---

Lord Fitt: I believe that it is a reasonable amendment. All that it asks of Government is that the commission set up by the government to inquire into the decommissioning of illegal arms should place its findings before the House. The House could then see at first hand the position of the IRA in relation to its ongoing discussions with the commission.

I and many people in Northern Ireland will be asking these questions. What now is the function of the commission? How many times does it meet? Does it meet once a week, twice a week, every month, every three months or only, as it appears to be, when there is some crisis and P O'Neill issues a statement to General de Chastelain? It is only right and fair that the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives in the House of Commons and here, should know how the commission functions in between statements from P O'Neill, the spokesman for the IRA. The amendment provides that we should not agree with the Bill unless we are made aware of the thinking underlying the commission.

I asked what sanction the Government had if P O'Neill issued a statement to the effect that the IRA were not going to decommission its arms. I was disappointed with the Minister's reply. He said that the sanction is that we may not pass an affirmative order next year or the year after in relation to the Bill. Does the Minister think that that will scare the living daylights out of the IRA? What does it mean if the House says, "We shall not pass that affirmative order"? The IRA will laugh at it.

My noble friend Lord Desai takes an interest in Northern Ireland. The previous amendment asked for a reduction in the time limit from five to three years. In his opening remarks, my noble friend said that if that amendment were passed it would make us look ridiculous. I use his exact words. We look extremely ridiculous in the eyes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland if we continue to make concession after concession to the IRA.

Last year I got fed up with listening to the new word coined with regard to Northern Ireland—"choreography". Everyone, including the biggest dunderhead in Northern Ireland, ran around talking about choreography. It was supposed to mean that if the Government moved on a particular aspect of the peace process the IRA would make a move in their direction. I have seen no choreography coming from the IRA or Sinn Fein. The happenings since the Belfast agreement are regarded as a big "plus". Stormont was set up. Let me tell the Government that the setting up of Stormont was no great concession by the Government. The IRA and Sinn Fein wanted Stormont set up; they wanted their Government Ministers there. So no great concession was being made. The IRA wanted inter-government. It wanted to see Stormont brought back on its terms.

4 Feb 2002 : Column 477

As to choreography, what did we get from Weston Park with regard to arms? The IRA demanded and obtained the dismantling of the watch-towers and army establishments all around the border in Northern Ireland. People could see what was happening. They saw it on television. They saw the British Army dismantling those army outposts. So that was disarming, demobilisation or decommissioning on the British side; but how do we know what happened on the Irish side? General de Chastelain stated that he saw some arms—we do not know how many or how few. The people of Northern Ireland were able to see the decommissioning by the British Army and security forces, but they did not see the decommissioning of the illegal weapons held by the IRA.

I want to make clear that I do not concentrate on the IRA. My remarks include the illegal arms which are still being used by the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. Those who watched last night a Channel 4 television programme on the activities of the UDA cannot but be frightened by the continuing holding of arms by that organisation. Anything I say about decommissioning is not directed at the IRA but at all such organisations.

The Minister said that the sanction against the IRA's refusal to decommission is that the Government will not pass an affirmative order. What effect will that have on the loyalist paramilitaries who daily are beating up and knee-capping people in Northern Ireland? Will they be worried about an affirmative order? I again ask the Minister: what will be the effect if this House refuses an affirmative order to carry out this legislation? What can we do? There are no further sanctions that the Government are prepared to make.

I believe that another concession is in the offing. We await an amnesty for IRA republican prisoners who are on the run in the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that the Government will make that concession. Although I totally disagree with such an amnesty, would not it be possible for the Government to say, "We shall not grant this amnesty unless you engage actively in decommissioning your illegal arms"? I do not think that the Government are going to say that; I wish that they would.

The sanction referred to by the Minister is that the Government will refuse to pass an affirmative order. The fact is—the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches agreed with me and we have disagreed more often than we have agreed—that we are asking the Americans to apply sanctions to stop the IRA. The biggest sanction against the illegal arms of the IRA could be brought by the Americans. The Americans can refuse Sinn Fein their visas. They can stop money being taken out of America to fill the IRA coffers. But, in effect, we at the heart of Government in the United Kingdom are saying, "We cannot stop the IRA from holding on to their arms but, please Mr and Mrs America, will you do the job for us?" That is a very sad reflection on the Government of this country.

4 Feb 2002 : Column 478

4.15 p.m.

Lord Monson: In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, informed us that whatever the establishment might believe, the ordinary people of Northern Ireland do not believe that any significant decommissioning has taken place. If the ordinary people of Northern Ireland continue to think the way they do, the electoral consequences in Northern Ireland in the near and medium-term future will not be to the Government's—or to most other people's—liking. That surely is yet another reason for accepting the amendment.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendment would not have any effect of any practical virtue. The effect would be only to give the commission a power to lay a report before Parliament, imposing on it no obligation to do so. Indeed, the report could say nothing more than is already in the public domain; it could be of any quality, satisfactory or not to Parliament. I understand the purpose of the noble Lord's amendment but it would not have the slightest legal or practical effect.

There are other questions. The commission was set up following the report of the international body. That report was accepted by the then Conservative Government in this country and the Government in the Irish Republic. Section 7 of the subsequent Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 sets up,

"an independent organisation established by an agreement, made in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland between Her Majesty's Government in the UK and the Government of the Republic of Ireland".

In historic terms, just to complete the narrative, there was also the treaty agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic. As I think your Lordships know, Article 4 of that treaty put upon the commission the duty "to report periodically", not to the Dail in Dublin or to Parliament at Westminster, but,

"to both Governments and, through whatever mechanisms they may establish for that purpose, the other participants in political negotiations in Northern Ireland".

I understand and do not disrespect the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, seeks. I understand it perfectly because he explained it with admirably clarity. However, Amendment No. 2 would not achieve the conclusion he desires. In fact, such provision would effectively give the commission the determining view on when the legislation should come into effect. If the commission did not report before the end of this month, the possessory amnesty—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden referred—would fall.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that. He is also quite right; I understand what the non-effect of passing this amendment would be. I know and believe him when he says that he understands my purposes in moving the amendment. Most of us in this place know that the decommissioning that has taken place is being kept secret at the request of the republican movement.

4 Feb 2002 : Column 479

I have even been told that those in that movement might be embarrassed if the information were to get out to their own people.

However, that being as it may, there is a real message. I believe that the Government have heard what has been said on almost all sides by your Lordships about the message to the people of Northern Ireland. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed : Bill reported without amendment.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

4.23 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 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Registration: provision of signature and date of birth]:

---