| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for that exposé of the Bill. I also thank him for his understanding of my predicament. I ask your Lordships to accept my apologies.
Having said that, I am delighted that we made the decision not to hold the debate on Maundy Thursday. The number of people wanting to take part in the debate has proved that it was the right decision. It is encouraging for those of us living in and working for Northern Ireland to see so many of your Lordships here on this holiday Friday.
As was clear from the noble and learned Lord's speech, the Bill heralds the most fundamental restructuring of the criminal justice system in
Northern Ireland probably ever. As such, the Bill needs thorough scrutiny during its passage through Parliament.As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, regrettably, the Bill did not perhaps get all the time that it might have had in the other place due to the Government's programme Motion in Committee. Some 30 clauses out of this 90-clause Bill were not considered. Only 45 minutes was allowed for the Third Reading of the Bill. Crucial government amendments dealing with one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill were not debated at all. Therefore, I hope that this House will give the Bill the proper scrutiny and care required.
There is much in the Bill that is non-contentions and which the Official Opposition have no difficulty in supporting. We share the hope that it will improve the overall efficiency and functioning of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland.
The legislation derives from the commitment given in the Belfast agreement to establish a review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the review body's subsequent report. Both the review and the Bill look ahead to the transfer of responsibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly for criminal justice, along with policing, following the next Assembly elections in May 2003. We support that government target. Obviously, the Government will need to make a determination at that time depending on the political situation.
In principle, the Official Opposition have no difficulty with the devolution of these maters. If the Executive and the Assembly are entrusted with legislative responsibility for such issues as health and education, it is difficult to sustain an argument that they should not be responsible for policing and criminal justice. Moreover, the growing law and order problem that exists in parts of Ulster—to which I have spoken in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions—shows that the Northern Ireland Assembly could hardly do a worse job than is currently being done by the Government. As we see on an almost daily basis, gansterism, paramilitarism, organised crime and other aspects of the Mafia society remain rife and increasing. We share the desire of the First Minister, Mr Trimble, for devolution to tie locally elected politicians from across the spectrum more closely into the fight against crime.
However, in some parts of the Bill, the issue of who exactly is in charge remains confusing and contradictory. For some matters, it is the Prime Minister. In other areas, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor retains control. Elsewhere, it is the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. Surely, if we are to devolve responsibility for criminal justice, that should be done in a consistent and coherent manner. The Bill will allow us to do that, but we have some amending to do. We shall certainly want to explore the Government's thinking in Committee.
Other anomalies need to be addressed. Part 3 establishes the office of the chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland, with powers to investigate
a number of organisations ranging from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to health and social services boards. Some offices, for example the Inland Revenue, Consignia and the police ombudsman, are absent from the list in the Bill. Surely, any attempt to make the list comprehensive—the stated objective of the Minister of State, Mr Des Browne—would include those and other offices. There can be no earthly reason for their exclusion and we look forward to action on the matter.While we support much of the Bill, therefore, we have serious concerns about some of its aspects and, I fear, are totally opposed to others. A large part of the Bill, Part 4, contains proposals to reform the youth justice system, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, pointed out in his resumé. The most notable innovation is to introduce the practice of the so-called restorative justice system through youth conferencing to Northern Ireland. We are not opposed to that, as long as the Bill envisages youth conferences taking place firmly within the ambit of the criminal justice system under police supervision and within the law, rather than in some alternative versions that I know are occurring today. We shall have to pay particular attention to that area.
We harbour several reservations about introducing that system and those ideas into Northern Ireland before they have been seen to work effectively in other parts of the United Kingdom. In fact, there is a strong argument that Northern Ireland, due to the polarisation of society and the extent of paramilitarism there, is one of the least suitable parts of the country in which to pilot those ideas. The Government have said that they will be piloted in Belfast first, but the same arguments apply. However, having discussed that system with the police and officials in Northern Ireland, I know that when operated within the law it is proving successful.
We would certainly want greater safeguards over the individuals who may be allowed to sit on such conferences. They should not include anyone who has been convicted of a scheduled offence or is, in the opinion of a senior police officer, active in any paramilitary organisation—whether or not on ceasefire. We cannot allow restorative justice to be taken over by local paramilitary bosses or paramilitary organisations masquerading as community safety groups, restorative justice groups, or whatever.
The provisions enabling the Secretary of State to establish community safety partnerships should have no place in the Bill. That is not just because of the astonishingly sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State in Clauses 70 and 71 to legislate by order. We have serious doubts about both the possible membership and the role of such partnerships—on which the Bill is exceptionally vague.
The Government will argue that they have now published their consultation document, Creating a Safer Northern Ireland Through Partnership, which is on my desk, but it was published only in mid-April—in fact, the letter circulating it was dated 10th April—after the Bill had finished its passage through the other
place. It does seem an odd way of going about things to ask Parliament to approve the concept and publish the details later.Moreover, having already prepared the way for district policing partnerships under the Patten legislation, why do the Government now feel it necessary to proceed with community safety partnerships—either in parallel with them or, as the criminal justice review recommended, to subsume them? The same people that I mentioned in relation to youth justice are extremely unhappy about that. There is more than a suspicion that those partnerships are part of what some believe to be the unfinished business of Patten and are a means of involving former terrorists in policing by the back door and allowing district councils to raise money to buy in additional policing services.
Having watered down the original proposals for DPPs to reduce unionist hostility to Patten, the Government are now seeking to appeal to republicans by returning to Patten's original plan. Your Lordships may think me cynical, but I suspect that others will say something similar. Those partnerships should not be slipped into a Bill that deals with criminal justice. If the Government have firm proposals in this area, they should bring forward detailed legislation that can be properly debated and amended. We are being asked to give the Secretary of State a blank cheque.
We remain totally opposed to the changes to the oath of allegiance for holders of judicial offices proposed in the Bill. Once again, the Government appear to have put their desire to appease Sinn Fein/IRA above the principle that justice and lawful authority in all parts of the United Kingdom flow directly from the Crown. The oath in the Bill does not formally recognise that fact. That is one area in which there is absolutely no case for departing from practice in every other part of the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland is a full and integral part.
The same is true of the display of the royal coat of arms in courtrooms and courthouses. The noble and learned Lord mentioned that in his speech, and I shall have to study the Government's intentions further, but it appears that the Government have contrived to create the worst of all possible worlds. First they bring forward proposals that are opposed by unionists; then they bring forward amendments that outrage nationalists. Actually, if they have done both, they have probably got it about right. None of that is remotely rooted in any principle whatever. The Bill is about criminal justice. The Government have reduced the royal coat of arms—the symbol of lawful authority in Northern Ireland—to a debate about the architectural merits of courtrooms and buildings.
The Belfast agreement expressly recognises the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. As such, it should share the same symbols as the rest of the United Kingdom. By their actions, the Government are putting themselves at odds with the agreement.
The Opposition will undoubtedly return to those issues as the Bill progresses through the House. I heard clearly what the noble and learned Lord said in his helpful way at the end of his speech, and I look forward to working with him, your Lordships and all those interested in improving the Bill still further in Committee and thereafter.
11.29 a.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his exposition of the Bill and for so readily agreeing not to proceed with Second Reading on Maundy Thursday to give us more time to reflect on it.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches warmly welcome the Bill. It marks the passing of a further landmark in implementing the Belfast agreement, which will be all the better when it comes into operation after the Assembly elections next year. Many political powers have been devolved to Northern Ireland. The Bill, once enacted and operative, will see the passage of concomitant judicial powers to Northern Ireland and thus make for a more complete and natural liberal society.
Although progress towards that ideal has been slow and sometimes halting, the passage of the Bill and its subsequent implementation will represent a great stride forward towards normality. The effective administration of justice together with the successful management of internal security are among the vital ingredients making for a sustainable civic society.
Turning to the main proposals of the Bill, we broadly welcome the emphasis placed on human rights, although we believe that this could be further strengthened in a number of ways. It is also in keeping with the devolutionary principle that the Lord Chief Justice should have most of the powers transferred to him which are currently exercised by the Lord Chancellor.
The creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission is to be particularly welcomed. The objective and transparent appointment of the judiciary is a long overdue development in the context of Northern Ireland. In making that observation, I do not cast any aspersions on the Northern Ireland judges who have played a staunch and valiant role over the past 30 years in both a difficult context and extremely unpleasant personal circumstances, which have included one murder and many attempted ones. Their record has been outstanding and I pay tribute to them.
Of course there have been errors—and some serious ones—and that must be recognised, but that is true of all human systems of justice. Only celestial justice is perfect. The fact remains that it was the public services, including the judiciary, which prevented Northern Ireland from descending into a state of anarchy during "The Troubles"—and it was touch and go at times. The point has now been reached where it is vital to build on the achievements of the judiciary for appointments to it to be seen to be fair, merited and reflective of the community which it serves.
Northern Ireland is not unique in that respect for the same is true of all parts of these islands. In saying that, we think that insufficient attention is paid in the Bill to gender balance and we shall return to that issue in Grand Committee and at the Report stage.
Another matter of concern, which may perhaps be satisfactorily explained, is precisely how the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will go about discharging their duties in making non-partisan nominations to the Judicial Appointments Commission. That point needs to be further elucidated.
A similar query arises over the appointment of the Attorney-General as a "non-political" office. In England and Wales, the Attorney, though independent as a Law Officer of the Crown, is, together with the Solicitor-General, a prominent member of the ministerial hierarchy. Often he will have earlier, usually junior, ministerial office and later he may well move on to a more senior Cabinet post. That by custom and usage is well understood. But what is a "non-political" Attorney-General? The holder of that office will apparently have the right to participate in the proceedings of the Assembly under the provisions of this Bill, though he will have no voting powers.
In Scotland, the situation is the reverse. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General are appointed as Ministers in the Scottish Executive, but currently do not sit in the Scottish Parliament. Liberal Democrats are all for such diversity, which is part and parcel of devolution, but we should like the waters to be rather more charted. The unprecedented innovation in Northern Ireland, again, needs a much fuller explanation of the rationale behind it.
Furthermore, can the House have a fuller description of the relationship between the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions? That the former is to appoint the latter is clearly spelt out in the Bill, but does a relatively small community of approximately 1.5 million people really need both posts? Does it slavishly have to imitate the situation in England and Wales in this regard? And what is the justification for it? While on the prosecution service, further consideration should be given to ensuring compliance with the European Court's decision in Jordan et al v United Kingdom.
The proposal for a chief criminal justice inspector is a recognition of the need to rationalise the system of oversight which currently comprises a number of inspectorates. The holder of the post may, as some suggested, not be competent enough to cover all 10 of the services or departments he or she is given in the Bill. However, given the scale of Northern Ireland, it is worth experimenting in that way. If it proves deficient in any respect, that can be simply remedied. If it is successful, as must be hoped, it can be copied throughout the UK for anything that can cull the burgeoning number of inspectors is to be welcomed.
My noble friend Lord Shutt will be speaking to the issue of youth justice, where we believe there is a need for further strengthening of human rights.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, as regards local community safety partnerships. We welcome them in principle but we note that they are left somewhat vague and ill-defined at this stage, particularly as regards their roles and memberships. I can understand that to some extent, but we need to know precisely how the provision in the Bill is to be implemented. We on these Benches will be examining the matter closely.
However, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the difficulties in Northern Ireland should make it the last part of the United Kingdom to undertake such an experiment. Frankly, one can gain first-class marks for arguing the opposite; that is, given the context of Northern Ireland it is even more necessary to start with such experimentation. We are not against the proposal in principle but we want to know how it will work in practice.
Finally, how much will the provisions in the Bill cost. There will be one or two savings—in the case of the proposed justice commissioner—but I imagine that there will be more additional expenditure. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could indicate in broad terms what will be the net sum.
That said, with the few exceptions that I have indicated, we will broadly support the passage of the Bill.
11.36 a.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his presentation of the Bill, especially his most generous invitation to us to enter into private negotiations with him during its progress.
In this Bank Holiday weekend, we have no fewer than 18 speakers in the debate. That underlines the importance of the legislation through the judicial system in Northern Ireland and the various constitutional issues.
The Belfast agreement provided for the criminal justice review. It is regrettable that one of the final planks of that agreement is being debated today in the shadow of a crisis.
Once again, the political institutions and indeed the agreement itself have been placed in jeopardy by the actions of republicans and by proposals from Her Majesty's Government which have eroded support for the Belfast agreement. As one of the three Ulster Unionists who negotiated the agreement, I particularly regret that.
We have newspaper reports of weapons stockpiles being replenished with new Russian super-rifles; of targeting and intelligence gathering on Members of this House and Members of another place; of involvement in recent murders in Northern Ireland; of suspected involvement in the theft of files from Castlereagh police station; and of alleged IRA terrorist involvement in Colombia. The sum of that does not tally with genuine commitment to peace and democratic means.
Inevitably, some will argue that evidence on each of these issues is yet to prove compelling and that one must look at the components rather than the sum. To those people, I point to South America and to Sinn Fein's refusal to participate in the congressional investigation of IRA involvement in Colombia and with FARC.
The lame explanation offered by republicans for non-co-operation was nothing short of pathetic. It must be insulting to the committee members on Capitol Hill and, to be frank, to the intelligence of those of us from Northern Ireland and beyond with experience of their ways.
The Government must follow the example of the Bush Administration by removing their head from the sand and taking action. The Government must show that they are listening to unionist concerns surrounding the legislation before us today.
As has already been said, this Bill is extremely complex. It is comprehensive in its reform of the criminal justice system and covers issues from judicial appointments to a new prosecution service and law commission. I shall return to those matters later, but first I want briefly to refer to the proposals for regulating the use of the royal coat of arms at courthouses. I start with this issue deliberately. Given the restricted debate in another place on symbols, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I trust that noble Lords will take the opportunity to give this most important of issues the full and comprehensive debate it merits at all stages in this House.
I welcome the Government's change of direction on the issue of the coat of arms. As noble Lords will be aware, when it first appeared, the Bill prohibited the use of the coat of arms inside courthouses, full stop. It also prohibited use of the coat of arms outside new courthouses, although it could remain in existing courthouses. Such inconsistency is incredible. It provided for the decommissioning of the coat of arms outside courthouses by reason of rust and the immediate removal of the coat of arms from the interiors of courtrooms. Imagine it—no coats of arms in Crown Courts. That was the original recommendation.
The Bill as now drafted has the same "by rust" provisions for the exterior of courthouses but some exceptions are made to the prohibition on use inside courtrooms. So the arrangements vary from one courthouse to another. The Bill provides for no consistency in practice. No great modification has occurred, but certainly there has been a change of direction. I invite the Government to continue along this path, not only to stem increasing unionist disaffection with the implementation of the Belfast agreement, but because, as they stand, the Bill's provisions are inconsistent with the Belfast agreement. Indeed, noble Lords will notice that the submission from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission states that if there are to be flags and coats of arms in courthouses, they should be in all of them. We cannot create a situation where some courthouses are more British than others.
The Bill amends the flags regulations to include courthouses, allowing the Union flag to be flown over courthouses on designated days. This means that Northern Ireland is now being treated on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. However, many noble Lords will be aware that those regulations faced a legal challenge on the grounds of their compatibility with the Belfast agreement. That challenge failed; in other words, the flags regulations, introduced by the Government, were found to be compatible with the agreement. However, the removal of the coat of arms does not allow Northern Ireland to be treated like the rest of the United Kingdom and therefore it is seen by most people in Northern Ireland as being in contradiction of the Belfast agreement.
The people of Northern Ireland voted in favour of the agreement which had at its centre a principle of consent that underlines Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom until the majority of the people determine otherwise. The coat of arms at courts is a manifestation of that constitutional position and is something which no reasonable person could view as unreasonable or in any way excessive.
Justice flows from the Crown and the coat of arms is the physical representation of the Crown in our courtrooms in Northern Ireland, just as it is in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. By moving against the position of other parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland's constitutional position becomes devalued, which is clearly contrary to the Belfast agreement.
I move on to appointments. The position with respect to judicial appointments similarly must reflect what happens elsewhere. I accept that global practice is moving towards appointments commissions. In no way do we wish to resist greater transparency and accountability in the appointments process. However, unionists are concerned with the make-up of the commission, potential politicisation of the commission and, indeed, the heavy politicisation of it by the involvement of the offices of the First and Deputy First Minister. My own experience on the recently appointed Policing Board in Northern Ireland, which involves politicians, underlines my personal concern. Devolution of criminal justice functions can be achieved without some kind of devolution of the appointments process. This is a rather important issue, one to which detailed consideration must be given by noble Lords in Committee. In the same vein, a law commission for Northern Ireland must not be considered in ignorance of the size of our local legal profession within Northern Ireland.
That brings me to the final area; namely, the prosecution service. There are aspects of these proposals which, unsurprisingly, will require close scrutiny in Committee. The mistakes of the CPS in England and Wales should not be repeated, especially in terms of funding.
I endorse wholeheartedly the clear separation of prosecution and investigation functions, to be achieved by the new prosecution service. Indeed, as a
member of the Policing Board, I know how important that will be: it will free up police time so that the police can be directed to other work. However, I pose one question. How is this separation to be achieved, not only in fact but in perception by the people of Northern Ireland? If we call our investigation service the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or the PSNI, and our new prosecution service, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, becomes the PPSNI, how will people understand the difference between them? Alternatives were offered by one of my Ulster Unionist colleagues in another place. I fully support her suggestion of the "Crown Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland" to avoid unnecessary confusion.Finally, the Bill is substantive and far reaching. Unionists have a number of real concerns; I have touched on only a few. It is our duty to make the Bill better where we can, and this we shall try to achieve. It can be achieved by making the legislation consistent with the Belfast agreement and Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom and, specifically, by retaining our national symbols in our courtrooms.
11.47 a.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I rise to indicate my support for this Bill and to give a welcome to the implementation of yet another vital part of the Good Friday agreement. I believe that it is extremely important that the process of change started by the Good Friday agreement keeps going—not just for that clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland who endorse it, but also for the rest of us, who want to see peace and reconciliation between two different traditions.
This Bill marks another part of that process of shared change aimed at reshaping the criminal justice system to make it the independent and impartial servant of both traditions. Justice should have no political master.
As my noble and learned friend pointed out from the Front Bench, the Bill forms a part of the process of preparing the ground for the devolution of policing and justice matters to the Assembly and the people it is there to serve from next year. It is my strong view that the more the institutions of Northern Ireland can be reshaped to serve equally people from both traditions, the more secure the peace process will become. As we know from other bitter disputes, no process stands still. Either it goes backwards or it goes forwards. The challenge for all elected politicians in Northern Ireland is to help the Good Friday process to go forward, because that is what a large majority of the people voted for.
The background to our debate this morning could not be better, with the Prime Minister yesterday telling Assembly Members and business people of a new investment package which has the potential to use resources that Mr Blair described as,
- "once tied up in guns and barbed wire . . . to help to create social and economic wealth.
I do not believe that this Bill is about concessions to either one tradition or another. It comes straight from the Good Friday agreement and it is about change aimed at delivering a criminal justice system that punishes the guilty, while seeking to tackle the causes of crime and especially to divert children and young people away from it. None of that is revolutionary; it mirrors all that the rest of us in the United Kingdom expect and deserve.
The Bill contains more than 200 provisions designed to modernise the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and to ensure that it can command and maintain the respect and support of people from both traditions.
I welcome especially the proposals to improve the ways in which young offenders are treated. Our greatest challenge, here and in Northern Ireland, is to better understand why too many young people are alienated and detached from society, and to develop ways to encourage and enable them to lead more fulfilling lives. This is not their problem. It is a shared problem because the repeat offending by a handful of young people hurts us all. There is not time to expand on the problem, but it is perhaps the most urgent social issue before Parliament and the public.
I welcome, too, the proposals to give victims of crime information about discharge and temporary release of prisoners, but I believe that the proposals can and should be strengthened. It is too often the case that the victim of crime feels that he or she has had a raw deal from the criminal justice system when that system should be more about making friends than making enemies.
I understand the importance which some of your Lordships and others attach to court symbols. But they can, and often do, convey unhelpful messages to some people. The truth is that a court does not need symbols to carry out its work fairly, impartially and with proper respect for those in front of it. No court wins the respect it deserves and demands through slogans or symbols nailed to its walls. That proper respect comes from a criminal justice system which delivers justice in a fair, impartial and independent way. That is the most important symbol of all.
I understand that there is another aspect to this—that is, the need for an end to all paramilitary activity and preparations for it. All those involved must show by deed what they signed up to four years ago—that politics will shape the future of Northern Ireland without the gun or the threat to use it. The normality which we take for granted in the remainder of the United Kingdom is the normality we expect in Northern Ireland. There is no reason why I or the people of Northern Ireland should accept anything less.
That is as much a challenge to the elected politicians in Northern Ireland as it is to the rest of us. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there is no half-way house between democracy and violence, and that is what I believe all of us in Parliament must help to achieve.
11.52 a.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was at his most courteous, persuasive, objective and dispassionate in introducing the Bill. That is always an extremely dangerous sign.
I find much of the Bill objectionable on three counts. First, and least unusual, although it purports to have been considered and approved by another place, great swathes of it were never considered in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading. Now we must reconcile ourselves to considering masses of government amendments arising primarily from incompetent instructions by Ministers, defective drafting by overworked parliamentary draftsmen, and a lack of proper consideration in the other place. It is a dog's dinner of a Bill and would have been better titled the "Pedigree Chum Bill", not just for its slovenly preparation but for the rag bag of miscellaneous proposals that it contains.
Secondly, I object most strongly to some of the Bill's provisions—those relating, for example, to the display of Royal Arms at courts, under Clause 65 on page 57. Nothing, except possibly the form of the new oath, could more clearly illustrate the policy behind the Bill, which is to move on the process of pushing Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into the Republic of Ireland. Already it is becoming almost a condominium of the United Kingdom and the republic, rather like Egypt or the Sudan at the turn of the last century.
Many of the Bill's provisions, particularly those concerning the judiciary in Part 1, Clause 5, and those concerning the Law Officers—for example, the Attorney-General in Clause 22—rest very heavily on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly. I do not wish to be pessimistic about the electoral prospects of Mr Trimble's Ulster Unionist Party but the Government have been extraordinarily successful in dividing him from his grass roots supporters. Is this a policy aim rather than sheer incompetence akin to that of the main parties in France which has led to the resurgence of Monsieur Le Pen? There is now a chance, at least, that before long Mr Paisley will be the First Minister and Mr Adams his deputy. Their chances of agreement on most things would, I would guess, be rather less than those of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Glentoran about local community safety partnerships. They sound suspiciously like exactly what Sinn Fein would like.
All these defects—and there are plenty more—spring from the nature and the genesis of the Bill. That brings me to my third objection to it. As the Government admit, their policy is to achieve a united Ireland by consent. That objective is shared by IRA/Sinn Fein, although its version of "consent" is consent at the barrel of a gun. That is how consent to the Belfast agreement was achieved and it is how IRA/Sinn Fein plan to achieve consent in the referendum at some time in the future on the union of Ireland.
Sinn Fein/IRA—there is no distinction to be made between those two parts of the same organisation—has swallowed up all of the concessions given to the
republican cause in the Belfast agreement and given nothing in return save an imperfect ceasefire, an armistice while the final surrender is negotiated and the two symbolic acts of arms decommissioning. What has been decommissioned and by what method we are not allowed to know. We are told it is "significant". Quite so—but significant by its magnitude or by its minuscule size? Because the arms surrendered were new or because they were 80 years old? Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal know the nature and quantity of the arms which were decommissioned?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |