Security

HC Deb 09 February 2000 vol 344 cc231-4

1. Mr. Tony Clarke (Northampton, South)

What recent progress has been made to create a more normal security environment. [107673]

3. Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [107675]

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram)

The security strategy paper that was published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 22 December 1999 outlines the progress made and the further steps that the Government intend to take towards achieving normality, depending on the threat level. In assessing that threat level, we will act on the professional advice of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and our security advisers. I want to make it clear that we will not relax our guard. The safety of the public remains at all times paramount.

Mr. Clarke

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and particularly welcome the publication of the Government's strategy. Following the bomb attack in Irvinestown, will he ensure that, while working towards a more normal security environment, we redouble efforts to ensure that those who are working outside the peace process are swiftly brought to justice?

Mr. Ingram

Obviously, the attack in Irvinestown should be and was rightly condemned by everyone associated with taking forward normalisation in Northern Ireland. It was condemned across the board by political parties and others. In taking forward the process, we must ensure that we do not drop our guard. Even with all the successes of the Garda Siochana in the Republic of Ireland and of the RUC, there are clearly people who are intent on carrying out such actions. We must ensure that they do not succeed in those acts.

Mr. Paterson

The Minister says that the safety of the public remains paramount, but yesterday the Northern Ireland Human Rights Bureau told me that, since the agreement, there have been 13 murders, 147 shootings and 422 beatings, as well as nearly 1,000 armed bank robberies in which 3,000 members of the public were held up at gun point. Is it sensible to continue to plan the break-up of the RUC and to release murdering terrorists?

Mr. Ingram

The hon. Gentleman would do better to rely on official statistics, rather than the source that he quoted. He has got it totally wrong.

Mr. Paterson

Which one is wrong?

Mr. Ingram

The hon. Gentleman could easily ask written questions to gain such information, but I personally undertake to ensure that he is provided with the accurate statistics. It is not the case that we intend to break up the RUC, as the hon. Gentleman says. I remind him that the future of policing in Northern Ireland was part of the Good Friday agreement. I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports that agreement. If so, he should give a fair wind to the difficult decisions that we have to take on the future of policing there.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

May I refer the Minister to the Irvinestown bomb incident? I am aware that, in official circles, it is thought that the Real IRA, based around Dundalk, is more dangerous than Continuity IRA, which is based around the Fermanagh borders. This is the third bombing in Fermanagh by Continuity IRA. Consequently, there needs to be particular vigilance on the Fermanagh borders. Does the Minister agree that nothing could be more foolish than to decide now to demolish the patrol bases on the Fermanagh border? That incident shows the clear need to retain those patrol bases. The suggestion that the bases should be demolished as a political gesture, which has been made from time to time, should now be dropped entirely.

Mr. Ingram

Any bombing incident or killing by any dissident group has to be condemned whatever happens in Northern Ireland. Of course, we had the tragic circumstances of Omagh and there have been other incidents during the peace since the Good Friday agreement was agreed by the various parties who signed up to it. We have always said that this is not a perfect peace. We have always highlighted the potential dangers contained within it. I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he will understand that Ministers and the Secretary of State will always act on any matter—either the specific matters that he raised or the wider agenda—on the basis of the best advice from the Chief Constable and our security advisers.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

Would the Minister agree that the commencement of decommissioning would be a great asset in the pursuance of normal security? Does he also agree that that is the dear and earnest wish of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland and these isles in general? Does he agree that the default to decommissioning precipitated the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Can he explain whether, in his opinion, that default is a default in respect of the Good Friday agreement, the Mitchell review or the artificial deadline set by the Ulster Unionist party for its council meeting next Saturday?

Mr. Ingram

We had a very thorough-going debate on that issue yesterday, following last week's statement by the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend made a significant contribution to that debate. We have a situation that we now have to deal with. Although there is a very real lack of confidence in various aspects of the way forward under the Good Friday agreement, I know that, like me, my hon. Friend believes that decommissioning and normalisation should happen, and that, in many ways, the two will go hand in hand. The more normalised Northern Ireland becomes, the greater will become the pressure on those who want to use the bomb and the bullet not to do so. Their communities will put that pressure on them. I am sure that the issues raised by my hon. Friend will continue to be addressed in the coming days.

Mr. Lembit öpik (Montgomeryshire)

In the context of normalisation, will the Patten recommendations on police be implemented even if the Assembly is suspended?

Mr. Ingram

We have made it clear that the Patten recommendations, which have now been analysed and proposed by the Secretary of State, are part of the Good Friday agreement. We have said that we want to continue with the Good Friday agreement. Therefore, the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

Does the Minister accept that, after the bombing at Irvinestown on Sunday, there must be one absolutely clear message from both sides of the House to the men of violence—that they will never, ever succeed, and that what they are doing is totally counterproductive to achieving what they want?

Mr. Ingram

I share that sentiment with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that every hon. Member wants decommissioning. The sentiment was also expressed in the Good Friday agreement. It is also what the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland want. They want a peaceful future and an end to the violence that they have known for the past 30 years.

Mr. MacKay

Does the Minister accept that, after Irvinestown and other incidents, when there is very clearly still a terrorist threat, it would be quite wrong to implement recommendations in the Patten report that are security sensitive? Will he now give a guarantee to the House that those particular recommendations will not be implemented until there is no longer a terrorist threat in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Ingram

I am not so sure that the right hon. Gentleman has heard the answers that have been given by Ministers before; if he has, he has not absorbed them. We have made it clear that the threat level always has to be taken into account. The Secretary of State made that clear in announcing the way forward on the recommendations flowing from the Patten report. Clearly, we have to take the threat level into account, and we do so on the best security advice available. We have to take that advice into account. We are also talking about a specific time scale—immediately, medium term or long term—and judgments will be made as we progress on the issue.