we should continue to play with that loaded dice.
"COMMENCEMENT
This Act shall not come into force until after the Commission established under section 7 of the 1997 Act shall have laid a report before both Houses of Parliament on progress made in decommissioning since the coming into effect of the 1997 Act."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page