Commons Sitting of 17 December 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Drugs Strategy
    Mr. Andrew Love: What plans he has to focus the drugs strategy on harm minimisation. [21143]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear in his evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Government will be increasing the focus on harm minimisation within the drugs strategy. As part of the review of the strategy, we are looking at what more we can do to minimise the harm that drugs do to individuals and their families, to communities and to society in general. In addition to the recently published action plan on drug-related deaths, we have set up a group of key
    2
    experts to tackle the treatment of crack cocaine addiction and, with the Department of Health, we are looking to produce new guidance for heroin prescribing.
    Mr. Love: My hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent work done by the drug action team and the crime and disorder partnership in Enfield, using £250,000 provided under the communities against drugs initiative. Apart from tackling criminality, that money is being used for education and early intervention to try to reduce the use and misuse of drugs. But if we are to be successful in tackling drug misuse, surely we must concentrate on the harder drugs, which are currently blighting the lives of 250,000 of our younger people at a cost of over £1 billion to the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We continue to try to get the message across, so that we are credible with young people when we tell them what drugs will do the most harm. Our response must be proportionate in order to do that. We need police resources to be aimed specifically at the majority of areas that are causing the greatest problems. My hon. Friend is right: the link between class A drugs and acquisitive crime is clear and indisputable.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: While I welcome the Home Secretary's recent move to reclassify cannabis, will that still not mean that people who wish to consume this stuff can only get it from illegal sources because it remains illegal, but that the police will not be able to crack down effectively on the trade? Is this a sustainable position?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's position on the matter is clearly known to the House, as is that of the right hon. Gentleman, who, effectively, advocates the legalisation of cannabis. That is not the policy of the Government. We are trying to encourage the police to aim their resources where they are most needed. The police ought to be looking in far more detail at the work done with regard to class A drugs,

    3
    which is where most criminality occurs in terms of the acquisitive crime to pay for them. It is not the intention of the Government to legalise cannabis.
    Paul Flynn: The statement is welcome, but does it mean that we have moved away from the failed policies of harsh prohibition that we, Sweden and the United States have followed for a long time and that we have joined in the policies of harm minimisation—described in the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love)—which have been so successful in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and Portugal? Is this a change in policy? Will it be reflected in the evidence that the Home Office gives to the Council of Europe's report on drug abuse that will be considered in January?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend studies the problem not only in this country but abroad, and he will know that there is a convergence in drugs policy across many countries. There is no decriminalisation of drugs in Holland. There are differences of emphasis. We are looking actively at renewing our focus on harm minimisation within the drugs policy and strategy in order to be as effective as we can. If my hon. Friend looks properly at what is happening in other countries, he will see that many of the trends are in the same direction as the one which we are looking to follow in the UK.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Under-Secretary be clear? Is he saying that harm minimisation should be an equal goal in the strategy, as has been argued by many of those who have come before the Select Committee—most recently Mike Trace, who was the deputy drugs tsar? Given the unacceptable number of deaths from heroin overdoses and heroin impurities, should not harm minimisation be as important as the other goals in the drugs strategy?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right. Much work has been done on harm minimisation over a period of time. The Government introduced needle exchanges in the UK in the early 1980s, but a lot more can be done. That is why we have put the emphasis on that area, and that is why the Home Secretary listed it when he gave his evidence to the Select Committee as one of the issues that he wanted examined.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Injecting drug users use an average of only one syringe a day, which forces them to reuse and share their syringes. Are there any plans to review syringe exchange schemes to cut down the spread of infectious diseases, such as the hepatitis C virus?
    Mr. Ainsworth: As I said, we are reviewing the whole strategy, and together with the Department of Health, we are looking at the availability of needle exchanges to make certain that we are doing the maximum that can and should be done in that area.

    Police (Administration)
    Mr. John Baron: What plans he has to reduce the administrative work load of police officers. [21144]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Recent research commissioned by the Home Office showed that up to 43 per cent of police officers" time was spent in the police station. "Policing a New Century" outlined our proposals to provide support staff with the necessary powers to undertake certain roles that do not need to be carried out by a police officer. The Home Secretary has established a taskforce, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, to co-ordinate the steps necessary significantly to reduce the unnecessary burdens on police officers' time. It will report in the spring.
    Mr. Baron: I thank the Minister for that response. The findings of that study will result from the great burden of paperwork, including 58 performance criteria, the best value regime and a raft of arrest paperwork. Given that detection rates are at their lowest ever, when will the Minister allow the police to do the job that they want, which is to fight crime, not push paper?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman throws back at us some of the issues that we have exposed in order to make progress on that issue, which we are doing in the police reform White Paper. He is right that we are looking to streamline the number of targets to which the police are subject through best value and other regimes, but other issues include the amount of time spent in a police station on arrest. Some of that work can be done by other people, and is being done by other people in some police forces. Those are some of the issues that we intend to address, so that police constables can spend more of their time doing the work that they are highly qualified to do and that the British public expect them to do.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Will my hon. Friend pass on the congratulations of many hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his pungent remarks a couple of weeks ago about delays caused by the legal profession? The administrative work load on police officers and the administrative work done by housing officers, police officers and councillors in pursuing antisocial behaviour orders—in my city of Nottingham and elsewhere—cost massive amounts of money. The case gets to court and then some smart alec lawyer finds a way to get the little brat—which would be the parliamentary expression—off and out into the community again. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the joined up thinking continues so that the time of council officers and councillors is used productively?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am not sure that I would dare refer to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as pungent, and I do not know whether my hon. Friend meant his remarks to be pungent. However, efforts are being made better to align court time with police time, so that police officers do not waste their time unnecessarily waiting for court cases. We need better co-ordination and communication to avoid that happening.
    Mr. James Paice: Is it not a sad indication of the state of police morale that they should consider working to rule? The police cannot strike, so will the Home Secretary and the Minister agree that the flexibility that we all know is necessary must be

    5
    achieved by agreement? To achieve that, what will the Government do? It is a question not of setting people to do different jobs, but of getting rid of paperwork. What forms will the Government abolish? What reports will they stop calling for? What will be the Government's side of the bargain in reaching the agreement needed if the police reforms that the Home Secretary wants are to be achieved?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The Government published "Diary of a Police Officer", and we seek to halve the number of best value indicators as part of our efforts to cut bureaucracy. Such things underlie the whole agenda of the White Paper. We are in the middle of negotiations that could affect terms and conditions for the police, and the hon. Gentleman should not be surprised if the press comments on that. While we are handling such important issues, the British public will consider both how the Government handle matters and how the Opposition respond. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond reasonably and sensibly instead of playing games on the back of an important issue.

    Sex Offenders
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What recent measures he has taken to improve public protection from sex offenders. [21145]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): The protection of the public, and of children in particular, is of the highest priority to the Government. The matter is at the forefront of our mind following the conviction last week of Roy Whiting for the murder of Sarah Payne. I want to convey our deep sympathy to the Payne family.
    We have implemented a range of measures to increase public protection. Nationally, we have strengthened the law covering offenders, and locally we require the police, probation and other agencies to set up multi-agency public protection panels. In a sentencing review and in our strategy for dangerous offenders, we shall go further to bring in longer sentences and extended supervision, monitoring and treatment.
    Dr. Starkey: Effective measures to protect the public are extremely important in this difficult area. I have held extensive discussions with the multi-agency sex offender team in Milton Keynes, and was extremely impressed by the way in which the police, the probation service and social services worked to ensure proper protection of the public.
    That work, however, is extremely labour intensive. Huge efforts are made to ensure that the public are protected, particularly from high-risk sex offenders. Is the Home Office reviewing the cost of providing that support? Is it considering whether those costs should be reflected in cash allocations to police forces that happen to deal with a large number of sex offenders?
    Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest and remarks about how the multi-agency public protection panels are beginning to work in this, their first year. She will know that the allocation of resources within a police service area—there have been significant additional resources—is a matter for the chief officer.
    6
    We expect chief officers to regard protection of children from sex offenders as a central part of normal policing. We are monitoring development of the multi-agency panels, including cost implications and training needs. We shall build the findings of our evaluation into our future plans.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister accept that the best interests of the Payne family, who are constituents of mine, will be better served by effective law than by law suddenly devised because of newspaper campaigns? Does she agree that really effective law would put sex offenders in prison on indeterminate sentences so that they were neither released prematurely into the community on legal technicalities, nor released unless they had accepted treatment and could be verified as safe. That is the only way to give parents a proper understanding of the risks in their communities and to let them allow their children to play in open spaces.
    Beverley Hughes: Yes, we have already brought in a number of measures, including the post-release supervision of sexual and violent offenders and more treatment programmes—both in the community and in prison. We have introduced sex offender orders and restraint orders that the courts can use.
    In July, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a review of sentencing, a number of whose recommendations we are closely considering—including much longer sentences for violent and sexual offenders; requiring courts, in certain circumstances, to give a life sentence; possibly providing for tagging and further extended supervision; and so on. That is very much the direction in which we think we need to go, in the context of our wider policy—and detailed strategy—as to how we manage dangerous, severely personality disordered and sexual offenders.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Government for the actions that they have taken so far, but may we consider adequate training for local authority members and officers in understanding the difference between sex offenders and paedophiles, so that they can assist their communities when there is a suspicion that a paedophile is active in the area?
    Beverley Hughes: All agencies—local authorities, sports clubs—take seriously the need to train their employees and volunteers not only to be able to recognise possible sexual abuse when it is occurring, but also to enable children to disclose the problem more effectively to adults when something untoward may be happening to them. At present, there is much uncertainty in relation to sex offenders and paedophiles, as my hon. Friend outlines.
    Cases such as that of Sarah Payne, in which children are abducted by strangers, are horrific, and as a parent I do not want to diminish that horror. However, we need to remember that the vast majority of cases of sexual abuse of children are committed by people who know them: 80 per cent. of the offences are committed in the home either of the offender or of the victim. To deal effectively with sexual abuse, we have to deal with a wide range of offenders.

    7
    Stranger paedophiles commit only a small minority of the cases of sexual abuse against children, I am glad to say—although even a small number is too many.
    Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister very much for her replies so far. From the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere there is huge support for the view expressed by the Payne family's MP, our colleague the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), that sentences should be indeterminate, with the court retaining the right to decide at any stage whether it is safe to leave the offender in the community, or what conditions are needed to ensure that the offender is unable to reoffend.
    Will the Minister confirm that it is not Government policy that previous convictions, should be disclosed to juries—a move bound to prejudice the right to a fair trial; and that it is absolutely not Government policy to endorse the naming and shaming programme reawakened yesterday by one of the Sunday papers? Will she confirm that the police services and Ministers will be careful not to be conned by newspapers into appearing to endorse naming and shaming, when in fact—I hope—all they were endorsing was the proper search for people who had broken conditions and were out in the community without our knowing where they are? Those are entirely different things, confused, no doubt on purpose, by a Sunday paper yesterday—no doubt to increase circulation.
    Beverley Hughes: On the disclosure of previous convictions, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made it clear that we are considering that in our review of those matters. There are arguments for and against. Clearly, cases such as this raise the issue again and put it into the public domain. We are still considering our response.
    On public access to information about sex offenders who may be living in the community, Ministers have recently made the position clear. We are starting by trying to evaluate what would be most effective in the interests of child protection. That has to be our focus. We are clear that it is not in the interests of child protection to make people's names and addresses widely accessible in a community.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said recently, however, that we understand the concerns of the community on this issue and that it needs some locus to express its concern. So he is considering enabling properly trained members of the community to take a seat on the multi-agency public protection panel in recognition of that concern. We are considering at the moment how best we can take that forward.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Does my hon. Friend agree that—let us be straight—Sarah's law is not the way to go, appalling and sad though the incident was? The fears and genuine concerns of parents must, however, be addressed as a matter of urgency. Most people in this country feel that a very substantial tariff is now required and that convicted paedophiles should not be let out automatically.
    I agree with my hon. Friend's reply a moment ago that most sexual attacks are made by people who are known and, indeed, that they occur in the home; but I have heard that said so many times, without support being given to
    8
    enable people who fear that such things are happening domestically to report them effectively. To my knowledge, there are no clear guidelines—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Beverley Hughes: I do not need to repeat what I said about the so-called Sarah's law. We are starting from the point of view of protecting children and we are clear that widespread availability of names and addresses is not the way forward. I agree with my hon. Friend; Ministers are looking closely at how we can ensure that sex offenders are not automatically released from prison unless their risk assessment clarifies that, on balance, it is safe to release them.
    I do not share my hon. Friend's view that there are no clear guidelines or robust and proper processes for parents and others to initiate investigation when cases of sexual abuse are suspected. I am sure that there is more that we can do in that regard, but I am glad to say that the system in this country has improved dramatically over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm in addressing this exceptionally serious matter that the Government intend to ensure that the protection of innocent children remains at the heart of their policy? Will she further confirm that they wish to take no steps that could in any way encourage vigilantism in this area?
    Beverley Hughes: I have already made that clear several times this afternoon. As I have said, we have begun the process of putting together a package of measures, including proper sentencing, proper extended supervision, the potential use of tagging, and treatment for offenders for whom that is effective. Establishing the multi-agency public protection panels has been a big step forward. That is still evolving and developing, but I am clear that those measures are together the best way in which to protect children.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What evidence he has collated on changes in the crime rate in England in the last four years. [21146]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The most recent British crime survey, published on 25 October, showed the largest ever reduction in crime in one year, totalling a 22 per cent. reduction since 1997. We intend to extend the sample surveyed to 40,000 in order to be able to narrow the figures down to command unit level, so that we can make a proper comparison of like with like.
    I should like to make the point that economic and social policies, including a reduction in unemployment, have contributed to the fall, but so has the work of the police service. Thirty-four of the 43 force areas have seen a reduction in recorded crime as well as that in the BCS statistics. The message needs to go out to Glen Smyth and others in the Metropolitan police federation that we deeply care about what the police are doing; we want

    9
    more of them on the beat in the community; and we want police on our streets, policing and securing them, not demonstrating on them.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging statistics, which show that we have indeed been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. They are especially welcome after the rising crime experienced for so many years under the previous regime. However, people still fear crime to an alarming and perhaps unjustified extent. Will he suggest ways in which we might assuage the fears of people whose fear of crime is unjustified?
    Mr. Blunkett: There was, of course, a doubling of crime in those years, so while acknowledging all the provisos and the need to avoid complacency, I believe that welcome progress is being made. The BCS also shows changes in reassurance levels and a decrease in fear of crime to the levels of 20 years ago, which is most encouraging. Some of the crime reduction measures that my hon. Friend has been advocating based on experience in the St. Leonards district of his constituency, which include getting more people on the beat in small shopping centres and using closed circuit television cameras, ensure that people not only feel safer but are safer under a Labour Government.
    Norman Baker: I welcome the Home Secretary's drawing attention to low clear-up rates in some areas and his sensible suggestions of how to deal with them, but I remain concerned about reliance on performance indicators. By placing too much emphasis on indicators, might we not encourage police forces to drive up clear-up rates by no longer devoting manpower and attention to the most serious crimes, which currently have a high clear-up rate, and concentrating instead on clearing up lots of minor crimes, which is far easier?
    Mr. Blunkett: Sampling and according credit for the whole of the reduction rather than focusing on individual performance targets is important. I do not disagree that we have to be able to accord credit for things that are difficult to record, such as reducing antisocial behaviour and disorder, rather than simply measuring and giving credit for things that are easily monitored. We must get that serious issue right and ensure that the police are able to respond to the particular needs of their community.

    Ball-bearing Guns
    Mr. David Atkinson: If he will introduce legislation to control the (a) availability and (b) use of ball-bearing guns. [21148]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): Any ball-bearing gun that is capable of inflicting a lethal injury is already regarded in law as an air-gun and is subject to the same range of controls. However, most are less powerful than air-guns and cannot be regarded as firearms, so it would not be proportionate to extend the firearms regime to them. We recognise, however, that it is often young people who use ball-bearing guns in an irresponsible and dangerous
    10
    manner. As part of our determination to tackle antisocial behaviour by some young people, we are looking for ways to tackle that problem.
    Mr. Atkinson: As the Minister acknowledges, the targeting of members of the public by users of BB guns is now a growing menace in many communities. Such weapons can wound, take out an eye, or psychologically traumatise the victim, especially if they are young. Why then did the Government Whip object on Friday 23 November to my private Member's Bill, which would have brought the use of BB guns within the law? Will the right hon. Gentleman meet me to discuss how my Bill can progress through the House?
    Mr. Denham: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issues, but as I said earlier, we are not convinced that simply extending firearms legislation to BB guns is proportionate or right. There are two issues: one is increasing availability, the other is tackling problems of misuse and irresponsible use. The problem is essentially created by young people. We are determined to tackle the whole range of antisocial behaviour by young people, including issues relating to BB guns and air-guns.
    Mr. Chris Mullin: Has not the time come to take another look at the regulation of air weapons, with a view to raising the age limit at which they can be used? They are the cause of a great deal of low-level mayhem in our constituencies. My right hon. Friend will have noticed that only the other day, for example, a young girl in Gateshead lost an eye after coming under sniper fire from an out-of-control, under-age youth with an air weapon.
    Mr. Denham: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the nuisance caused by those weapons. We are looking to advice from the Firearms Consultative Committee on what further measures need to be taken. We must examine ways of tackling those who are abusing and misusing the weapons, as well as concentrating on the issues of supply and regulation.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister talks about supply and regulation, but surely air-guns are available to virtually anyone who wants them. That is the problem with the regulations. Does he agree that we need to revisit the law in general on this subject, and, I suggest, raise age limits considerably, so that young people who are minded to create mayhem cannot obtain air-guns or ball-bearing guns, for example? We could increase age limits, and older people might be more sensible when using those weapons, if they had to use them.
    Mr. Denham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that merely concentrating on supply and sale does not tackle the problem of misuse, which we must also consider. As we take forward our measures on antisocial behaviour, we recognise the concern on both sides of the House about the growing problem of those weapons, and we are determined to make inroads into that problem.

    Asylum System
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What plans he has to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum system. [21149]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): Measures to increase the efficiency of the asylum system were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement to the House on 29 October. Further details will be published in the forthcoming White Paper.
    Mr. Khabra: As the Member of Parliament whose constituency has the largest increase in case work in the country, I have noticed that the Home Office can take between four and six months to make a simple response. What steps will it take to reduce waiting times?
    Angela Eagle: I have to agree with my hon. Friend that our current performance is not good enough. We are working hard to improve it, but I would be the first to say that we still have a long way to go. The immigration and nationality directorate has a strategy for putting more resources into this area and ensuring that we can provide a better service. I hope to return to the House in a few months with our targets met. This is a difficult issue at present, and we recognise that we are not doing as well as we should.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that there are almost 100,000 asylum seekers either waiting for the initial decision to be made on their case or waiting for their appeal to be heard? Will she also confirm that whereas the Home Secretary originally hoped that this year 30,000 failed asylum seekers would be removed from the country, the number now is likely to be only 10,000? Can she give the House any indication when the minimum number of 30,000 will be reached?
    Angela Eagle: The current backlog of outstanding asylum applications stands at 43,000. There was a 155 per cent. increase in the number of first-year decisions last year, and a 13 per cent. increase in removals. I can confirm that we are on course to reach the 30,000 figure by the financial year 2002–03
    The hon. Gentleman needs to realise that people cannot simply be sent back. We have to get papers for them and arrange their passage back to the country of origin. That is not simple. However, as I have said, we have increased the number of removals by 13 per cent., and because we are now bringing the new detention estate into being, we have three new sites that provide a further 1,500 detention places. That will enable us to ensure that we get removals working more effectively.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend ensure that any strategy that she has for increasing the resources for asylum seekers" applications will not have an adverse effect on the section dealing with student visa renewals, which are now taking 12 weeks instead of the advertised three weeks? This is having an adverse effect on some of my constituents, who, having bought
    12
    their air tickets, will not be able to get home in time for Christmas because their passports are locked up in the Home Office.
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. We are concerned about those delays, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken immediate action to put in more resources to ensure that we can avoid the inconvenience and disruption that she spoke about.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Lady go to Holland—[Interruption.]—but only for a short time? Will she look at the extremely efficient and effective way in which the Dutch handle such matters, which turns asylum seekers round quickly? Will she also make sure that the immigration people, who do a good job under difficult conditions, are reinforced when pressures build up? At the moment, Air Zimbabwe flights are a source of great anxiety to them. When pinch points occur, will the hon. Lady ensure that they are reinforced?
    Angela Eagle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have visited Holland; in the European Union, we all have to learn from one another what works and what is effective. The Dutch do a good job, but not always as good as they claim. The difficulties with asylum and immigration claims are not simple, or they would have been solved a long time ago. As always, I am willing to learn from other countries what works.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about pinch points: people traffickers finding new ways in, or the situation in a particular country may lead to a particular problem or worry. I can assure him that the immigration service is geared up and quickly applies extra resources when those pinch points occur. One example is the work that we have been doing with the Czech authorities in Prague. We always bear the problem in mind and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, monitor patterns of arrival.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I welcome the proposed improvements to our asylum system and the retention of the dispersal system, which has eased things greatly in Dover and the rest of Kent. However, is the Minister aware of the high number of unaccompanied minors resident in Kent? Is she aware, for instance, that we look after, care for and protect more unaccompanied minors than any other county—and five times more than any London borough? Will she consider those matters, sit down with my local authority and find practical ways of sharing the responsibility across the country?
    Angela Eagle: We are working closely with the Local Government Association to see what can be done about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Authorities such as Kent have borne a great burden in the past, but they can now send those children to other authorities. For example, I have come across cases in which Kent has paid for accommodation for children in and around Manchester. Work is therefore already going on, but we need to get a grip on the way in which local authorities that are dealing with the interim scheme, rather than dispersal, are handling the number of children in their charge. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with the LGA to see what can be done to bring about more co-ordination.

    Young Offender Institutions
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: What action he is taking to improve conditions in young offender institutions. [21150]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes): With the creation of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales in April 2000, we are already beginning to transform conditions for young people under 18 in young offender institutions. There is also a manifesto commitment to build on the Government's youth justice reforms to improve conditions for 18 to 20-year-olds in custody. That group is already benefiting from money from the last spending review, including money for drugs treatment and offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the Prison Service has allocated a further £15 million over the next three years to improve standards in young offender institutions.
    Dr. Murrison: Sir David Ramsbotham will no doubt feel that his newspaper article today is vindicated by the complacency of the Minister's response. How many prisoners and young offenders are in overcrowded accommodation? Does the hon. Lady agree that the prison health service is a desperately failing service, and that the only way to secure decent rehabilitation is through decency in custody?
    Beverley Hughes: I do not have the figures for the proportion of young offenders being kept two to a cell designed for one, but I will write and let the hon. Gentleman have them. As for the prison health service, I know that he is new to the House, so he may not have been so aware of conditions in young offender institutions and prisons generally before he became a Member of Parliament. As a result of 18 years of Tory neglect of the Prison Service, it will take some time to improve conditions. Health provision in 1997 was dire, but we have begin to transform that. There is a new partnership between the Prison Service and the health service, and significant new money has gone into improving health care, particularly mental health care. We have a strategy for tackling the high number of suicides and cases of self-harm that took place 1997, and I am pleased to say that the number is coming down year on year. Unlike the Tory Governments of the past, the Government are implementing a commitment to decency in prison.
    Ms Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that a lack of basic skills is often a contributory cause of the social exclusion that leads to offending, and that improving skills is important in helping young people to return to a positive role in society? Will she undertake to ensure that education continues to be given a high priority for young people in young offender institutions?
    Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. Recent studies by the Youth Justice Board and Her Majesty's inspector of prisons revealed details that confirmed what we already knew impressionistically: more than a third of young offenders have a reading age of seven or lower, half are functioning below the numeracy level of a seven-year-old, and the majority were not in school before
    14
    they came into custody. We are beginning to put that right, with a new partnership with the Department for Education and Skills and a variety of educational programmes and training, to make sure that when young offenders have to be in custody, they begin to address some of the failure to achieve educationally that was a characteristic of their lives before they came into prison.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Let me remind the Minister that after nearly five years of a Labour Government, 19-year-old boys at the Feltham young offender institute are still getting less than three hours a day of purposeful activity, and are still spending 16 hours a day locked up in their cells. The Minister herself has described that as unacceptable, the head of the Prison Service has said that it is regrettable, and I think that it is utterly shameful. Is not the former chief inspector of prisons right to say that there is no direction in the Prison Service? Does the Minister accept that such uncivilised treatment of young offenders does nothing to help them become useful members of society on their release?
    Beverley Hughes: The difference between the Governments whom the hon. Gentleman supported and the present Government is that we are doing something about the situation in Feltham. His own record does not bear much scrutiny, either. Because of his day job, so to speak, he knew for many years about the situation at Feltham and other young offender institutions, and he said and did nothing about it. Furthermore, his facts are wrong. As a result of additional resources and an action plan to improve the situation at Feltham, time out of cell in Feltham B—that is, for the 18-to-20-year-olds—is up to six and three quarter hours a day on weekdays, with purposeful activity averaging more than 20 hours a week. A new regime was implemented on 2 July to take that forward. I am not saying that Feltham is as we want it to be, but it has progressed a lot further than it ever would have done under a Tory Government.

    Traffic Wardens
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: If he will extend the role of traffic wardens to include all road and car matters; and if he will make a statement. [21151]
    The Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs (Mr. John Denham): The White Paper "Policing a New Century" set out our proposals for creating community support officers who could be given road traffic powers. We will consider how police traffic wardens might most appropriately be integrated into those proposals and what additional functions they might assume in the light of responses to the White Paper. Any necessary new powers will be set out in the Police Bill.
    Mr. Wyatt: The Minister will know that in Swale we have a form of joint provision, as Kent constabulary and Swale borough council are jointly running a sort of front desk for local community policing. If he is looking for somewhere for a pilot scheme, could it be introduced in Swale? The rest of the country could then follow.
    Mr. Denham: We shall certainly be looking for progressive and far-sighted police forces and local authorities to propose initiatives that will help us to

    15
    implement the White Paper. Although final decisions have not yet been taken, it is fairly clear that a substantial number of the duties that currently tie up the time of full-time trained police officers—they include, for example, stopping the traffic so that traffic surveys can take place—could be competently done by a properly managed person with the right responsibilities. That is the sort of thing that we would be very willing to discuss with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I welcome any initiative that will increase the number of police on our streets, but does the Minister accept that traffic wardens are no substitute for properly trained police constables? Will he undertake to consider the situation in outer London boroughs such as Havering, where we have rising crime, fewer police and a yob culture? Does he not believe that we need more police to deal with that?
    Mr. Denham: That is why I am confident that in the early part of next year, we will have record numbers of police officers in England and Wales. We are on target to have 130,000 police officers in England and Wales by April 2003, so there is absolutely no doubt that the Government are committed to delivering more police officers, and are doing so throughout the country. It is also the case, however, that some jobs that currently tie up the time of professional, fully trained police officers could be done by community support officers, traffic wardens and others. We must have more police officers, but we must also make the best possible use of their time.

    Extradition
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What recent discussions he has had with other Departments about the review of the extradition System. [21152]
    The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): The interdepartmental working group that was set up to review extradition law met recently to consider the responses to the consultation on "The Law on Extradition—A Review", which were published on 24 October. The Government intend to introduce legislation to modernise and simplify our extradition laws in this parliamentary Session.
    Dr. Lewis: Given that the House of Lords European Union Committee has withheld approval of the proposed EU arrest warrant because it seriously fears that British citizens will not get a fair trial under its provisions, why was the Prime Minister in such a tearing hurry to sign up to the warrant on Friday, although only a fraction of the 32 crimes listed under it have anything whatever to do with terrorism?
    Mr. Bradley: My understanding is that the House of Lords did not take the view that the hon. Gentleman describes, and that it was on the basis of a technicality that it did not proceed with the scrutiny. As he will know, the European arrest warrant was not adopted at Laeken, and the matter will be further considered through the European Parliament.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that there are considerable
    16
    reservations about the implications of the European arrest warrant, which seems to include a list that would make people liable for the "crimes" of abortion, homosexuality—and criticising European institutions.[Laughter.] I hope that my hon. Friends will find that as funny when the warrant is put into operation. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received today a letter from his ministerial colleague saying that some of the information given to the Committee last week was inaccurate, because a retrial will not be guaranteed? If that is the case, can we please have an undertaking that Britain will not accept this very dangerous measure?
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is wrong: the proposals do not include euthanasia and abortion. I hope that when we introduce the Bill, she will consider it carefully.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Can we be clear? Do the Government intend to introduce the European arrest warrant in English law through the forthcoming Bill on extradition? If so, are they committed to ensuring that it will never be used to arrest someone for something that is not a crime in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bradley: The situation is very clear. We shall wait until the European arrest warrant has been agreed, and then we intend to introduce legislation to effect it. When we do that, the hon. Gentleman will have adequate opportunity to consider the detail.
    Mr. Letwin: I am grateful for that answer, which could be paraphrased as "No". Let me ask a second question. Are the Government committed to ensuring that the European arrest warrant is never used to arrest someone in this country to face trial in another country where there would be a presumption of guilt?
    Mr. Bradley: I am tempted by the hon. Gentleman's questions, but I stress that we need to wait until the details of the Bill are published. He will then be able to consider it fully, and I am sure that he will.

    Drug-related Crime
    10. Mr. David Chaytor: What recent advice he has given to chief constables in respect of reducing drug-related crime. [21153]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Chief constables are responsible for determining what action should be taken to reduce drug-related crime in their areas, taking account of the nature of the problem and other local circumstances. The Home Office issued advice on measures to reduce drug-related crime through a circular on the communities against drugs programme sent to chief officers in August 2001. Advice was also issued in October on the piloting and evaluation of the drug-testing provisions that the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced. General guidance on tackling drug-related crime is also available in the communities against drugs toolkit on the Home Office crime reduction website.
    Mr. Chaytor: Does the guidance specifically refer to prioritising either drug dealers or drug users? Is there a

    17
    tension for local police commanders between the need to attack the root cause of the problem by tackling drug dealers, and the need to improve their crime reduction figures? It is easier to meet crime reduction targets by dealing with drug users.
    Mr. Ainsworth: As my hon. Friend knows from my previous answer, we have repeatedly tried to ensure that priority is given to tackling class A drugs. We expect the police and the chief constables to pay the highest regard to the more serious crimes of trafficking and possession with intent to supply, rather than simply possession. Action must be proportionate. Class A drugs should be at the top of the list, and trafficking in any illegal drug is obviously far more serious than possession.

    Active Community Unit
    Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the work of his Department's active community unit. [21154]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): The Government want active, confident and self-reliant communities that are in control of their lives and well-being. To achieve that, we need to revitalise communities and build social cohesion so that everybody has a sense of belonging and
    18
    that their views matter. The active community unit, in co-operation and partnership with Whitehall and the voluntary and community sector, drives that work forward.
    Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and for attending the parliamentary youth hearings that I chaired in the House last month. I draw her attention to the views of those young people, many of whose programmes are funded by the active community unit. They said that they wanted to be involved directly in the decision making of voluntary sector, local government and central Government programmes. Does my hon. Friend agree that involving young people directly in planning and providing those services means that they will be better able to meet young people's needs? Will she promote that principle throughout Government?
    Angela Eagle: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The remarkable thing about the hearings that I attended the other day was how committed, focused and talented the young people involved were. The difference that they were making to their communities was also remarkable. Too often we see young people as a problem, but they are our future, and we need to engage them not only in the political process but in the process of building, changing and strengthening their communities. We all gain when they realise that society is made better by their own involvement.

European Council (Laeken)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the European Council which took place in Belgium on 14 and 15 December.
The fight against terrorism remains uppermost in the minds of all the members of the European Union. There remains unanimous support for the military action which has been taken in Afghanistan and a determination to continue our efforts to root out the al-Qaeda terrorist network. The recent video of bin Laden demonstrates his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt whatever. It brought home the sheer evil of bin Laden and his followers, and their sick pleasure in the murders that they have committed. I do not think that anyone can now dispute that ridding the world of the al-Qaeda terrorist network is a job that is in the interests of us all.
The European Council welcomed the Bonn agreement between the Afghan groups. It gave strong support for the deployment of an international security assistance force authorised by the United Nations Security Council, as called for by the Afghan parties in the Bonn agreement. The details of such a force must await the outcome of the meetings in Kabul between an international military team led by Major General McColl and the interim authorities in Afghanistan. But I can tell the House that Britain is willing, in principle, to lead such a force, which is likely to comprise troops from various countries, European and others.
Friday's meeting of potential troop-contributing nations was attended by a number of EU countries as well as Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Czech Republic, Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States. The British contingent is likely to be up to 1,000 to 1,500, though I stress that that has not yet been decided. We expect the resolution to be passed by the United Nations Security Council later this week. The United States has given its full help and support for the security force, and we would hope to have lead elements in place shortly.
The force was a critical part of the agreement reached in Bonn on 5 December for the establishment of a provisional Government in Afghanistan. There has been a brilliant victory over the Taliban, who have ceased to be the Afghan Government, and that, of course, is a welcome liberation, but we know that that is only the start of enabling Afghanistan to cease being a failed state and to become a responsible partner in the region. The situation in Afghanistan remains fragile; the new political process remains in its infancy. There is, therefore, an urgent need to ensure that, as the war is being won, we play our part in securing the peace.
The European Council also took stock of European security and defence policy. We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations over the full range of the so-called Petersberg tasks.
The European Council met amid continuing and appalling violence in the middle east. In our view, and that of all our partners, the only basis for durable peace in the middle east is full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security, together with the establishment
20
of a viable Palestinian state. The members of the European Council will continue to do all that they can individually and through the good offices of the Secretary-General, Javier Solana, to whom I pay tribute, to help create the circumstances in which the violence can be halted and the dialogue resumed.
The European Council's other main purpose was to prepare for discussion on the future of Europe. It now looks increasingly likely that 10 new countries will join the European Union in 2004, and we welcome that. Their accession will contribute to peace, stability and prosperity in Europe—ours as well as theirs. It is obvious, however, that the European Union cannot, with 25 and more members, work in the same way, with precisely the same constitution, as it has with 15. Decision making will need to be streamlined, and EU laws will need increasingly to take the form of framework legislation, with the details of implementation left to the member states.
It is already the task of the European Council to give strategic direction to the European Union as a whole. But carrying that strategic direction into practice will mean looking again at the size and role of the Commission, reviewing the workings of the existing presidency of the Union, which at present changes hands every six months, and managing the business of the various specialist councils in a more coherent way. That is why, at Nice a year ago, when we opened the way for enlargement, we also agreed that there had to be another intergovernmental conference in 2004, and why we are now going to set up a convention to prepare for that conference by detailed examination of all those issues.
The basic agenda for the conference was of course agreed at Nice. The sort of questions that will need to be asked are set out in the declaration of Heads of Government issued at Laeken at the weekend. That declaration, which I welcome, acknowledges not only the contribution that the European Union has made to peace, stability and prosperity in all our countries, but the extent to which it has to deliver results to the citizens of Europe on jobs, the single market, the fight against crime, a safe environment and so on.
The British view, widely shared, is that while it is right to co-operate ever more closely with our partners, democratic accountability is fundamentally and ultimately rooted in the member state. As the declaration says, what European citizens expect is
"more results, better responses to practical issues and not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life".
The Laeken declaration, and the convention, give us the opportunity to take a serious look at the division of competencies between the Union and the member states. For the first time in the Union's history, we shall be looking at the prospect of restoring some tasks to the member states. We now also have the chance to open up the European institutions to greater public scrutiny, and the role that we want to see our Parliament play in policing that process is now explicitly recognised.
The convention, which has now been established, will be chaired by the former French President, Mr. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who, when President of France, played an instrumental role in bringing the European Council into being. The convention will work for a year. Each national Parliament will have two representatives as members of the convention. The regions will be represented as

21
observers and there will be ample opportunities for views from all sections of public opinion to be fed into the proceedings.
Consultations will, of course, be held in the usual way on who the parliamentary representatives will be. The convention will present options to Heads of Government who will determine whether those options should lead to changes in the treaty. Those ultimate treaty changes will be made by unanimous agreement of the Governments concerned.
In the aftermath of 11 September, the European Council welcomed the agreement that has been reached on a European arrest warrant. We also agreed to give fresh impetus to delivering our objectives on asylum and illegal immigration. That will mean return agreements with third countries and a new agreement on handling asylum seekers, including common standards on asylum procedures and reception. We have agreed to improve co-operation on our external border controls.
Those are all areas where we need common action within Europe, and the strength of a united European approach in dealing with the rest of the world. I hope that we shall see agreements concluded in the coming year on all those points.
Once again at this Council, Britain played its full part constructively and achieved the outcome it desired. Europe faces huge challenges ahead, as it enlarges to 25 and, over time, to more than 30 countries covering territory from the Atlantic to the Black sea, with 500 million citizens in the EU. Those challenges are clear: over the completion of the single market with a single currency; over economic reform; over making European security and foreign policy work; over giving Europe the institutional framework to allow it to function effectively.
Those debates matter to Europe, but they also matter fundamentally to Britain. The days of isolationism are gone, rightly. Our role now is to be a leading partner in shaping the Europe of the future, not following reluctantly the shape moulded by others. We are playing that role now. We will continue to do so.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement on the Laeken summit and his words on the proposed United Nations peacekeeping force. If I may, I shall address the issues around peacekeeping first, as they perhaps have the most immediate significance for our troops.
The Prime Minister is right to talk about the success of the coalition against the Taliban. Events are still going on and clearly it is too early to say that the coalition has been fully successful, but so far it has been a dramatic success. Throughout, I believe rightly, we have supported the objectives laid out by the Prime Minister and by the President, and we remain committed to those objectives.
Our United States partners are cautious about deploying their troops in a peacekeeping role, as they think that that may be inconsistent with much of what they are doing in search and destroy on the ground in southern Afghanistan. The Prime Minister knows that I have deep misgivings about British deployment on a peacekeeping mission such as he described. My misgivings are based particularly on the reality that we already have troops on the ground with the Americans carrying out search and destroy against remaining elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. What concerns me and, I think, the House is that elements of
22
the Pushtun are still unhappy about the settlement, and that members of the Taliban will find an opportunity to pick a target in the peacekeeping process to get their own back.
We have a number of questions for the Prime Minister arising from those deep concerns. Will he confirm the words of his official spokesman this morning that the initial deployment of a stabilisation force could be in Kabul before Saturday? Will he confirm to the House that any hurried deployment will overlap with British forces" involvement in search and destroy missions, as I have described?
Will the Prime Minister tell the House that military support—logistical support, airlifts and air cover—that peacekeepers will receive from the United States will be substantial? There are reports that a precondition for deployment was that the force will be under overall US command. Has that now been finalised and agreed?
What conditions will be met before our troops are deployed? What particular exit strategy has been decided on? Is there a time limit for their deployment, or is that to be open-ended and the subject of future discussions about when it will end?
As so many people in Afghanistan have weapons—pretty heavy-calibre weapons at that—what assessment has been made of the equipment necessary to protect the force? It may not be right to leave troops with the minimum equipment or light equipment, such as flak jackets and personal weapons. Heavy back-up support, even at the level of artillery, may be required.
Those serious questions need to be answered; otherwise the deep misgivings that Conservative Members and many others have about the deployment will remain. Our misgivings need to be assuaged, so that we can understand more fully that our troops are not being put into situations that they will be completely unable to control.
I shall now turn to the Laeken summit, about which the Prime Minister said:
"I believe increasingly that argument is moving in our favour."
If only it were. Unfortunately for him, we can read the declaration that he signed up to. Nation states coming together for specific purposes can solve problems, but the declaration did not seem to reflect any of that. The response to 11 September was not about transnational institutions, but about the ability of free nation states to deal with specific problems. Laeken should have reflected that, and my concern is that it did not.
I shall quote from the declaration:
"Over the last ten years, construction of a political union has begun".
Furthermore, the document asks,
"How can the authority and efficiency of the European Commission be enhanced?"
Is that really what the nations and the people of Europe have been crying out for: enhanced significance and power for the Commission and deeper political union? The declaration goes on to speak of the deepening and enhancing of European foreign policy. Does the Prime Minister believe, as I do, that the argument for a deeper foreign policy falls apart when we see how he and the United States were able to deal with the problems following 11 September in giving a lead to others who otherwise would perhaps not have been anything like as supportive? Should not that freedom continue rather than be sunk into a super-European concept?

23
Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's words, the document discusses dismissively the importance of national Parliaments. It says:
"The national parliaments also contribute towards the legitimacy of the European project."
I thought they were the legitimacy of anything in Europe, rather than just contributing to it. Again, for those at Laeken the European project came first. They go on to say that they
"want to see Europe more involved in foreign affairs, security and defence".
Yet again, deeper and deeper integration.
These decisions, I think, characterise a shift towards greater central authority; but there are three particular areas in which the Prime Minister agreed to things that the British people would not have wanted had they been at the table. First, he agreed to an EU-wide arrest warrant. That has done away with the principle of habeas corpus in regard to no fewer than 32 crimes, including crimes unrecognised in British law such as the ill-defined "EU crime"—a real thought police crime which will no doubt be drummed up in the future by someone in Brussels. Then there is falsification of means of payment, and, of particular concern, xenophobia. What exactly does that mean? [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh at xenophobia, but our concerns are generous. After all, what would have happened if crimes such as xenophobia and racism had existed over the past few weeks? The Prime Minister's poor Home Secretary himself might even now be languishing in a prison in Brussels. It is very unjust.
Secondly, the Prime Minister cannot believe that he has moved the argument into a federal Europe rather than away from it in signing up to what is becoming a European constitution. "Towards a European constitution" are the words; it is not a case of whether there should be a European constitution, or whether it is relevant. The Prime Minister agreed to that in the declaration.
I remember the Prime Minister saying in Warsaw last year—yes, last year: things move on—
"in practice I suspect that, given the sheer diversity and complexity of the EU, its constitution, like the British constitution, will continue to be found in a number of different treaties, laws and precedents".
Well, the Prime Minister seems to have caved in over that. He seems to have thrown that one away in the course of his agreement at the weekend.
Not only has the Prime Minister signed up to a constitution; he has allowed the charter of fundamental rights to be made part of it. This is the charter that he and his colleagues assured us would have no more legal weight than the Beano. Is it really the charter that he is now allowing to go into the constitution?
Thirdly, there is the creation of the European security and defence policy, better known as the Euro army. If anything is more meaningless than that, it is the fact that at this time, after 11 September—given the lack of any significant EU response to those troubles, in many senses—the Prime Minister has gone ahead and agreed to further and deeper powers and control over defence at a European level. That will add absolutely nothing to the process of defending us against the evils that exist around the world, and will add everything to the lessening of our ability to do so by weakening NATO. What a time to agree to that! What a pointless exercise.
24
We witnessed an unedifying spectacle at the end. The only time the leaders gathered around the table became really exercised and excited was when it came to carving up the agencies that would go to their various countries. There were rows about what they would get—whether they would get enough—and disagreements over whether Parma ham looked better than Swedish women. That was what exercised the whole institution. How ridiculous! [Interruption.] It is all here. For the first time we have broken the code of secrecy applying to such debates, and can see what each leader was horse trading for. They were all rowing about ridiculous issues such as whether their countries should get 19 people or 1,000.
One issue that was never addressed was Ireland's veto over the Nice treaty. We still cannot go ahead with the treaty, because Ireland has rejected it. No doubt the Government will acquiesce in a drive to bully it into ensuring that it gets the vote right the second time, as ever.
As the Prime Minister said, the future of Europe does matter: it matters immensely. The Prime Minister has agreed to the establishment of a convention that is supposed to involve a balance of agreement about where we are going on Europe. Will he now say whom he intends to put on that body, from the national Parliament? We have already heard that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) will be part of the praesidium, as they call it; and I read today that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) might be on it. There seems to be no end of attempts to find a job for the right hon. Member for Hartlepool. Two weeks ago, he was going to be Mayor of London; now he will be on the praesidium in Europe. Is the Prime Minister prepared to open up the debate by offering such a post to somebody from the Conservative party, who would have a different view? [Interruption.] I challenge the Prime Minister: he says that he wants a decentralised Europe, so is he prepared to appoint to the praesidium somebody from the Conservative party who has a different view of the direction that we should take? If not, we know very well that he has no intention of seeing any change.
The Laeken Council was about a greater move towards a European state. I am reminded of the words of Humpty Dumpty.
"When I use a word,"
he said,
"it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less … The question is … which is to be master—that's all."
Over the weekend, we learned that the Prime Minister acquiesced, once and for all, in making the master of this process Europe, not the nation state.
The Prime Minister: May I deal first with the issues arising from the deployment of British troops as part of the peacekeeping force in Kabul? Although the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks are perfectly reasonable—they are the obvious questions that we are in the course of answering—I very much hope that the Conservatives will support the deployment of British troops in the peacekeeping force, provided that those questions can be properly answered.
We have been looking at undertaking the mission at the direct request not only of the United Nations but of the United States. Of course, we have to make sure that our troops go to Kabul under proper conditions; that is

25
precisely what we are doing now. However, it would be very unfortunate if we walked away from the situation, having achieved so much, and given that the peacekeeping or security force in Kabul is vital in allowing the provisional Government to exist, to prosper and to start putting Afghanistan back on its feet. If the international community walks away from Afghanistan now, it will make exactly the same mistake that the west made 10 or 12 years ago, when it left Afghanistan to become, as it did, a failed state.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's points, the United States has made it clear that it will offer full logistical support, including air cover support. A specific time limit has not yet been decided, but people are talking of several months, so British forces would not be in the country on a long-term basis; they would simply get the security force going. That force will, of course, have all the equipment that it needs to do its job properly.
There was talk this morning about when we can put people into place. That depends on the agreements being tied down, but lead elements may be in place by 22 December, when the provisional Government begin their work. Of course, there is no question of the full force being in place by 22 December; it will take far longer to put that together. I hope that, once those questions are answered, the right hon. Gentleman will give the mission his support, because it is important and because we as a nation are best placed to give that leadership, which is why we have been asked to do so.
I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's questions about Europe in turn, if I may. He claims that the very talk of political union in Europe is beyond the pale. I have to point out to him that virtually every European treaty over the past two decades has talked about ever-closer union in Europe. He seems to think that there is something objectionable about even asking whether the Commission's power should be enhanced. That is one of several questions that will, of course, be raised during this debate. Another asks whether the European Council's power will be enhanced.
Mr. Duncan Smith: How?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks how. That is one of the very issues to be debated in the course of the work on the convention.
In what I thought was a curious point, the right hon. Gentleman said that national Parliaments were somehow to be downgraded or that the claim that they merely contribute to European politics downgraded them. The fact is that, for the first time, Europe is looking actively at involving national Parliaments in the decision-making process, which is extremely important.
I find the Conservatives" opposition to the European arrest warrant absolutely extraordinary. For a start, the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman are included in about 30 elements that will be defined specifically when we come to debate the matter in the House. Basically, however, this country has everything to gain from the European arrest warrant. At the moment, we are seeking people abroad for serious crimes such as drug trafficking, organised crime and serious sexual offences. We have an objective need to get these people extradited quickly. At the moment, it takes, on average, roughly 10 months to extradite them. Some have had extradition warrants
26
outstanding against them for several years. It is therefore vital for proper law enforcement here that we make sure that those people can be extradited properly.
I do not understand the distinctions that the right hon. Gentleman was making. I think it a little unlikely that, in respect of xenophobia, he or anyone else is going to be extradited to any European country, no matter what he says. For a start, they probably would not want him.
It is absolutely extraordinary that the Conservatives should say that they are against the very concept of a European constitution when we already have in European treaties things that are set out concerning the relationships between members states of the Union. Surely it is entirely sensible to try to codify those and bring them into a proper and disciplined method that is simpler and easier to understand, allowing us for the first time to look at the competencies between the EU and the member states.
The right hon. Gentleman then went into his normal position on the European security and defence policy. He seemed to think that, somehow, agreeing to this would mean that our freedom to act as we have done after 11 September would be curtailed. That is the usual Conservative nonsense. There is absolutely nothing whatever in the European security and defence policy that would prevent us from acting in precisely the same way as we acted after 11 September.
Mr. Michael Ancram: What does it mean?
The Prime Minister: I say to the shadow Foreign Secretary, it means this: it means that Europe should have the capability, if each individual country desires it to be so, to take part in peacekeeping operations—as we are doing now in Macedonia, in a way that is preventing civil war in that place and in the wider Balkans. Quite why the Conservative party should be against that, I do not know, but it is part of their usual European business.
I do not know whether the saddest thing about the end of what the right hon. Gentleman said was what he said or the support that he got from his Back Benches for saying it. I say to the Conservative party that, at some point, it will have to come back to its senses on Europe.
Let me give a classic example of what this country's diplomacy would be returned to were the Conservative party, in its present state, in government. There was a meeting of Conservative party leaders on Thursday night, which the right hon. Gentleman attended. One of the other Conservative leaders at the European summit described the meeting with the right hon. Gentleman—the first they had had—as "curious". He said that the right hon. Gentleman turned up for the first time with an eight-page letter—not written in green ink, at least—making a series of demands upon the European Conservative group. The right hon. Gentleman asked that those demands be accepted. They told him no. He asked to be able to raise them again in six months. They said that he could raise them as many times as he wanted. The right hon. Gentleman then left the meeting.
If we went back to that method of proceeding, this country would be where we found it in May 1997—isolated, marginalised and without any proper influence at all. On the issues concerning the future of Europe—economic reform, the single market, the institutional future of Europe, how we create the right security and

27
foreign policy for Europe in the future—Europe needs Britain to be engaged and Britain needs to have influence in Europe.
If we went back to those days, it might satisfy some of the extremists in the Conservative party whose main motivation in politics now seems to be anti-Europeanism. But it would be a disaster for the proper interests of this country. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that his party will hopefully at some point come back to a realistic and sensible position on Europe. Until it does, frankly the Conservative party is barely qualified as an Opposition, never mind a Government.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: In welcoming the Prime Minister's statement and the outcome of the summit, I wish to point initially to the fact that too many of the European Union's detractors over the years have been able to make their cases precisely because it has not had an adequately defined constitutional settlement for the member states. The work that will now be undertaken on that matter is therefore to be welcomed. We will end up with a document that sets out what the EU should be doing and what it should not get involved in. Any sensible, candid friend of Europe—in this party, we are certainly that—would give a broad measure of welcome to such a development.
The need for such a development is underpinned by what the Prime Minister said about the process of enlargement. Those of us who were Members of Parliament a decade or so ago and remember that Monday afternoon after the weekend the Berlin wall came down—and the huge sense of political liberation that accompanied it—will remember that all the talk was of enlargement, but a decade later, the over-ossified structures have not yet enabled so many of the aspirant states to join. Something that will assist progress in that matter is to be welcomed.
As the Prime Minister acknowledged, that progress must also be accompanied by changes in our internal procedures here. Last week, the Leader of the House published modernisation proposals for the House to discuss. I commend to the Prime Minister an idea that does not appear in those proposals but on which we as a Parliament should reflect, and that is the need for more effective scrutiny on the Floor of the House of the monumental amount of legislation from Europe, which many of us have felt has never been adequately scrutinised. Is that something that the Prime Minister wishes to consider?
It is surely welcome that more priority will be given to openness. It is a sobering thought that the Council of Ministers is one of only three legislatures in the entire world to legislate in private, the other two being Cuba and North Korea. That is not something that Europe should seek to emulate much longer.
On Afghanistan, I wish to question the Prime Minister a little more about the extent of the mandate and, in particular, the nature of the rules of engagement for any British troops. How robust will the latter be? For example, will our troops be able only to defend themselves, or will they be proactive and able to intervene if a violation of human rights occurs? If our troops are committed to peacekeeping services in Afghanistan, does that rule out any future British involvement in, say, Iraq if the Americans decide to take that route?
28
Could the Prime Minister modify his over-caution on the euro by giving the House a clearer idea of any possible time scale vis-à-vis a referendum? Does he agree that in opening up the institutions of Europe, and the European Council in particular, we should apply what we applied to ourselves some years ago, and allow those proceedings to be seen in public?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not wish to say anything on the single currency other than what I have said many times before. The tests have to be met, and that is the position.
The UN mandate will be on a chapter 7 basis. The rules of engagement still have to be finalised, and they will need careful consideration to ensure that our troops are properly protected at all times. The Modernisation Committee will consider any proposals that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to submit on the scrutiny of European legislation. On the issue of enlargement and the simplification of the treaties, if the EU expanded from 15 to 25 or, in the end, to 30, it would obviously be necessary to simplify and change the process of decision making, which is one reason why the Conservative party's position is so ridiculous. That has to happen; otherwise Europe would be unable to take the necessary decisions.
Europe is trying to codify in a constitution exactly what the basic competencies of member states and the European Union are precisely because we need the right framework to develop in future.
As ever, the Conservative party asks completely the wrong question. The issue is not whether we have a constitution—we already have one through the treaty of Rome and other treaties. The issue is what should go into a constitution. That is where our main effort should be made. Rather than saying that we want nothing to do with the process simply because it is discussing the constitution, we should be focusing attention on how we manage to ensure that the constitution is drawn up in exactly the way that we want. We want a European Union of co-operating member states, not a federal superstate. The language of the Laeken declaration makes it clear that we are not going down the path towards a federal superstate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Rather than listening to the Liberal Democrats squawking about the euro, the Prime Minister should remember that if it is a good idea to allow nation states to have more power, there is no point in having a single currency covering 25 different currencies. It will not be a good idea to rush into the euro. Even if he succeeds in deciding that we enter, at the right time, and after a referendum of the people, that decision would have a damaging effect at any forthcoming general election. Many Labour Members will gladly travel down that road, but I think that it is very dangerous indeed.
The Prime Minister: There are two positions on the euro—indeed, there are more than two positions, but there are certainly the two positions that my hon. Friend mentioned. We are doing the right thing by saying that it is, in principle, sensible for Britain to join a successful single currency, but that, in practice, the economic tests must be met. The euro will be a reality in the European Union in a very short time when the notes and coins physically come into being. It would be foolish to take the position of the Conservative party and say that we

29
should have nothing to do with the euro, that we should not even prepare for it and that never will Britain join. That foolish position might gain support in certain quarters, but it is not in the interests of the country.
Mr.Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister has come a long way since he stood on a manifesto in 1983 that offered to take us out of the European Union. That said, he is absolutely right that if we are in Europe, it must work effectively. Does he agree that when the Commission acts to uphold free trade in the single market, it acts in the British national interest? Does he agree that it therefore needs to be made more authoritative and that we need to know how it is controlled?
Does the Prime Minister also agree that the European Court of Justice, in enforcing decisions made by Ministers, is acting in the British national interest? Does he further agree that the Petersberg tasks in defence, which were agreed by Conservatives, are vital to Europe's interest and that it is therefore essential that Europe has a role in proceeding with them as part of a wider NATO commitment. On all those things, will the Prime Minister continue to raise his voice in Europe? We are in Europe, and we shall be run by Europe only if we do not use our influence in the sort of discussion that will culminate in the intergovernmental conference of 2004.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Labour party has travelled a certain distance on Europe since 1983. I regret to say that his party has travelled a certain distance too, but in the opposite direction. [Interruption.] Well, look where it got us is all I can say to that.
On Court decisions and so on, the hon. Gentleman is right. It would not be possible for us to enforce our will on issues relating to the single market without the Commission and the Court acting in our national interest. The hon. Gentleman was also right to say that the European common defence policy was started under the previous Government. That was a classic example of a debate that, when we came to office, was proceeding without much British influence. Britain has since successfully shaped that policy to include two very important safeguards. First, it applies where NATO as a whole does not wish to be engaged.
Mr. Ancram: That is not true.
The Prime Minister: Secondly, there is not a standing army.
Mr. William Cash: Not true.
The Prime Minister: They keep saying that it is not true, but I can absolutely assure them that that is the precise position. The policy applies only where NATO as a whole does not want to be engaged. That is what the Council conclusions say.
Secondly, only in respect of each operation do we have to agree before our troops are used, so the policy is not a European standing army—it never has been and no one has ever wanted it to be. It is, however, for Europe to have the capability—where America, for example, does not want to be engaged—to undertake peacekeeping and
30
humanitarian tasks. We can see from what happened in Bosnia in the early 1990s, for example, and from what happened recently in Macedonia how vital it is to have that additional string to our bow.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: What action is the Prime Minister urging Europe to take to reduce the flow of financial and other support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad—terrorist organisations dedicated to ensuring that there is never peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of how support gets to terrorist groups—Palestinian or others—wherever they may be. During the past few weeks, the European Union has, of course, agreed further financial regulation provisions on issues such as money laundering, in order to ensure that we cut off the sources of funding for those groups. Part of the problem is that they have been extremely well financed during the past few years. We have to ensure that those sources of finance are dried up.
Sir Michael Spicer: As the Prime Minister has given way at Laeken on almost everything that matters, how can we trust what he says about "Corpus Juris"?
The Prime Minister: First, we have not given away what is in this country's interest. In the end, on all these issues, we have to ensure that we go in and argue our case. When the European Union enlarges to 25 members, it is inevitable that we shall have to change the method of proceeding. We will not be able to be in a situation where, for example—
Sir Michael Spicer: What about "Corpus Juris'?
The Prime Minister: I am coming to that in a moment. We shall not be in the situation where, for example, there is a rotating presidency every six months. We shall have to change the way in which we work. At present, the Council meetings are not properly—
Sir Michael Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman gave way.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: We are engaging in a debate. As for "Corpus Juris', again we have not given away anything. In respect of the debates in Europe, we have to make our views known.
I support the European arrest warrant. It allows us to get back from abroad criminals who have committed offences in this country and then fled abroad: literally scores of them are living in European countries. It takes us years to get them back and it is only today's Conservative party that could oppose such a thing.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Does the proposal for an intergovernmental conference responding to the enlargement of the European Union and the preparatory convention chaired by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing imply that the treaty of Nice is, in essence, an interim measure?
The Prime Minister: No, it does not imply that, because the treaty of Nice said in terms that there should

31
be an intergovernmental conference in 2004. It shows that there are two stages. First, certain changes were agreed at Nice in relation to, for example, the voting rights of the applicant countries. Then, there were a series of things that we agreed could not be decided at Nice but which needed a longer period of consideration, because the applicant countries will not come in immediately. That is the purpose of the intergovernmental conference. There are really two blocks of things. There are things such as voting rights and so on—the precise conditions under which applicant countries would come in. Secondly, there are the internal workings of the European Union itself—that is what the intergovernmental conference will consider.
Mr. John Wilkinson: How can the Prime Minister claim that the European Union has yet to deliver results? Is not it the case that most of British agriculture is almost bankrupt as a consequence of the common agricultural policy and that we pay some of the highest food prices in the world? Is not it the case that the British fishing industry has been decimated through the common fisheries policy? As for the commitment in Afghanistan, is not that posturing—an attempt to get into the victory chariot when most of the fighting is over? Are not British troops going to be there for an inordinately long time, for no clearly defined political purpose and at great risk to themselves?
The Prime Minister: As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the reason that the issue of a security force is raised in respect of Afghanistan is that it was part of the agreement for the political future of that country—concluded by all the parties in Bonn. It will be a real shame if the Conservative party now sets its face against supporting such a force.
Britain is talked of as the lead nation because it was specifically asked by both the United Nations and the United States to take on this role. The reason why it is important—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is saying that the United States does not support Britain's role in this matter, he is simply wrong, and he will have been told that when he was in Washington.
I agree that the European Union, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy need fundamental reform, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would find much support among, for example, the British farming community for unilateral withdrawal from the CAP. What we need are major changes to it. Again, we will get those changes only if we are inside Europe, arguing our case.
Ms Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister mentioned preparations for the IGC in 2004 and the convention. Will he say more on what role the accession states will have in discussions leading up to the convention, as it may involve some treaty changes that will affect them?
The Prime Minister: They will be fully involved in the convention. They will have the right to be there and to make the points that they wish. That is a very important element. The accession, applicant countries have a deep
32
interest in the matter. The proposals made at Laeken for their involvement were broadly and widely welcomed by the applicant countries in the course of our meeting.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Although the emphasis on enlargement is indeed welcome, will the Prime Minister comment on the following concerns? First, if we are really to take all 10 applicant countries into the Union in two years" time, or just over that, will that not require for some, though not all, intensive and indeed expensive care and maintenance to ensure the stability of their economies? Secondly, will he ensure that there is no distraction from the task of making sure that the single market works effectively, of which we have had a conspicuous counter-example, which has been resolved in the European Court this week? It is essential that we keep on the pressure to consolidate the single market.
Thirdly—this is my real concern—the Prime Minister has spoken a number of times about decision making and said that it must be streamlined. Does he understand that there are concerns that we will not be faced with streamlining as much as steamrollering of essential national interests?
The Prime Minister: In relation to the 10 applicant countries, the hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that enlargement is a very big thing to happen in the European Union. There are, however, phasing arrangements for many of the most critical aspects, and I think that that will be of some assistance.
On the European Court and the completion of the single market, it is vital that the Court has the powers that it has and that, where its decisions go against particular countries, they are enforced by the Commission—as, for example, they will be in respect of France and the ban on British beef.
As for, as it were, streamlining versus steamrollering, what is clear is that there are two different views on how Europe should develop. One view is that, in effect, it should develop into a situation in which the Commission has very much more power and the European Parliament is the fount of democracy in the EU—a view shared by some countries. There is an equally strong view—I would say now predominantly rather stronger—that that is not the right way for Europe to go, and that, in fact democratic legitimacy is rooted in the member state.
That is a debate in Europe, and a very strongly fought one. My point is simply that the most important thing is that we end up ensuring that we are in Europe, fighting our corner, rather than retreating to the sidelines and saying that we are so scared of the debate taking place that we, Britain, do not believe that we can have any influence on it. In fact, we have been able on, for example, the issues of economic reform or European defence to secure many of our objectives precisely because we have been willing to be involved rather than marginalised. I am sure that in the end, as indeed the previous Conservative Government did with the single market, that is the right approach.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome enlargement in terms of the number of countries and the timetable. I hope that we will be in a position in three years" time to go some major way towards making Europe a safer place for future generations than it was for past

33
generations. The accession of Bulgaria will rely not only on the Bulgarian economy, but on the regeneration of the Balkan economy. Are improvements in that region likely in forthcoming years?
The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend takes an interest in that area. We commend the improvements and progress made in Bulgaria. He is right to say that regeneration in the Balkans will be important to the stability of Bulgaria, Romania and other countries in the region. What is interesting about all the Balkan countries is that the prospect of EU membership has become a major focus for democratic and economic progress. People sometimes ask what good has come out of Europe in the past 50 years. Peace and prosperity are two pretty good results; furthermore, many of the nations in the most troubled parts of the European continent are not anxious to stay out of the European Union, but are desperate to get in.
Angus Robertson: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to confirm that he will not allow the full direct representation of the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Parliaments or Administrations as part of the UK delegation to the convention? Will he explain to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland why he thinks we are not good enough to attend in our own right, unlike the German Bundesländer?
The Prime Minister: Relations and representation will be precisely the same as for the German Länder, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
Andrew Mackinlay: May I take the Prime Minister to a narrow point relating to the appointment of parliamentarians to the convention? Does he agree that who is to represent Parliament is his business as a Member of Parliament, not as Prime Minister? Is not the question of who should represent us a matter for Parliament? Should not both the seats be for the House of Commons—the elected House—with the other place losing out? Will he give an assurance that the decision will be made by the House? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) and for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson)—and others, no doubt—have already been mentioned as possible candidates. We in this place should elect our representatives. The Prime Minister is represented at the convention as Government; we want our slice of the action to be directed by the House and not influenced by either Front Bench.
The Prime Minister: We shall certainly consult very closely on the proper arrangements.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I return the Prime Minister to the important question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the danger of confusion of British troops" roles in carrying out two separate tasks in Afghanistan? Does he understand that there is great concern, not confined to those of us who have served with United Nations peacekeeping forces, about the potentially greatly enhanced danger of British troops being
34
engaged in peacekeeping operations in the same theatre as they are involved in offensive search-and-destroy operations?
The Prime Minister: Of course—it is precisely for that reason that we must tie down carefully the arrangements for Britain to participate in the peacekeeping mission in Kabul. The force is there, in effect, as a security assistance force for the new provisional Government. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the arrangements under which our forces participate will take full account of the issue he raises. However, to return to the point I made when answering the Leader of the Opposition, it would be unfortunate were we not to participate at all. The reason why we have not been giving all the details since the issue was raised some days ago is that those details are important and must be tightly bolted down before we give our consent to be the lead nation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are currently addressing precisely those issues.
Roger Casale: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that many Europeans will be looking to him and to other European leaders to bring the same dedication and leadership to a new international initiative aimed at retrieving the peace process in the middle east as they have shown in the international fight against terrorism? Does he agree that while it is right to condemn unreservedly the terrorist attacks on Israel and to call on Yasser Arafat to dismantle Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad networks, European leaders should also be calling on Israel to stop short of destroying the Palestinian Authority altogether, because without a Palestinian Authority there can be no peace process at all?
The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that anything that weakens the ability of the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism is a retrograde step. However, it is important that we balance the calls that we make upon Israel with strong calls in respect of the Palestinian Authority, too. We cannot continue with a situation in which, literally week by week, there are appalling suicide bombings and terrorist outrages. We know in the House how we felt after the worst outrages of, first, the IRA and then things such as the Omagh bomb of three years ago: imagine if that were happening in this country literally every week or two weeks. People should have some understanding that that is the background against which Israel is acting.
It is important to get initial security steps in place and then return to a process. In the. end, it is only through the political process that any of these difficult issues will be resolved.
Mr. John Redwood: Does the Prime Minister agree that an elected President of the EU would be incompatible with the sort of vision that he has set out of co-operating, independent democratic states in the EU, or has the Chancellor persuaded him that it could be an exciting vacancy for a man of his talents?
The Prime Minister: I am not in favour of a directly elected President of the European Commission, but that is exactly the type of argument that will be fought out over the next two or three years. Some people will say that all the power should be put into the hands of the Commission

35
and the European Parliament; others, such as ourselves, will say that the Commission must retain its independent right of initiative, but that we must consider how we strengthen the workings of, for example, the European Council and make it more effective, and how we deal with the issue of a rotating six-monthly presidency—a procedure that cannot be maintained in an enlarged European Union.
It is important to get into those arguments, participate in them and attempt to succeed in them. The trouble is, as the right hon. Gentleman's leader found when he went to the leaders" meeting in Laeken, that if the Conservatives are completely isolated—[Interruption.] The idea that the other Conservative leaders in Europe agreed with the British Conservative party is laughable. Over the past few days we have had a good example of the diplomatic position of the Conservative party, which ends in basic humiliation and failure. Our diplomatic position has secured all the objectives that we sought.
Mr. John McFall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality of economic and monetary union will be brought home in the United Kingdom in two weeks" time by the circulation of euro notes and coins? People will be able to go into their local Dixons to buy a television set with euro notes and coins and to buy a pint in JD Wetherspoon on the same basis. That may not change the attitude of the owners, but perhaps the attitude of the people will be changed. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the European Central Bank misses the democratic accountability element? That is an important aspect if we are to bring the Union much closer to the people of the European Union.
The Prime Minister: It is important that the people understand that in a couple of weeks" time euro notes and coins will be in circulation; twelve of the 15 European Union member states will be using that currency. It is also important for British companies and British firms here, many of which will be trading in euros or using the euro in one form or another, even though Britain is outside the single currency zone. It is extremely important that we do not take the position of sticking our head in the sand and pretending that it will all go away. It is a reality, and in two weeks" time it will be an even greater reality.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Prime Minister say which specific European competencies he wishes to see repatriated to national Governments, and do they include agriculture?
The Prime Minister: No, I think that, over a period, we should analyse carefully all the various competencies. We should decide on those things where Europe may, for example, want to integrate more and those that it wants to repatriate to member states. I do not think that it would be sensible for us to tie our hands at this juncture.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I assure the Prime Minister that he has the support of all Labour Members for saying that he will not turn his back on the people of Afghanistan? He will be aware that the World Food Programme has estimated that as many as 3 million people may have been displaced because of the military
36
action and for other reasons, and that camp Maslakh may be housing nearly 800,000 people in desperate circumstances. Even worse, in the remote rural areas, it is now being reported that some people have already died as a result of cold or hunger. Did the Council discuss ways to get emergency aid in, and will the Secretary of State for International Development make a statement on the position before the Christmas recess?
The Prime Minister: I do not know the precise arrangements that the Secretary of State for International Development may be making, so I am afraid I cannot comment on that, although I will find out and let my hon. Friend know. She is right to say that humanitarian aid is extremely important. Of course, the only reason that we can get that aid through now is that the Taliban stranglehold on many parts of Afghanistan has been broken.
Finally, my hon. Friend is right; we will not turn our back on Afghanistan because it is right to remain engaged—we promised that we would do so—and if we do not, Afghanistan may return to the failed state in which we found it after 11 September. The truth of the matter is that it was a state existing basically on terrorism and drugs, which subjected its people to vile oppression and was a source of instability in its own region and wider. For us to remain engaged in the reconstruction of Afghanistan is not merely right—it is manifestly in our interest.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the summit written conclusions and the declaration are littered with references to the need to cut red tape and reduce labour market regulation but that, simultaneously, the European Union has signed up to the information and consultation directive, which will add red tape and extra labour market regulation? How can he and the European Union be taken seriously when the European Union continues to say one thing in those bits of paper while simultaneously doing something different?
The Prime Minister: In respect of the information and consultation directive, I do not accept that every single piece of European legislation is wrong. Indeed, it is not wrong in my view to make sure that people are properly consulted as a work force. In respect of the attitude of the European Union and how much it legislates and how much it does not, it is worth pointing out that that concern is raised in all member states. The European Union declaration makes it clear that that issue has to be on the agenda, but it is more than simply on the agenda in theory: the recent Mandelkern report was endorsed by European Union leaders and, if implemented, it will mean a much greater number of decisions at European Union level will be taken in principle but implemented in the way in which member states want.
I do not dispute the fact that there is an issue and a problem but, again, the body of opinion in Europe is moving towards an easier and lighter-touch process rather than the heavy-handed regulation that perhaps we had in the past. At least the right hon. Gentleman has read the conclusions and the declaration, but he will find that many of the statements in the Laeken declaration tie in with many of people's legitimate fears about the encroaching power of the European Union. I therefore hope that, in some senses, it is welcomed by Conservative Members.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many millions of people are

37
still rightly anxious about what they perceive as Brussels interfering in the nooks and crannies of British life and that many individuals, including some Opposition Members, rightly need reassurance about a European superstate not being on the agenda? Does he accept that one of the best ways of providing that is to state clearly and baldly in a European constitution that nation states have their rights, and clearly define those rights and the concept of subsidiarity in the constitution? Does he not agree that Opposition Members do not fear a superstate or intervention in nooks and crannies as much they fear clarity?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that they are just anti-Europe. It is as simple as that. The point that my hon. Friend makes is true. Part of the purpose of the declaration is to make sure that on issues of subsidiarity, we achieve clarity. That is important. The declaration, which was agreed by every one of the member states, states in clear language that they do not want a European superstate. A few years ago, voices would probably have been raised in protest against that.
I draw attention to the recent statements made in front of the French Parliament by Mr. Giscard d'Estaing on the same subject. There is a general view in Europe that as member states move together on certain matters, it is important that they decide not to go into other areas, and even to push back power in certain areas. That closer co-operation must be based on co-operation between member states, rather than on the obliteration of national identity.
The idea that a country such as France has lost its national identity is absurd. The countries of Europe are proud of their national identity. The idea that Poland, for example, which wants to come into the European Union, is not proud of Poland and Polish national identity is absurd. We—or rather, the Conservative party—must escape from that ideological straitjacket; otherwise we will be unable to protect the British national interest, which requires us to be engaged.
The British Conservative party is virtually alone of all Conservative parties in Europe in its views, so much so that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) must write to them pleading to be allowed a different set of rules from Conservative parties elsewhere in Europe. That is an indication of how far away the Conservative party is from a realistic view of how people are living and working in the Europe of today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the main business.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I intend to begin by setting out what the Bill does. I shall then explain the political context for the Bill and why it is necessary to introduce it at this time.
  The Bill extends the maximum length of the period during which legal immunity may be provided in implementing a decommissioning scheme. It does so by amending section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. Under that Act, the power to provide legal immunity expires on 27 February next year. Clause 1(2) initially extends the maximum period during which legal immunity may be provided until midnight on 26 February 2003. In other words, by today's proceedings the period will be extended by 12 months.
  Under the 1997 Act, the Secretary of State has the power by order further to extend the relevant period. Such an extension may not run for more than 12 months after the order is made, or five years after the 1997 Act was passed. Subsection (3) does not affect the former condition: each order would still be subject to a maximum duration of 12 months and require parliamentary approval by affirmative resolution. However, it substitutes 27 February 2007 for the five-year period.
  Subsection (4) provides for retrospective effect, if necessary. That means that anything done in accordance with a decommissioning scheme, even if the Bill is not enacted by 26 February next, will, once the Bill is enacted, fall within the legal immunity provided for by the 1997 Act. In short, the Bill extends the existing arrangements for one further year, with the possibility of further extensions, subject always to the approval of this House.
  The background to today's proceedings will be well known to some of the participants who are present. Just over five years ago, when the now Lord Mayhew introduced the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill to the House, he observed that, in a democracy, politics and violence do not mix. I agree with that view and I assume that everyone else in the House agrees with it. We all know that in Northern Ireland, we are dealing with a peace, a process and a democracy that are all imperfect by those standards. That is perhaps an inevitable price of the transition from decades of conflict to a normal society. But no democracy can indefinitely tolerate the existence of private armies. No Government can allow people to advance their political objectives, however legitimate they may be in themselves, by the use or threat of violence.
  An integral part of the peace process has been to convince those who were previously wedded to violence, including those brought up in the traditions of physical

  39
  force republicanism, that there is another, better way in which they can pursue their political goals. Many of those so involved learned years ago that they could not achieve their ends by violence alone. It has inevitably been a more difficult challenge to get them all to accept unequivocally that bombs and bullets have absolutely no contribution to make to the work of a truly democratic movement. Indeed, violence is a self-defeating exercise even by the standards of the objectives that some of these movements proclaim, because so long as the use or threat of violence continues, it must follow that violence and the necessary response of society to it are the biggest obstacle to achieving a normal, open and democratic society—the very objective that those using violence so often claim to be pursuing.
  It will therefore come as no surprise to anyone in the House that there is still a great deal to be done and more progress to be made, but it is worth reminding ourselves of what has been achieved. In recent years, the political landscape in Northern Ireland has changed beyond recognition. Huge strides have been made on the implementation of all aspects of the Belfast agreement and in improving the daily life of everyone in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have agreed with almost everything that the Secretary of State has said so far. However, his speech would have been marvellous four and a half years ago, when the Belfast agreement was secured. The agreement stated specifically that all paramilitary arms would have to be decommissioned within two years. However, after two years, plus another two years, plus six months, he is now saying that we will give the paramilitaries another year and perhaps another four years. What is going on?
  Dr. Reid: If the hon. Gentleman was being absolutely honest with the House, he would have read out the words precisely before those to which he referred, which dealt with a commitment by all the parties to use all their influence to see that all arms were put beyond use within two years. We have clearly not achieved that deadline. Nor did we achieve the deadline of June last year, which was given subsequently, and it seems to me likely that we will not achieve that of 26 February next year. That suggests that deadlines in themselves do not always achieve the objectives that they are meant to achieve. I shall return to that point later.
  Mr. David Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way on an important point. As he pointed out, the agreement set a target date of 26 May 2000 for the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. Early in May 2000, the Government, with the consent of the other parties, substituted a fresh target date of June 2001. That has now passed. Under what target date are the Government operating for the full implementation of the agreement? Have they abandoned its full implementation as a target?
  Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I shall deal with that exact point later in my speech. I shall comment on deadlines, target dates and the extension that I have already mentioned. Today's action
  40
  means that we shall debate the matter not at the end of five years, but one year after the extension for which the Bill provides.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Clearly, we are considering a difficult issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that the one example of proper decommissioning by the IRA resulted from a deadline and massive international and national pressure? As he acknowledged, we must build on that if the peace process is to continue. Yet does not the Bill give the opposite signal—that decommissioning can be deferred indefinitely? It means reverting to quiescence, which, although one might hope that it would lead to decommissioning, has led to nothing in the past.
  Dr. Reid: Several factors led to the act of decommissioning, but I do not believe that the pressure of a 26 February deadline was one of them. Pressure came from several sources, which may have included 11 September, the persistent application of pressure by Governments here, in Ireland and in the United States, and the resignation of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). In my view, the most important factor, and the most important sanction on those engaged in the process, is the possibility of its failure. Such failure is almost beyond imagination for all of us who are involved in it, including those who have embarked on moving away from conflict to dialogue.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Let me take the Secretary of State back to an important point. He rightly cited the Belfast agreement as placing an obligation on the parties to decommission completely in two years. Does he accept that Sinn Fein-IRA was one party or does he buy into the fiction that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate organisations?
  Dr. Reid: No. Obviously Sinn Fein was a signatory to the Belfast agreement, and the hon. Gentleman knows that the IRA was not. Sinn Fein therefore committed itself to using all its power and influence to achieve decommissioning.
  Mr. Davies: So the right hon. Gentleman accepts the fiction that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate organisations, which make decisions separately and can be regarded as separate for the purpose of the Belfast agreement?
  Dr. Reid: I do not accept that every member of Sinn Fein is a member of the IRA or that they are completely identical. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] With respect, that was the question. The hon. Gentleman appears to insist that the obvious relationship between them means that they must be identical in all ways. I do not accept that.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way yet again. He is at odds with the Prime Minister, who said at Balmoral on 14 May 1998:
  "we know that for example Sinn Fein and the IRA remain inextricably linked".
  Dr. Reid: The Labour party and the trade union movement are inextricably linked but they are not identical.
  David Burnside rose—
  Dr. Reid: There is nothing incompatible between my comments and those of the Prime Minister, and if—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) must not remain on his feet when the Secretary of State is responding to an earlier intervention. He must wait until the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with that.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is keen to catch my eye, but I assure him that I would not be discourteous enough to miss him, especially in the position that he has been in for the last minute or so.
  I would say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that, of course, all of us recognise that there is an inextricable link between Sinn Fein and the IRA, but that is not what he asked me. He asked me whether they were identical organisations. Plainly, anyone who knows anything about the matter understands that they are not, any more than the trade union movement and the Labour party are absolutely the same. If he thinks that the only analysis can be complete identity or complete separation between the two organisations, he does not understand—indeed, he underestimates—the sophistication of the opponents that he is trying to deal with.
  David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a single leadership in Sinn Fein-IRA, which is personified at the top by Martin McGuinness being chief of staff of the army council of the Provisional IRA?
  Dr. Reid: I have no information that Mr. McGuinness is chief of staff of the army council of the IRA, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking me. His sources might be better than mine and, if so, I would be extremely obliged if he would make them available to the state security apparatus. We do not have that information. If he is asking whether the leadership of the republican movement is known to all of us, then I would say that it is. We can carry on with a discussion of how many republican angels can dance on the head of a pin, or we can address the subject in front of us. I suggest that the second option might be more productive for the whole House.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that, given that Sinn Fein and the IRA are clearly linked, the main point is to recognise the momentous symbolic importance of the first step that they took in the decommissioning process? We should discuss the Bill in that strategic context, rather than in the tactical context in which we have been discussing it for the last few minutes.
  Dr. Reid: I entirely agree. That is what I am trying to do. We must remind ourselves that, although there have been huge imperfections in the transition period, huge strides forward have also been made on all aspects of the Belfast agreement. These are not esoteric or academic
  42
  matters, because they are the very advances that make so much difference to the lives of millions of ordinary people in Northern Ireland and, to some extent, here in Britain as well.
  It is also worth reminding ourselves that since 1998, we have witnessed the establishment of the democratic institutions, not only in terms of the north-south dimension, but of the stronger British-Irish relationships. We have seen the principle of consent enshrined in the agreement, thereby putting Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom beyond doubt, and the removal of the Republic's territorial claim to Northern Ireland, which was previously enshrined in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.
  Those are gains that I believe all hon. Members would warmly welcome, as is the incorporation of human rights in all aspects of life by the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Human Rights Commission. We have also seen the advancement of equal opportunities for all in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their background, by the implementation of the equality provisions and the establishment of the Equality Commission.
  In addition, since 1998, we have made a new start on policing and criminal justice, with the completion of significant reviews of policing and the criminal justice system. These are merely some of the major strides forward that have been made. None has been easy; all have required the participants to challenge their preconceptions. Those challenges have, however, been met and overcome in the course of this process, however difficult or impossible they seemed. Despite all the difficulties, the progress continues.
  It is natural in a debate of this nature that people will have in their minds some of the scenes that we have witnessed on television over the last six months. There is no reason why they should not do so; indeed, it is probably essential that we all bear them in mind. However, even in the last six months, some of those headlines have camouflaged significant steps forward in the peace process.
  There is formal cross-community support for policing for the first time in Northern Ireland's history. There is successful recruitment to the new police service, drawn from both traditions, and it is worth remarking on the cross-community support for the new police service badge, as shown by the Policing Board last week—another seemingly impossible challenge, which was met on the run by the new Policing Board. In deference to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, I should say that he has a theory that the Policing Board was able to reach a conclusion so quickly on a cross-community basis because the designs that I gave to it were so awful as to drive everyone else into agreement. There has been further progress towards normalising security arrangements, and the criminal justice Bill and the draft implementation plan have been published.
  In that context, and perhaps most relevant of all to today's debate, following a four-year ceasefire and arms dumps being opened up to inspection, there has been an unprecedented act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. Whatever hon. Members, or, indeed, those who deny the significance of that, may think about the timing, let us recall that we were told that it would never happen, that it was impossible, that it was too huge a challenge even

  43
  to contemplate and that it was not worth waiting another six months for it. I believe that it clearly demonstrates the enormous progress made in such a relatively short time.
  Mr. Mark Francois rose—
  Dr. Reid: Before I take this intervention, I must say that I hope that that shorthand style of delivery on those issues on which we have made progress does not detract from the fact that each and every development that I listed has in itself been hugely significant.
  Mr. Francois: The Secretary of State described the act of decommissioning as truly significant. To allow the House of Commons to judge whether that is right, will he tell us, very simply, what the IRA gave up to be decommissioned? If he will not tell the democratically elected House of Commons what it was, will he describe his rationale for not doing so?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this fact, but the House of Commons decided how those matters would be dealt with when it decided that there would be an international commission under General de Chastelain. The House of Commons decided the schemes under which decommissioning would be carried out. The House of Commons placed General John de Chastelain's remit in statute, so the hon. Gentleman already has his answer.
  The manner in which the most delicate and difficult of all the challenges facing any society in the transition from decades—indeed, in some cases, centuries—of conflict through to the route of peace was precisely arranged by the House of Commons so that it would be dealt with by General de Chastelain. Finally, it was not my word that the act was significant but that of General de Chastelain, to whom Members entrusted the task of reporting, through the Governments, to the House.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe rose—
  Mr. Francois rose—
  Dr. Reid: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).
  Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I am concerned about the tone of the previous intervention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it is not the intention of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) to undermine confidence in General de Chastelain and the commission, he should make that clear?
  Does my right hon. Friend further agree that that intervention departed from the position of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who told the House that it was vital that we have faith in an independent international body, and that of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who said:
  "I am not too fussed about the way in which the weapons and explosives are decommissioned … provided that General de Chastelain and his staff can police them at all times."—[Official Report, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 191.1
  44
  Is not that the central issue on which we should concentrate and is not it important for the hon. Member for Rayleigh to make it clear that he is not seeking to undermine General de Chastelain or to depart from the positions adopted by two respected right hon. Members?
  Dr. Reid: I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), but I am sure that he would not seek to undermine the status, role, remit or integrity of General de Chastelain. I understand the natural frustration at these circumstances, but I caution people that, having given General de Chastelain such a difficult role, having set the remit and statute by which he should carry it out and having agreed the scheme under which he would be able to verify it, we should not let our natural inquisition into the course of history in any way impute to the general a lack of integrity. It is General de Chastelain himself who referred to the event as significant.
  Mr. Francois: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Reid: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress, because I have taken quite a few interventions.
  Mr. Francois: The right hon. Gentleman said he would give way again.
  Dr. Reid: I did not say that I would give way to him. I said that I was sure that he would make his view clear. I have no doubt that he will have a chance to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I cannot devote my whole speech to the hon. Gentleman's or other interventions. If I can make a little progress, I shall take further interventions.
  I believe that all the developments I referred to have been hugely significant in building trust, in building confidence, and in building a new Northern Ireland, where local, accountable politicians are working towards a better future for all the people of Northern Ireland supported by a modern and efficient system of justice and policing, capable of engendering the trust and confidence of all sides of the community. That has been underpinned by a robust rights and equality agenda, and reinforced by a steady, though slow, move away from the politics of the bomb and bullet towards an inclusive, democratic and peaceful pursuit of political ends.
  If people ask me whether the process is complete, perfect or even almost perfect, the answer is obviously no, but it is significantly different and in advance of anything that we previously experienced and that most people reasonably thought possible, given the history of Northern Ireland. The fact that we have not achieved everything should not lead us to believe that we have not gained anything. There has been huge and historic movement. However, despite these improvements and important developments, our efforts to bring an end to the conflict that has blighted Northern Ireland's past is not yet over by far.
  As I said earlier, the nightly scenes of violence on our television screens during recent months, the harassment of school children, the unwarranted violence of the Sinn Fein youth movement last week and the continuation of paramilitary punishment beatings all testify to the

  45
  ingrained nature of a culture of violence that persists, even in those areas where a commitment has been made to move to a democratic and peaceful resolution of our conflicts.
  Above all, there remain those elements, both dissident republican and rejectionist loyalist, who absolutely refuse to acknowledge the democratically expressed will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and who seek to impose their own will by nothing but force and violence. With their sectarian bombs and blind hatred, they are the true enemies of the people of Northern Ireland and will be opposed by all means by the people of Northern Ireland.
  In the face of all that, I am sure that the entire House will wish to take the opportunity to give grateful thanks especially to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to the Garda Siochana, for their excellent work and considerable recent successes against those organisations. I remind the House that in the past two years alone the efforts of the police service, formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and their colleagues in the Republic of Ireland and on the British mainland have thwarted numerous potentially deadly attacks. In just the past few months, they have intercepted bombs at Londonderry and Six Mile Cross, and only last month they intercepted a fully primed, 220 lb car bomb in County Armagh, probably en route to a police station, and arrested the driver. Any one of those bombs could have decimated innocent civilians as well as security personnel.
  The security forces are resolute in their pursuit of those people, and we will continue to do everything we can to support them in that.
  Such republican dissidents, and violent loyalist organisations, are becoming increasingly isolated. As is demonstrated by the developments I described earlier, the tide has turned irrevocably against them. Their only role now is as the most major impediment to the completion of progress towards an open, democratic and normal Northern Ireland. However, crucially, the IRA has carried out the significant and unprecedented act of decommissioning. Only a few years ago, such a thing would have been inconceivable.
  Not only is that act a measure of the transformation that has taken place in Northern Ireland; I believe that in itself it helped to further improve the political climate. It came at a crucial time, when the political institutions established under the Belfast agreement were facing their stiffest test. It has now been possible for those institutions to restabilise, and they are established on a firmer basis than ever before.
  In putting a quantity of arms and explosives beyond use, the IRA has sent the clearest possible signal, not only to the House but to the international community, that it is moving away from violence. That process must continue; but it goes without saying that it is time for the loyalists to follow suit. It is a source of huge regret to me that some of them are not even engaged in the process—that they remain wedded to their violent past and seem unable to take any steps towards a peaceful path, even short of decommissioning.
  In the face of IRA decommissioning, I cannot see what possible reason loyalists now have for retaining their weapons. They certainly need not do so for the protection of their communities, which is the rightful preserve of the police and the security forces. They used to argue that
  46
  they would decommission if the IRA made the first move. Well, the first move has been made: the crucial act has been carried out. It is now up to loyalist paramilitary organisations to demonstrate their support of peaceful and democratic ideals.
  We want to see loyalist decommissioning; we want to see further decommissioning by the IRA and, indeed, other republican organisations; and we want to see dissident groups outside the process brought to the point of realising that democratic dialogue is the only way forward, so that they too decommission their weapons. It goes without saying that until they do so, we will robustly counter their violent activities.
  Of course, we all recognise that if it is to be effectively sustained, the decommissioning process must be a voluntary process. Ultimately, the Government can resist violence—we can pursue robustly those who engage in violence—but we cannot force any paramilitary organisation to give up its weapons, and to dismantle or refrain from renewing its apparatus of terror. Where the will exists, however, the process has begun. We want to, and must, see it sustained.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way to me again, but I think we need not over-complicate what is actually a straightforward matter.
  It is perfectly proper to be able to tell everyone what has been given up, but as far as I am aware, having checked, no definite resolution of the House states that what has been surrendered will remain secret. If the Government argue that this was a significant act, they should put the information in the public domain and—in a free society—allow everyone, from all traditions, to judge just how significant it was. Is not the truth quite simply that what was given up was so minuscule that Ministers were embarrassed to admit it?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman has made a completely unsubstantiated assertion for which neither he nor anyone else has any evidence. It is impossible to conduct any rational discussion on the basis of a series of unsubstantiated assertions from Members on both sides of the House. I make no such unsubstantiated assertion; I make an assertion based on the evidence provided by the person to whom this job was given by the House, who was witness to it, and who said that it was a significant event.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not agree that General de Chastelain should have been given the job, that he does not agree with General de Chastelain's judgment and that he does not agree with General de Chastelain's estimate, he is perfectly entitled to say so. People in the country and the House can then decide whether to believe General de Chastelain, who was given the job, who is acting within a remit and under statute and who witnessed the event, or the hon. Gentleman, who seems to have a propensity for making unsubstantiated assertions, pertaining to a remit that he has not been given and contrary to the remit of the House, about an event that he did not witness. I have no doubt on whose side the vast majority of people would come down. All I have said about the event is what General de Chastelain himself said about it.
  Mr. Frank Field: It is clear that the House is not to be told how substantial—or not—the surrender of arms was, but has the Secretary of State been told the extent of the arms that were surrendered?
  Dr. Reid: That is entirely a matter for General de Chastelain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The answer is that I have not been told, and I accept the word of General de Chastelain. If the hon. Member for Rayleigh does not want to accept his word, that is entirely up to him. The reason that the quantity was not made public has been explained by General de Chastelain himself, the person to whom the House entrusted the job.
  For the first time, the Irish Republican Army has been prepared to put weapons beyond use. If people in this House, or indeed other politicians, feel that that historic progress would have been better achieved by the intervention and judgment of partisan politicians, all I can say is that they are wired to the moon. They know nothing of history and are far removed from the reality of the problem with which we are dealing.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Reid: I will, provided that the House will accept that my speech will last a little longer.
  Chris Grayling: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and apologise for having missed the first few moments of his speech. Does he not understand the difficulty faced by Members on this side of the House? This week, we are being asked to make significant decisions about the future of decommissioning and the future of Parliament's relationship with Sinn Fein-IRA, but we are being asked to do so in a vacuum because we have no clear idea about whether what has happened is a single step or the first of many steps. Our concern is that we are being asked to move further and further on, but we have no clear indication of what comes next and nor, apparently, does the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Reid: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Indeed, I said at the beginning of my remarks that I understand hon. Members" concern and frustration. However, if the hon. Gentleman is asking whether this House, before it embarked on a monumental project, should have had a guarantee of success in any area, I can tell him that if that had been the case, none of us would have embarked on it. If, however, he is asking for a review of what has happened since we embarked on the process, I can tell him that I have spent an inordinate amount of time explaining that. On decommissioning, the process has moved from a ceasefire, through weapons dump inspections, to a historic act of decommissioning, but that has happened alongside progress in many other areas.
  I cannot guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that there will be success on any given aspect of the Belfast agreement. I shall turn later to a number of other issues that have still to develop as part of the process. It is not within my power to promise the hon. Gentleman that there will be success on all those issues, whether we are talking about criminal justice, policing, the Assembly or decommissioning. All I can say is that, in the past two and a half years, we have achieved things that were beyond the imagination of anyone in the House when we set out on that journey.
  48
  Is it possible that the process will continue? Yes. Is it necessary that the process continues if the Belfast agreement is to hold together? Yes. Will we bring whatever pressure we can to bear on all aspects of the process? Yes. But can I guarantee that there is an inevitable route to success in all aspects? No, I cannot; nor can anyone else in this House. But it is a damn sight better to try and to succeed as far as we have done than never to have tried and to have languished where we were.
  One of the commentators in yesterday's press told those who thought that there was an alternative to the political process that there was one, which was not to have a political process. If we wanted to see where we might end up with that, the commentator said, one needed merely to look at the middle east.
  I cannot guarantee success, but obviously the greatest sanction on all of us will be if the process fails, because we will all have lost, including some of those who are engaged in the process of putting arms beyond use. If anyone in this House honestly believes that we can realistically say that all decommissioning can be finished by 26 February next year, let us know. If not, and if we are to continue the process, we must look to provide the legal framework as well as the democratic framework to make decommissioning a reality.
  In plain terms, we cannot ask those groups to hand in their weapons if, by so doing, they would be breaking the law. This is exactly what we would be asking if we did not renew the legislation to continue past February, which is when the legislative cover in the 1997 legislation to provide legal immunity for those decommissioning weapons expires; that is why I am bringing the Bill before the House today.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Clearly, there are grave reservations among Conservative Members about the potential for five more years of leeway, albeit with an annual review and vote, which we appreciate. The Secretary of State has rightly said that pressure must be put on paramilitaries, that there must be decommissioning quickly from the so-called loyalists who have not decommissioned and that the Provisional IRA should decommission further. Will he give a guarantee that if, in February of next year, there has been no further decommissioning, he will not bring forward the order for extension for a further year?
  Dr. Reid: Every Conservative speaker today seems to demand from me and seek to instil in me some foresight, whereby I have a crystal ball that can dictate the circumstances. Whether I bring the order forward in February would depend on the circumstances at the time. I do not think that anyone here would say that many of the aspects of the Good Friday agreement, including decommissioning, have progressed as quickly as we would have liked, but that does not diminish the fact that what has happened is of huge significance. I would have liked the stability of the Executive and the Assembly to be up and running and flowering more quickly than it has done. That is a regret. I would have liked decommissioning from the Provisional IRA to move more quickly than it did, and I would have liked decommissioning from some others who have not even started to decommission.
  However, I cannot predict to the right hon. Member for Bracknell either what is likely to happen six months" ahead or my automatic reaction to that. That will depend

  49
  on the circumstances and that is a sensible way to proceed. This issue will be brought to the House regularly because, even with tonight's Bill, the measure must be brought before the House, as the Bill would merely extend by 12 months, in the first instance, the legal immunity for decommissioning. It will then have to be discussed, debated and decided by this House again.
  We cannot allow the great potential that we have to make further progress to be simply thrown away because we have come across what is largely an arbitrary deadline. Given the considerable developments that I have outlined today, we have to be realistic and provide the legal framework to enable further progress to take place.
  I recognise that some say that we need to have deadlines and that without pressure the Provisionals will not move. To some extent, that addresses the point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and that may reflect a difference of emphasis on that point. I do not know whether that is the case, but I shall be as honest as I can with the hon. Gentleman and the House. Some people will point to occasions in the past few years when we have achieved progress only by taking matters right to the wire. I understand that argument, although I have to say that the Provisionals are not the only people in Northern Ireland who regularly take matters to the wire.
  However, the Bill includes a provision for Parliament to approve any extension beyond a further year. Though it is not set up as a deadline in any way, there is, therefore, a point at which the matter will have to be discussed and approved again by the House. Notwithstanding that, the simple point is that we will not sustain the peace process merely through deadlines and public ultimatums. Hon. Members constantly point to deadlines that have been passed, and by definition the objective has not been achieved, even through the power that some hon. Members seem to assume lies in deadlines.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: The IRA argues that it is not bound by the agreement because it is not a signatory to the agreement. On this side of the House, it has been argued that the IRA is a signatory to the agreement because Sinn Fein-IRA are inextricably linked. Is not it clear from the debate that the Secretary of State is accepting the IRA's definition, not the definition put by hon. Members on this side of the House?
  Dr. Reid: No, I am accepting the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can assert that the IRA signed the Belfast agreement. He can assert that Santa Claus signed the Belfast agreement, but that does not make it true. It is, however, obviously the case that Sinn Fein's signature of the Belfast agreement gave rise to a reasonable expectation that since Sinn Fein had signed that agreement, there would be full decommissioning within the specified period, during which people would work towards a target. That is partly why there was such disappointment. I wish that that had happened at the specified time, and I also wish that it had happened by the end of the further extension in June.
  I wish that the Provisional IRA and all the loyalist groups will have decommissioned by next February, but I cannot wish away the fact that it is now extremely unlikely that that will be accomplished. Therefore, the choice before the House is whether to make it illegal, by
  50
  voting against the extension, for people to decommission after 26 February, when the legal immunity will end. Yes, it will take continual pressure, but it will also take patience and—obviously—it will take time.
  It will take time to complete every aspect of the Belfast agreement, including the changes that we have inaugurated in policing, and the full flowering and stability of the Assembly and the Executive. I hope that more powers can be passed to the Assembly and the Executive. It is only with time that we will see the normalisation of Northern Ireland society, and that will mean a reduction in the military presence to levels found in the rest of the UK. We need to continue to make steady progress on all of the issues covered by the Belfast agreement, but we cannot exclude decommissioning and the putting of arms beyond use from that. Decommissioning is an integral and essential part of the progress that has to be made. As ever, if we stop moving forward, we will not stand still but will start sliding back.
  It would not be helpful to dictate that there must be an absolute, and by definition arbitrary, end, to just one aspect of the agreement. To pretend that that would deliver the objective that we seek would be neither an honest nor a practical application of our experience. I am firmly convinced that that is not likely to be a sensible or effective way to proceed.
  I have already paid tribute to General John de Chastelain and his colleagues in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I extend to them my heartfelt thanks. Their integrity, diligence, skill and, above all, perseverance have been instrumental in bringing us this far. Whatever disappointment hon. Members may feel about how far we have come, they will, at least, have the dignity to accord due thanks to John de Chastelain for the significant distance that we have come.
  The commission's life is not time-bound. Its mandate comes from the Belfast agreement and the pursuit of the objective of decommissioning all arms can and must be continued. Many hon. Members will no doubt concentrate tonight on what has yet to be achieved. That is, perhaps, natural, and I understand their concerns and frustrations and the occasional anger that accompanies them.
  Legitimate debate remains to be held on the matter before us tonight, but it is worth recalling the nature of the project on which we have embarked. We are addressing a problem whose roots lie deep in decades—indeed, centuries—of conflict. We are addressing it through a process that seeks nothing less than the reversal of that history in Northern Ireland and in the island of Ireland. The Bill is central to that purpose, and I commend it to the House.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because it provides for such an extended deadline for decommissioning which it does not believe will be conducive to the completion as soon as possible of the process which is already more than a year overdue."
  I move the amendment more in sorrow and anxiety than anything else. My anxiety has been considerably enhanced by what we have discovered this afternoon

  51
  about the Secretary of State's extraordinary gullibility in buying the Sinn Fein-IRA line that they are somehow separate organisations.
  Dr. Reid: I did not say that they were separate organisations.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to agree with me when I put it to him that that was what he was saying. He then made the most inappropriate analogy with the trade union movement and the Labour party. Perhaps he would like to think about that again.
  Dr. Reid: I did not say that they were separate organisations. I said that they were not identical organisations.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused and is taking refuge in jesuitical and retrospective reinterpretation of what he said. I am anxious that he should put the record straight if he wishes to do so.
  Dr. Reid: I must refer to semantics, because the hon. Gentleman seems not to realise the difference between two things that are entirely separate and two that are not identical. Something can be linked to something else, or can overlap with something else, without being identical to something else. If the hon. Gentleman studies a dictionary when he leaves the Chamber, it will all become clear to him.
  Mr. Davies: Let me put to the Secretary of State my conception of the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA so that he may tell me whether he disagrees with it. They are two facades of the same organisation. The distinction is an entirely artificial one, contrived with typical and cynical ruthlessness to enable Sinn Fein-IRA, for it is one organisation, to advance its cause with, in its favoured phrase, the Armalite rifle in one hand and the ballot box in the other. It is absolutely terrifying to know that that strategy, duplicity and artificiality should have been so successful as to bamboozle the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Reid: The recent exchanges raise an extraordinary question. If, because he is not so gullible, that is entirely what the hon. Gentleman believes, why in God's name did he support the Belfast agreement? Has he signed up to support an organisation that he believes is not committed to moving away from violence but continually committed to its use? That does not leave me embarrassed, but it leaves the hon. Gentleman in an extraordinary position.
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to change the subject, but I shall certainly answer him very directly indeed. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the Belfast agreement. We recognise that one of the parties to it is—and must be—Sinn Fein-IRA, which is certainly a former terrorist organisation. I trust that the word "former" is appropriate. We wish it to cease to be a terrorist organisation. We wish it to give up its arms and
  52
  to pursue its objectives in future by democratic and peaceful means. That is precisely the effect of the Belfast agreement—or what its effect ought to be.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman should follow Healey's first law of holes: when in a hole, stop digging. I do not believe that the Irish Republican Army is a former terrorist organisation—it is a terrorist organisation which is on ceasefire. It is a terrorist organisation which is moving away from that description. However, the hon. Gentleman is in an extraordinary position: he believes that the IRA is only former terrorists but that it is still committed to terror, and yet—with all those deep misgivings—he apparently supports the Belfast agreement. The hon. Gentleman should get his thoughts sorted out.
  Mr. Davies: I said—Hansard will bear me out, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman listens carefully—that I hoped it was a former terrorist organisation. It certainly was a terrorist organisation and it certainly was a unified terrorist organisation, which operated with two arms to bamboozle the innocent—such as the right hon. Gentleman. In his negotiations, he no doubt believes it when Sinn Fein says, "Oh no, we are awfully sorry, although we'd like those concessions and we'll pocket them thank you very much, we cannot deliver the IRA". No doubt he falls for that line, and it is a fascinating but very, very depressing indication of what has gone wrong with the peace process over the past two or three years. If this debate achieves nothing else, it will have made clear that the Government have been operating under an extraordinarily facile and naive illusion in an extremely dangerous situation.
  That error of judgment completely eclipses another one that has arisen during the past few weeks and which I also regret, although it has nothing like the importance of the matter to which I have just drawn attention. That error of judgment was committed at a time when there has been some good news, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, in that there has been a first act of decommissioning by Sinn Fein-IRA—I repeat: Sinn Fein-IRA. There is also encouraging news, which has nothing to do with Sinn Fein-IRA, on other fronts; for example, other nationalist organisations—especially the Social Democratic and Labour party—the Catholic hierarchy and the Gaelic Athletic Association and so forth have all accepted the new police service. It is extremely good news, which I strongly welcome, that the Policing Board has been able to agree on a new cap badge for the new police service in Northern Ireland.
  It thus seems extraordinary that, instead of allowing that good news to sink in, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have set about deliberately eclipsing it by making a series of extraordinary proposals, one of which is included in the Bill, while another—even more pernicious and abhorrent—is to come before the House with a Government motion that I trust we shall be able to debate tomorrow.
  The situation is unfortunate and sad. It is a matter of considerable anxiety to everybody who cares about the future of the peace process—the future of peace in Northern Ireland and successful, devolved democratic government in Northern Ireland.
  I had not anticipated, nor indeed had I ever conceived, coming to the Dispatch Box to disagree with the terms of a decommissioning Bill. I had expected, as we had all

  53
  expected, that it would be necessary to extend the regime under which General de Chastelain operates for a few months beyond February, perhaps for a year. I thought that the exact timing might be a matter for consultation. There has been no consultation whatever—at least none with Her Majesty's Opposition. There may well have been consultation with much more sinister forces, including those that the right hon. Gentleman thinks are not part of a terrorist organisation. Perhaps he would like to let us know to what extent the deadlines in the Bill have been negotiated—or whether the motion that the Government are to move tomorrow has been the subject of discussions or negotiations with Sinn Fein-IRA.
  Dr. Reid: On the first one about decommissioning, none; on the second, discussions have been going on for over two years, including discussions with the hon. Gentleman's party.
  Mr. Davies: I can testify that there has been no discussion with my party on the timing of deadlines in the Bill. The deadlines were a bad surprise and a shock, and we had absolutely no reason to suppose that they would be in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing some of those things, including tomorrow's motion, with Sinn Fein-IRA, it will be interesting to know what, if anything, he has been able to get as a counterpart to some pretty extraordinary concessions.
  In the absence of clear answers and consultation beforehand, we must simply look at the Bill as it stands. It contains a fundamental error: it extends the deadline for decommissioning, for whatever reason, to five years from February. For some reason that I do not understand, instead of the Bill stating five years, a particular date in February 2007 is given, but the effect is exactly the same and the Bill's purpose is absolutely clear. I believe that to be a disastrous mistake, for two separate reasons. It will have bad consequences of two kinds. Unfortunately, they will reinforce each other and both contribute to damaging rather than supporting the peace process.
  The first mistake is that extending the regime for decommissioning for another five years sends the wrong signal to Sinn Fein-IRA, loyalist paramilitaries and others with arms in Northern Ireland. The signal is, "Relax. Take your time. You are not up against a deadline; there is no particular urgency." I am as aware as anybody that deadlines may not be met, but the idea that extending a deadline will speed up the process seems hardly credible. Not only does it seem hardly credible: the Secretary of State himself does not believe it. He has said this afternoon that Sinn Fein-IRA and other groups in Northern Ireland go down to the wire, taking at least the time that they are given under the deadline whether they meet it or not. It follows, therefore, that extending the deadline extends the time that they take. The right hon. Gentleman is not even willing to learn the lessons of his acknowledged experience. I find it extraordinary that he should come to the House with a Bill extending deadlines, and then tell us that that will have no effect on the time taken by those concerned to fulfil the commitments under those deadlines.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that what we are hearing is exactly what he said to Lord Mayhew in 1997? Did he tell him that a one-year period with the extension of up to five years was the
  54
  wrong deadline? Did he disagree in this House? Is there a record of that in Hansard? Does he think that any of the loyalist groups, including those which are not even currently engaged in the process, could decommission within a few months? What deadline did he think in 1997 was appropriate? How long does he now think it would take loyalist groups to decommission?
  Mr. Davies: Unless the hon. Gentleman has been asleep for the past five years, I can only imagine that he has deliberately come to the House to produce manifest absurdities. In 1997, we did not have the Belfast agreement. We did not have the beginnings of a mechanism to produce decommissioning. Since then, in case he has not noticed, we have had the Belfast agreement. In case he has forgotten, that agreement provided a deadline of two years, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Nothing happened under that deadline; it was extended for a year, but still nothing happened. Eventually, some progress was made after 11 September.
  In producing a regime under which decommissioning might take place—if initial agreement between the parties is secured and if the international commission and the other organisations required can be set up—to start off with a five-year period may well be reasonable, but once four or five years have elapsed, deadlines have been missed, people have failed to live up to the commitments they made, and the law-abiding and peace-loving people of Northern Ireland have been disappointed, to go back to square one and start again with another five years seems less absurd than irresponsible.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is trying to waste time by pretending that he does not know what has happened in the past five years, so I shall not give way to him again this afternoon, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
  Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Given that the Good Friday agreement did not exist when the Conservative Government decided to create an amnesty, does he not agree that that required a greater act of faith on the part of Parliament than this Bill, which we are discussing in the context of the Good Friday agreement?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, that is true. That took place right at the beginning of the peace process launched by the Conservative Government and it required a considerable act of faith. I take the hon. Gentleman's remark to be a compliment to my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Mayhew, who I am sure will be pleased to have the approbation and recognition of the Liberal party and its official spokesman for once.
  Mr. Goodman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that the most remarkable feature of the debate has been the Secretary of State's statement that under the terms of

  55
  the Belfast agreement the IRA is riot obliged to decommission—a position exactly the same as that of the IRA?
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry to have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State's statement is enormously significant—and enormously depressing.
  Dr. John Reid: I am sorry to keep intervening, but Opposition Front Benchers appear to be genetically incapable of either hearing or understanding words. I made no such statement—that the IRA were not so obliged. I said that they had not signed the Belfast agreement, and that is a statement of fact, not of opinion.
  Mr. Davies: Fortunately we in the House have the institution of Hansard, so we need not spend any more time on that issue. I sincerely hope that when I read my Hansard tomorrow morning I will find that the Secretary of State is as fully aware as other reasonable and experienced people in Northern Ireland of the fact that the distinction between Sinn Fein and IRA is a complete fraud, and that when he speaks to any representatives of either organisation he is probably speaking to individuals who hold positions in both organisations and represent them both.
  Mr. Robathan: May I take my hon. Friend back to deadlines for decommissioning? Is it not true that when an organisation determines to give up its weapons, that can be done relatively quickly? In Macedonia recently, there was a 30-day limit, and I recall that 20 years ago in Zimbabwe—an enormous country with fighters out in the bush—there was a two-month limit. If an organisation is determined to give up its weapons, surely it does not need a rolling five-year programme?
  Mr. Davies: I totally agree. It is ironic than on a day when we have discussed sending 1,000 British troops to Afghanistan to participate in a peace process—the decommissioning of what remains of the Taliban and the establishment of peace in that country—that is supposed to be completed in a matter of months, we are extending by a further five years the deadline for getting rid of terrorist arms in our own country, and doing so apparently thoughtlessly and on the basis of an extraordinarily sanguine acceptance of Sinn Fein-IRA propaganda about its operations and structure.
  The Secretary of State would be extraordinarily naive to think that offering an extending deadline is likely to get the action he requires sooner. He made an absurdity of that notion when he said that everyone in Northern Ireland tends to go to the wire, but it would be absurd in almost any context. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to buy a house, and he thought that he might get it for £100,000 and the most that he was prepared or able to pay was £150,000. Does he think that he would be more likely to get a bargain, or more likely to get any deal at all, if he signalled to the vendor that if pressed he would go to £500,000? That is precisely what he has done by offering five years. It is thoroughly reckless.
  It is deplorable for another reason. I said that there were two reasons, and the second is a matter of even greater concern than the first. The right hon. Gentleman has sent
  56
  the wrong signal to those who have to decommission—Sinn Fein-IRA, the loyalists and other paramilitaries. He has also sent the wrong signal to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who are peace loving and law abiding and desperately keen to get the gun and Semtex out of politics in Northern Ireland. They are now being told that after all the sacrifices, all the delays, all the disappointments of recent years and all the enormous concessions to paramilitaries, they must wait a lot longer. They must wait for another five years. That is the time they were told in the first place would be required for the framework to get the process started and completed.
  It is an extremely depressing signal to send to the people of Northern Ireland. It can only undermine people's confidence and their hopes in the peace process producing the dividends for which they all hope. The signal will inevitably have a particularly devastating effect on morale in the Unionist community. That concerns me very much.
  The Secretary of State may recall that when I responded to his statement on 24 October I said that we should take into account
  "the concerns and feelings of all the people of Northern Ireland in both communities."—[,Official Report, 24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 304.]
  A few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman made a speech about Northern Ireland not becoming a "cold house" for Unionists. I welcome his use of that phrase. I welcome also what appeared to be the spirit behind it. Although the right hon. Gentleman managed to say a few words in the right direction, however, it is easy to say a few words. After the tragedies of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland, we can hardly expect words to be sufficient to influence anybody very much.
  Apart from that easy declaration, what have the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessors done? There has been an endless stream of concessions. There have been the release of prisoners and the abolition of the RUC—extremely difficult concessions for Unionist sentiment to accept. We have said and I have said that we must accept those moves, reluctantly of course. There is no question but that they stick in the gullet, but they are a necessary part of the process.
  It is important that the Belfast agreement is implemented. I have done my best to counsel patience and forbearance. What has happened? The Government have gone endlessly further. As if the release of prisoners and the implementation of the Government's obligations under the Belfast agreement were not enough, they went to Weston Park and made a new raft of concessions that were not required under the Belfast agreement. In recent weeks, they seem to have gone almost berserk with the concessions that they are offering.
  We have before us the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which includes a proposal to remove the royal coat of arms from new courthouses in Northern Ireland and to abolish the loyal oath for judges. Those concessions are deeply offensive to Unionists. They are deeply worrying to anybody who takes seriously the idea, as at least we all do on the Opposition Benches, that we are part of one kingdom in this country.
  The matter has not stopped there. At Northern Ireland questions on 5 December, I put to the Secretary of State the article that had been written by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). I will

  57
  put to the Secretary of State his right hon. Friend's predictions, or assertions. The article stated that the Government were proposing
  "an amnesty for former terrorists on the run".
  That is in the Weston park agreement, but it had no basis of approval from the house. The article refers to
  "the dismanting of British security facilities … further inquiries into past British security 'misdeeds'".
  As I said then, there was no suggestion of any inquiries into other people's misdeeds or artocitites.
  The article also refers to "further changes"—I underline "further" again—
  '"to the new police service, the successor to the RUC, on top of those reforms already agreed to make the police acceptable to nationalists and Republicans.'"
  In response, the Secretary of State did not deny that at all; he did not deny any suggestions that new concessions were to be made. I greatly regret the fact that he came close to being disingenuous by saying that the measures were not new; he said that I was wrong to say that they were. I emphasised "further inquiries", "further changes" and the pharse
  "on top of those reforms".—[Official Report, 5, December 2001; vol.376, c.318]
  If "further" and "on top of" do not mean incremental—something added to what is already there—and if that is not fairly described by the word "new", with which the Secretary of State took issue the other day, he will have to spend his retirement revising the Oxford English dictionary.
  Dr. John Reid: Having had problems with semantics, the hon. Gentleman now has problems with his chronology. There were no new promises made after or around the time of the publication of that article; there was nothing that was not entirely in the public domain, including the inquiries. I take it that the hon. Gentleman has read the Weston Park communiqué, which does not exclusively comprise inquiries demanded by republicans. In fact, it consists of three inquiries long demanded by those of a loyalist and Unionist persuasion, as well as three demanded by those of a republican or nationalist persuasion. There was nothing new at the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was writing; there was nothing that was not fully in the public domain. To say that my remarking on that made me almost disingenuous is a bit unfair, to say the least.
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am being unfair to him; I have simply quoted for him—twice now—the words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool. If his right hon. Friend was wrong, it would have been simpler to say so; perhaps the Secretary of State does not want to quarrel with him because, as we know, he is such a powerful personage in his party and has the ear of the Prime Minister. That may well be the explanation.
  We must get back to the position that I put to the Secretary of State before, which he does not seem to want to acknowledge. He acknowledged it once with two or three words but, as far as I know, he has never acknowledged it with any deed. The Unionist community in Northern Ireland understandably feels that the process is a one-way street; everything that the Secretary of State
  58
  has done, every statement that he has made, all the concessions to which I have just referred, all of Weston Park, the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill which is now before the House and, worst and most obnoxious of all, the motion that the Government will introduce tomorrow, only reinforce and re-emphasise the impression that the process is a one-way street without end. The Unionist community believes that the Government have embarked on a limitless and uncontrolled process of making concessions to republicans.
  The Government now acknowledge that there is some kind of distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA, so they make concessions to Sinn Fein, but the IRA does not deliver on the other side. If that situation should not worry everybody, not merely Unionists, in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, everybody in the United Kingdom—I do not know what should.
  If the Secretary of State does not already know—he certainly acts as if he does not—I must tell him that one cannot build successful peace in Northern Ireland, establish successful devolved institutions and democracy and normalise that part of the United Kingdom without the support of the Unionist majority. He seems to believe that the Unionist majority can be taken for granted and will end up accepting just about anything he comes up with. The course on which he has embarked is extremely dangerous and that is reflected in the Bill. Once again, there is an open-ended approach to the IRA or Sinn Fein-IRA delivering its side of the agreement; more and more concrete concessions are made at the expense of Unionist concerns and sentiment, as well as justified Unionist pride.
  The strategy of making concessions without any quid pro quo was flawed from the start. I have no hesitation in saying that the Government's decision to let out all the prisoners within two years of the Belfast agreement being made without the IRA decommissioning a single weapon or giving up a single ounce of Semtex was a colossal mistake. That was recognised at the time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who wisely and sensibly tabled amendments to the census legislation for Northern Ireland that would have established that linkage. Those amendments were resisted by the Government but, had we established the linkage, we would have an instrument of leverage on Sinn Fein-IRA; all those instruments of leverage were thrown away by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors.
  It is hardly surprising that two years passed without decommissioning. Why should people decommission when there was no particular reason why they should? In fact, the Government deprived the Sinn Fein-IRA leadership of any arguments to use among its membership. It could not say that it had to decommission to get its prisoners out because they had been let out anyway. The strategy was extremely naive and incompetent, and it damaged the peace process. A third year passed, but still there was no decommissioning. The Government panicked, went to Weston Park in desperation and made a whole lot of new gratuitous concessions, which were not required at all in the Belfast agreement, to somehow appease Sinn Fein-IRA and hope that nevertheless they would come up with some decommissioning. Even then, they did not do so. Two weeks after the talks at Weston Park, the IRA went back on the agreement on the methodology of decommissioning that it negotiated with General de

  59
  Chastelain at the time of Weston Park, and publicly withdrew it. That was a real blow in the eye for the Government and, much more important, for the peace process.
  As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged earlier—I do not know whether he always remembers what he says 10 minutes after he has said it—but he certainly accepted that the situation changed only after the autumn, with the exposure of the IRA's involvement with FARC in Colombia and particularly after the events of 11 September, to which he rightly referred in this context. The position changed as there were new international pressures on Sinn Fein-IRA, particularly from the United States, which were unanswerable. I agree that another major factor was the threat that the whole process was about to break down, but that was nothing to do with what the Government did; it was entirely to do with what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann did with what I have previously referred to in public as the three Trimble sanctions—first, withdraw Sinn Fein members from meetings of all-Irish bodies, secondly, withdraw Ulster Unionist Ministers, then resign himself. Pressures brought to bear elsewhere by political parties in Northern Ireland, the Irish Government, no doubt, and particularly the United States brought about decommissioning.
  Nobody could have anticipated—the Government certainly did not—that the international context would be transformed tragically and appallingly by the events of 11 September and that that would have a critical and decisive knock-on effect on the situation in Northern Ireland. The Government must not allow themselves to continue down their previous path. If they want to continue with unilateral concessions, the House must not allow them to do so. Tonight, we have the opportunity to prevent them from acting in that way by changing the Bill, sending it back and getting the Government to return with a much more limited deadline, which will impose greater discipline on the whole process. I hope that the House will take that opportunity.
  I shall draw conclusions both from the way in which the Government handled the process which I have just detailed and their extraordinary illusions about Sinn-Fein, which have been startlingly and dramatically revealed in our debate, which will go down as an historic debate for that reason alone. We need a fundamental rethink of the position in Northern Ireland; we must consider the right approach and strategy that the British Government should adopt to maximise the chances of a succesful peace process and successful decommissioning. There are two aspects to that. First, it must be made clear what the deal and price will be ultimately to achieve complete and full decommissioning, which will be defined by General de Chastelain saying that the process that he has been supervising has been completed.
  How do we get there? How do we bring in all the other parties as well as Sinn Fein-IRA, including the loyalist paramilitaries, to which the right hon. Gentleman was right to refer? We all know that Sinn Fein-IRA thinks that its opposite number is not the loyalist paramilitaries, but the British Government. It likes to think it is dealing with the Government on an equal basis. The right hon. Gentleman's illusions about dealing with Sinn Fein-IRA will greatly have comforted it in that belief.
  60
  In an exchange at the Dispatch Box on 24 October, I suggested the negotiation of
  "a programmed process leading to full decommissioning"—[Official Report,24 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 305.]—
  a balanced process, a global package—so that it is clear to all concerned what needs to be done by whom by when, and what the price will be. If General de Chastelain can negotiate such a process, that would be ideal. If he feels that that goes beyond his remit, the Government—in conjunction with the Irish Government, no doubt—should take the initiative.
  That is important for at least two reasons. One is that only on that basis will it be clear how far the concessions go and what we will have to pay for decommissioning, and it will be clear what must be done by when. There will be some rigour and discipline in the process. Secondly, only by such an open, transparent deal will it be possible to restore confidence in Northern Ireland that we are not engaged merely in a process of endless appeasement of terrorists or former terrorists—commonly known as, and often called in Northern Ireland, a sell-out. By definition, a sell-out will not have the support of the great majority of law-abiding people.
  The Bill provides us with the chance to introduce a tighter, more disciplined and more transparent process. I hope that the House will take that opportunity. If we do not, we are left with the prospect that, if decommissioning happens at all, it will happen because others have made the moves that the British Government ought to have made. We will not know how many moves need to be made or how long it will take until we get arms out of politics in Northern Ireland.
  I can well believe that Sinn Fein-IRA may be under pressure from other sources. It is generally expected in the Republic of Ireland that Sinn Fein-IRA will need to make at least a cosmetic further act of decommissioning before the Irish elections in May, in order to maximise its respectability and chances of picking up seats in Ireland. I do not know whether that is true, but if so, it in no way absolves the British Government from doing everything possible to facilitate the process and make decommissioning more likely, rather than slowing down the process or leaving it to an indefinite future.
  Above all, the British Government must make a new effort to ensure that they carry with them all the communities in Northern Ireland. They must explain to the Unionist community, as well as to the nationalist and the republican communities, what needs to be done, why it must be done, how the concessions that need to be made are limited and what their purpose is. That aspect of the peace process has been dangerously neglected by the Government.
  I am not in the business of criticising the Government without making positive and, I hope, helpful suggestions. The issue of changing symbols will arise in connection with other Bills in the near future. Let the Secretary of State think about the matter before then. If he considers it necessary to change symbols in order to create the feeling that they are part of the new constitution in Northern Ireland among communities that up till now have felt disadvantaged, let the right hon. Gentleman bring in new symbols, but let him not destroy old ones. Let him add. Let him show the same respect for the Unionist tradition as he is showing in order to

  61
  accommodate or appease other traditions. That is the way forward. We need greater balance, rigour, discipline and fairness in the process.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: When I came to the Chamber this afternoon, I assumed that we would hear genuine concerns and anxieties being expressed by some of our friends from Northern Ireland. I expected that that would be difficult and that ground that had already been covered would have to be covered again. I understand that for people who have worked hard for peace, the length of time that the process takes is disturbing, and it is difficult for them to keep others on board.
  Anyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will realise that the focus of the debate lies elsewhere. We are back to the old question of deadlines and the position that the only decommissioning that should concern us is decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. That is extremely regrettable.
  Mr. Davies: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman misquote me so soon after my remarks. I made it clear that it was extremely important that all the organisations with arms in Northern Ireland should be part of the decommissioning process. On several occasions I referred specifically to the loyalist paramilitaries.
  Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting the record straight. I must have slept through that part of his speech. Were I judging it on quantity, I would recognise the number of references that he made to one group in particular.
  Back in July 1999, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said of the decommissioning scheme:
  "It does not refer to timetables… there is no explicit reference in the decommissioning scheme to a timetable."
  He went on to say that the decommissioning scheme states:
  ""The Commission may make such arrangements as it considers appropriate to facilitate the decommissioning of arms.""
  He continued:
  "I repeat:
  "such arrangements at it considers appropriate to facilitate"
  decommissioning."—[Official Report, 13 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 189.]
  I welcomed that statement by the right hon. Gentleman, as the issue of timetables has bedevilled the process.
  Listening to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, I came to the conclusion that the Opposition amendment is not a reasoned amendment. It does not seek to alter the process. It does not recognise that we are dealing with an amnesty. It is an attempt to renege on the agreement. It represents the end of bipartisanship. I am shocked and horrified by the comments of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who is no longer in his place.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said—I listened carefully to this part of his speech—that nothing had happened in the first two years of decommissioning. I recall that on 18 September the LVF decommissioned a
  62
  small quantity of weapons, which General de Chastelain described as a significant event. To my recollection, no one queried those remarks.
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: The LVF gesture was made in the full glare of publicity—in front of the television cameras. In the case of the latest so-called gesture of decommissioning, no one has seen it and no one knows what it amounts to, not even the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister.
  Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. There is a record of decommissioning and it is verified. Unless the hon. Gentleman is joining others in saying that he does not trust General de Chastelain and his commission, he should accept that there is a record of the IRA decommissioning and it has been verified. Most hon. Members were prepared to accept the procedure when the commission was established. There have been two significant acts of decommissioning. The first occurred in 1998 and was a very early and welcome gesture. I entirely agree with those who suggest that we waited far too long for the second such act; none the less, a second important act of decommissioning has occurred.
  We must make a simple choice before we consider the Bill any further. We must decide whether the House will continue to place faith in General de Chastelain. If hon. Members are saying that they are not prepared to do so, the whole process will come to an end, as that is the basis on which agreement was struck and on which they said they would have confidence in the process. Now that General de Chastelain has announced that a second act of decommissioning has occurred, that basis has been challenged.
  Chris Grayling: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the issue of concern is not General de Chastelain, but the continuous process in which the Government have made concessions during the past two to three years without any response from Sinn Fein-IRA? We have seen the process of releasing prisoners, the creation of the new institutions and the reform of policing, and we are now dealing with the issue of accommodation in the House of Commons for Members who have not taken their seats. There has been concession after concession, but we have had only one item in return, and we are being asked to take it on trust that that is sufficient. Does not he understand that the concerns arise from the continued process of give but very little take?
  Mr. McCabe: I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way.
  As I understand it, we are dealing with the question of extending an amnesty for those who are prepared to decommission weapons on the loyalist and republican sides. That is what we should be considering now. I accept his concerns, which are genuine, but not his analysis of events since the Good Friday agreement was signed. It seems to me that General de Chastelain" s remit has not expired. As I understand it, his remit is established by treaty, so nobody should be querying his right to continue in his current role. However, we are entitled to ask what will happen when we hit the 27 February deadline. If people to whom an amnesty applies are poised and ready to decommission weapons, are we prepared to turn our backs by not agreeing to take another step to allow them

  63
  to do so? I cannot believe that any reasonable human being in this place who wants to see peace and decommissioning in Northern Ireland would come to that conclusion, which is utterly wrong.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that I recognise that decommissioning must be one of the crucial elements of the peace process. I was in South Africa with other members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs a couple of years ago. We witnessed first hand some of the problems that had occurred in that country despite the peace process there, because of the failure successfully to decommission weapons. If the entire peace process in Northern Ireland is to succeed, successful decommissioning must be a part of it. I do not take the view that we should put unnecessary obstacles in its way. Whatever people feel should have happened in the first two years, tentative moves have been made. They are insufficient, more is required and it is to be hoped that we can persuade those involved to deliver more, but tentative moves have been made—one on each side—which show that the process can work, given the right encouragement.
  Unfortunately, we must recognise that the UDA, a specified organisation, is not currently prepared to engage in the process. How on earth we could expect it to decommission before 27 February or within three months of that date—I think that that is the preferred time scale of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford—I do not know. I think that that is utterly absurd. We know that the UVF and the LVF are currently engaged in discussions with General de Chastelain, although I do not think that there is much information about exactly what stage the negotiations have reached. It is possible that they are considering the time scale for further acts of decommissioning, but the hon. Gentleman is prepared to sweep that possibility aside unless such an act takes place within his three-month time scale. That position is frighteningly absurd and I think that we are entitled to expect better from Her Majesty's official Opposition.
  On decommissioning by the Provisional IRA, I want to make this simple point: we know that it has taken the first vital step and we hope that a succession of steps will follow. I share that view with my colleagues from Northern Ireland. I dearly want such progress to happen soon and I hope that we might even see more of it before 27 February. I also want total decommissioning, which can happen only if we retain faith in the process. That is why I am shocked and disturbed to be told that the official Opposition spokesman wants to rewrite the de Chastelain brief. He is not content to accept what his predecessors and this whole House were happy to accept: that the onus is on General de Chastelain and the commission to say that they are happy and satisfied, that they have a record and that they were able to verify the process. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford does not want that. He wants a new set of conditions and timetables, the result of which would be to undermine General de Chastelain at the very stage when we have seen what he describes as the first significant act. I cannot for the life of me work out how any reasonable individual would come to that conclusion.
  Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He said that he did not understand how any reasonable individual could come to the
  64
  conclusion that he described, but surely the evidence of the past three years shows that every time Sinn Fein-IRA sees an opportunity to string the process out or grab an extra concession, it does so. The message of a five-year time frame is that decommissioning is anything but urgent. I put it to him that it is urgent and that we need a tighter time frame and tighter guidelines in respect of Sinn Fein-IRA to try to encourage it to come to a resolution.
  Mr. McCabe: The evidence of the past few years is that we have been engaged in a stop-go process with regard to the whole Good Friday agreement. Sometimes we have had the Executive and the Assembly, sometimes there have been deadlines and sometimes we have moved away from them. However, despite all those difficulties, we have seen two significant acts of decommissioning. We should now be doing everything we can to encourage further such acts. There is nothing wrong with the proposals in the Bill, which contains no provision saying that a further five years are necessary. It states that a further 12 months are necessary and that, beyond that time, the Secretary of State can extend the time scale by 12-month periods, if necessary, for up to five years.
  Given where we were when Lord Mayhew made the original proposals, it is clear that we have moved forward. An agreement is in place and various acts are occurring, many of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. Any reasonable individual would regard them as progress. Not enough progress has been made, there is anxiety about the future and concerns have been expressed about how quickly we move forward; none the less, progress has been made that was inconceivable 10 years ago.
  At the very point when we could be in a position to generate further and, I hope, much more rapid progress, the official Opposition claim that they want to defeat the Bill that would allow an extension for the minimum period required to complete the job. That is not bipartisanship, and the Opposition's actions are not those of people who believe in the peace process or have decommissioning at the top of their agenda. For that reason, they are wrong. We should therefore reject the amendment and get on with removing the bombs and guns from Northern Ireland.
  6.20 pm
  Lembit Öpik: We need to discuss the Bill in the context of what all parties, including the former Conservative Government, have created. To some extent, the process is an act of faith, but we can also examine the evidence when we determine the Bill's merit.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) presented a fluent and logically argued case for the Conservative party. He made two core points. First, he said that the Bill weakened the bargaining hand of the Government to speed decommissioning. Secondly, he claimed that the Bill extends to five years the minimum period that the people of Northern Ireland have to wait for significant decommissioning. Those points lie at the heart of whether we support the Bill.
  It is a contradiction for the Conservatives to argue that the Bill weakens the Government's bargaining ability. As the hon. Gentleman correctly pointed out, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 came into force on 22 February 1997, during John Major's

  65
  Administration, before Conservative Members lost their hold on the Government Benches. Clearly, if the Bill weakens the Government's hand, the 1997 Act must have weakened that of the previous Government, especially as we did not even have the structure of the Good Friday agreement for pursuing lasting peace and normalisation in the Province.
  If the hon. Gentleman's logic holds true, it was a worse mistake for Conservatives to argue in favour of the amnesty in 1997.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is missing an important distinction. Because of the Belfast agreement, no decommissioning now means leaving in government the chief of staff of the Provisional IRA with an army at his beck and call that is totally armed.
  Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will attempt to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to expand on that. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford implied the same. It is a legitimate position, but to take it, one must argue primarily from principle rather than from judging the best way forward to normalisation in Northern Ireland. It may be such a controlling principle for the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the gentleman to whom he referred is in power in Northern Ireland that any softening of the position on decommissioning is unacceptable. That is not where I stand.
  In my view, the fundamental principle is finding the best way forward to normalising life in the Province. The evidence of 1997 suggests that the argument for repeating the gesture in 2001 for another five years is compelling. It is up to hon. Members to decide whether to adopt the position of the hon. Member for Belfast, East—I believe that it is a position of principle—or that of the Liberal Democrats. An amnesty was set previously, and we believe that nothing suggests that we should go back on it.
  The earlier amnesty was established in a political vacuum when there was no process. The Bill re-establishes the amnesty after the Good Friday agreement has provided an imperfect but nevertheless tangible structure for us to compare the performance of the organisations involved in decommissioning. If the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford condemns the timetable, he must condemn what happened under Lord Mayhew in 1997 even more. I did not hear him make such a condemnation. He implied that I had praised Lord Mayhew and the former Conservative Government for their actions. He is right.
  I have previously praised John Major for his visionary and courageous decisions when he was effectively forced to deal with terrorists who were bombing our security forces. I also praise Lord Mayhew, who made a courageous decision that could have backfired, but was one of the necessary if insufficient conditions for the subsequent success of the Good Friday agreement and the ceasefire.
  Chris Grayling: Surely the difference between 1997 and today is that actions in 1997 were a genuine attempt to open a door to the process. Today, an agreement is in place, the British Government and the Irish Government have made concessions, but Sinn Fein-IRA has not yet
  66
  fulfilled the decommissioning terms in the Belfast agreement. Extending the time for five years does not apply the thumbscrews to make it deliver.
  Lembit Öpik: That is a good link to my second point. The hon. Gentleman asked the right question. Is there a difference in 2001? Could we achieve a stronger position by not renewing the amnesty? Tonight's debate is not about creating pressure to ensure that the paramilitaries decommission, but about whether we want to close a door on them. It is about whether we want to provide a gateway through which they can decommission.
  In 1997, the amnesty was a necessary but insufficient condition to achieve decommissioning. In the same way, the Bill is a necessary but insufficient condition. It makes it legally possible for paramilitary organisations to decommission, but I do not believe that that is an incentive to doing it. However, I sure as hell am convinced that if we make it illegal and create the possibility of prosecuting for decommissioning, it will be harder to find mechanisms to provide the political pressure for it.
  As the hon. Gentleman suggested, some hon. Members may believe that the debate is about applying positive pressure by making it illegal to decommission. On the other hand, some of us believe that the Bill keeps a door open so that we can move on through dialogue and other means to find pressure points that will cause the IRA and others to decommission. I suspect that the Secretary of State was also arguing that.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford claimed that the measure would extend the process by another five years. Again, I take a different view. Paramilitary organisations have been bombing, killing, maiming and destroying property for decades. I do not believe that they will be persuaded to decommission by 26 February 2002 simply because we tell them that we will prosecute them if they do not. That is not real-life politics. Such people do not worry about not owning gun licences, but they probably worry about the political implications of making it difficult for linked organisations such as Sinn Fein to achieve the sort of concessions for their communities for which they allegedly got involved in the troubles. I therefore take issue with the hon. Gentleman, not because he did not argue cogently but because my premise is different. I believe that the Bill is a gateway measure rather than a pressure.
  The evidence suggests that the Liberal Democrats and the Government are correct. As I said earlier, I genuinely believe that the roots of the successes lie in the former Conservative Administration's decisions. There is all the more pressure now, therefore, for the current Conservative Opposition not to impugn one of the few great triumphs for which they can justly take credit. A few individuals such as the former Prime Minister and Lord Mayhew are worthy of special mention in that context.
  Let us be honest, the driver behind the first limited act of decommissioning in October was not the amnesty. The key driver was probably 11 September, in that the IRA—and perhaps Sinn Fein as well—could foresee its funding from the United States drying up, as well as an unquantifiable military response being made against it in the post-11 September environment. In addition, the IRA scored a tremendous political own goal in Colombia, where it was found to be carrying out activities wholly in

  67
  contravention of the alliance against terrorism that was being established across the world. The drivers were, therefore, external to Northern Ireland.
  I suspect that it would have been somewhat more difficult for the IRA—and those Sinn Fein politicians who, I am pretty sure, have sway over it—to meet its goals and to achieve the first act of decommissioning if the de Chastelain process had not been in place. Let us not pretend that that process could continue after 26 February if the Bill were not passed. There would be no structure within which to achieve a logical de Chastelain-type procedure to manage decommissioning if we did not pass the Bill. I have not heard what alternative proposals the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford would put forward if he were Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and did not allow the Bill to go through.
  I have some questions for the Minister on the mechanics of the Bill, and I hope that she will be able to answer them in her summation. I agree with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that we need clarification on certain questions, one of which concerns the degree of contact between the IRA and the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning since October. After the IRA's symbolic gesture, everything seems to have gone rather quiet. It has always been recognised that decommissioning is a process, but it is not a one-incident process. Pressure must be brought to bear on the IRA to do more than simply make a gesture to cover its own financial backside one day when it was clearly under the hammer to do so. We need to know what has happened since October. That was an important step, but is the Minister aware of any further steps that we can expect from the paramilitaries? Secondly, to what extent has the IRA met de Chastelain since October? Have there been any bilateral meetings, and has any pressure been brought to bear by Ministers to achieve that?
  Thirdly, to what extent have loyalist paramilitaries been in contact with the IICD? The incidence of loyalist attacks is increasing, and steps must be taken to reduce them. As hon. Members, including Unionist and Conservative Members, have rightly pointed out, there is an underlying level of violence in Northern Ireland that -is unknown on the mainland of the United Kingdom. For many people in Northern Ireland, the peace is not a peace. They are still living under paramilitary regimes that are far from our concept of peace. Will the Minister enlighten us as to whether we can expect a statement from the loyalist paramilitaries as well? We cannot expect a real dialogue on decommissioning by the loyalists while such violence is continuing, but the aim must be to achieve a total decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons. Strategically speaking, we have to recognise, while focusing primarily on the IRA for obvious reasons, that there is a pressure elsewhere too.
  I would like to make a suggestion as to how we should generate the kind of pressure that could create genuine decommissioning. Clearly, the Bill is part of that process, in that it will leave the door open for that pressure to be applied. Secondly, it is necessary now to start moving in the direction that we all hoped that we could, and to make it clear to the paramilitaries that they will maximise the benefit to their communities and achieve the goals that they have been bombing and shooting for only through their political representatives.
  68
  As the hon. Member for Belfast, East rightly pointed out, there are some very senior members of the republican movement who have, at the very least, formerly served time on account of being actively involved in a paramilitary operation and who now enjoy a great deal more power than they could ever have dreamed possible when they were operating in a paramilitary environment. So long as the success of the Stormont Assembly in giving power on a genuinely bipartisan basis is sustained, and so long as the Stormont Assembly really means something to the people of Northern Ireland, we can be confident that it is the right vehicle to show those paramilitaries who are serious about their communities that they should move forward in that way.
  There has to be balance in these matters. Unionists and loyalists can rightly be nervous about what they perceive to be an endless series of concessions to the republican and nationalist communities. I agree with what the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said about that. Whatever my personal views on the degree of balance, perception is everything. The current perception is that the Unionists have given too much, and that the republicans have given too little back. Does the Minister agree with the concern that I am raising now, which has already been raised by Conservative Members? Is there anything strategic that the Government can do to ensure that both sides feel fairly treated?
  It is also necessary to remember that there is public pressure in Northern Ireland to eliminate the maiming and killing. As we have said so many times before, the overwhelming majority of the people in Northern Ireland oppose violence. They have got used to peace, although it has been more successfully achieved in some areas than in others. Will the Minister tell us how we can harness the increasing intolerance of violence among the large sections of the public who have benefited from the peace, to make it clear to the paramilitaries—and those politicians involved with them—that violence will no longer be tolerated and, more to the point, that if the violence restarted, there would be a tremendous political price to be paid, which would have a direct consequence on the communities allegedly being protected by the paramilitaries?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman said that there would be a political price to be paid. The reality is that the main parties in this House would not have to pay that political price, because they do not stand for election in Northern Ireland. Does he recognise that, despite his placid idea that people are against violence, there is now more criminal and terrorist violence in ordinary everyday life in Northern Ireland? The shops on the Lisburn road are attacked day after day, but the police and security forces cannot deal with it. The clear-up rate for crime has been lower over this last year than ever before. Is it not time for him to come down from cloud cuckoo land and deal with reality?
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's point is exactly the one to which I hope that the Minister will respond. He expresses a genuine and sincerely felt concern that things are getting worse in the Unionist communities in an area of Belfast that I know something about, having lived there myself, although not for some time. Regardless of the perceptions of those of us who think that things are getting better, we have to build confidence in the

  69
  communities in which people think that things are getting worse. He says that I am living in cloud cuckoo land. I accept that I am an optimist—and, as a Liberal Democrat, perhaps even an idealist—but I do not have time to fantasise to that extent. I dare to think that the points that I am making are practical enough to warrant a significant response from the Minister, and the Unionist community, in particular, deserves a response to the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
  It is possible to put forward a case, on the basis of principle, that we should not extend the amnesty for decommissioning—there has been at least one speech to that effect—but that is not the argument that I heard from Conservative Members tonight. In the interests of consistency, therefore, I suggest that it would be wise for Her Majesty's official Opposition to do in 2001 what they did in far less favourable circumstances in 1997. In the absence of anyone in this or any previous debate in the last few years coming up with a better alternative to decommissioning than the content of the Good Friday agreement, I suggest that voting the Bill down would simply close a door without providing an alternative to the Good Friday agreement and the de Chastelain procedures. The Conservatives were right to introduce a very similar proposal to this in 1997. The Liberal Democrats think that it would be right for them, and for us, to support the same proposal, for very much the same reasons, in 2001.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I agree with a great deal of what was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), especially in connection with the need to respond to Unionist concerns without throwing the Bill out. That would not respond to those concerns. However, the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the shadow Secretary of State, was quite amazing. He huffed and he puffed a great deal, although I may have misinterpreted him, because his style rather obscured the content. For about three quarters of his speech, I thought that he had jettisoned any last remnant of bipartisanship and moved into the No camp and alliance with the Democratic Unionist party, although it became obvious that he is not in that position.
  The hon. Gentleman supports the reasoned amendment, which means that he wants the Government to attach a different timetable to the Bill. Although the arguments for amendment can be made on the Floor of the House, they can also be made in Committee, so all the strident opposition turns out to be almost nothing—a minor position that ties him in with some views that the Conservative party held in the past—and Unionists of different persuasions should not be misled by all the noise that he made in producing that particular view.
  The hon. Gentleman seems not to realise that water has flowed under the bridge as certain measures have proceeded. My strong opinion is that the Government should not have been involved in the prisoner release programme in the way that they were without digging in and using that involvement as an avenue to gain movement on decommissioning by loyalist and republican paramilitary groups. Unfortunately, that was not done and we have to consider that reality of the current situation.
  70
  More water has flowed under the bridge, because a certain number of arms have been put beyond use by the IRA. Of all organisations, the Provisional IRA, because of circumstances round about it and pressures from different areas, has jettisoned one of its distorted principles, to which many of its members said they would always adhere. That change needs to be taken into account.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman mentions the prisoner release scheme. He is aware that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 provides for prisoners to be returned to prison should they default on the terms of their release licence. Does he agree that the Government should consider extending that provision to cover paramilitary organisations that breach their ceasefire or whose ceasefire has been declared null and void and that the Government ought to consider a measure to return to prison all prisoners associated with such an organisation should it fail fully to reinstate its ceasefire and decommission its illegal weapons?
  Mr. Barnes: Perhaps there should be greater surveillance of the activities in which released prisoners become involved. They may not strictly re-enter fully fledged paramilitary activities, but introducing measures on association with organised gangsterism and other stuff that goes on in Northern Ireland should be considered seriously. I am in favour of being tough in connection with the rules that have already been determined.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has a long and honourable record of trying to find a new dialogue in Northern Ireland, but does he not think that his position and his criticisms of the Conservative party are essentially a triumph of hope over experience? The experience following the Belfast agreement is of giving way, giving way, giving way—on prisoner releases, as he says—yet we have received nothing. What is his determination of when all weapons must be decommissioned by organisations such as the IRA and loyalists who are currently, allegedly, on ceasefire? Is it 2007, 2010 or 2020?
  Mr. Barnes: It is not correct that there has been no progress in pushing back the position of Sinn Fein and its links with the IRA. Many measures have been introduced and we have just discussed one on the Floor of the House: the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill is directed almost entirely against Sinn Fein's manipulative activity at the ballot box and we in the House should be proud of its introduction and development.
  Perhaps it needed the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to produce a report and press for the measure, and pressures had to be placed on the Government to respond, but the Bill has been introduced. It is clear that Sinn Fein was benefiting most from electoral fraud. We took that on board and some of us are keen for the Bill to function properly, so we shall look to see whether it is strong enough to push back the Sinn Fein position, as far as it manipulates in the political game. I have no illusions about the techniques and tactics that it will be involved in.
  An interesting exchange took place between the Secretary of State and his shadow on the matter of Sinn Fein and the IRA. My right hon. Friend argued that, although those organisations are not identical, that does not rule out the argument that they are inextricably linked.

  71
  He used the interesting example of the link between the Labour party and the trade unions. That analogy can be carried so far, and it has relevance to the situation involving the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein. Provisional Sinn Fein came out of the Provisional IRA; it is the political wing of the organisation that was established in order to act.
  The analogy falls down in respect of the Labour party, because the trade unions were not the only organisations involved in its development. Political manipulators, organisers and activists such as Keir Hardie in the Independent Labour party also had a considerable say. When Labour came out of the trade union movement, it changed, although many of us would say that there is now a problem with how far the trade unions are involved.
  Interestingly, the Labour party altered, and if the Sinn Fein party comes out of the Provisional IRA, we may be at the start of a process of change, which means that, in time, those close links and what is seen as identity will begin to disappear. It is likely that the Provisional IRA and those left in it will move to Mafia-type activity and manipulation of their own and away from the political game. We must hope that, as a result of being more and more involved in the political process, Sinn Fein will detach itself from those activities.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is not the whole point of the Belfast agreement that Sinn Fein can deliver the Provisional IRA. The worst thing that could happen would be for Sinn Fein to become divorced from the Provisional IRA and for a split to occur? Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are one and the same, but on the hon. Gentleman's assumption, a split would leave the Provisional IRA as an armed terrorist group able to go back to violence.
  Mr. Barnes: I was not necessarily envisaging such a split. I drew an analogy with the Labour party and the trade unions. Just as the trade unions have become somewhat distanced from the Labour party, I hope that the Provisional IRA will become distanced from Sinn Fein. There may be a formal break. There was a formal break between the official IRA and the body that was known as the workers" party. Those who represented the democratic left in the Republic of Ireland had a battle inside the workers" party, which they failed to win and had to establish a separate organisation. Heaven knows what the future holds for the activity and organisation of Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA.
  Why did the Provisional IRA put a certain number of arms beyond use? Unfortunately, it was not the pressure of deadlines. Pressure was put on the IRA by the Leader of the Ulster Unionists because of his party's position, which was an important part of the network of pressure that was brought to bear. However, the essential element was the pressure from the United States, especially that in connection with the Colombian incidents, although the events of 11 September increased the pressure.
  What does that tell us about Sinn Fein-IRA? It will act as an organisation to maximise its political advantage or minimise its disadvantage according to the circumstances. That is not the position that the Provisional IRA has traditionally adopted. Sinn Fein-IRA stood to lose heavily
  72
  in elections in the Republic of Ireland, where it was hoping to hold the balance of power in the future, and it was being pushed back in the republican community in Northern Ireland, so it was willing to consider minimising its disadvantages. Therefore, it was responding to those pressures.
  More pressure may be put on Sinn Fein-IRA from America as a result of Gerry Adams's visit to Cuba. I do not usually criticise Castro, but he seems to have made a fundamental blunder in inviting Gerry Adams to Cuba and to celebrate provisions dealing with the problem of the people who died in the Maze. That political responsiveness and interest in gaining political seats is of considerable importance, and alters Sinn Fein's position on the situation in the island of Ireland and our response to it.
  I have no illusions about Sinn Fein and the IRA. I want to undermine their political stance. We should all try to engage with the electorate and people of Northern Ireland to ensure that Sinn Fein is not able to make progress. I regret the fact that the Labour party refuses to organise in Northern Ireland. It is the one place in the world where a person is not allowed to be a member of the Labour party, which is not only an injustice, but is politically naive. We should be there arguing these alternative positions.
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Sinn Fein took 51 per cent. of the so-called Catholic-nationalist community—I do not like using that term—at recent elections, and overtook the SDLP because of the amount of concessions from Her Majesty's Government towards republicanism and not towards unionism?
  Mr. Barnes: I was concerned about the concessions that were made, as I showed with the point I made about prisoner releases. However, I do not want to keep going over yesterday's arguments. We must move from our current position. Much advantage has come out of the agreement and the progress that has been made under it. If I had had control of or great influence over the situation, I would have operated it differently and would have brought different values to the fore, and I think we might have been in a stronger position. I did not have such control, and the role that the present Government and the previous Conservative Government have played has been honourable. We must now move on.
  We must stress to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland that the IRA and Sinn Fein have shifted their position. They have more or less given up the military struggle—their paramilitary activities. Unacceptable activity still takes place, and the loyalist and republican paramilitary groups have much control over their communities. They want to retain that control. We should enable people in exile to return and ensure that the paramilitaries back off. Such matters should be brought forward on behalf of the Unionist community so that the Government can respond. That is the other side of the coin. I do not entirely accept the argument that there should not be a balance of concessions to both sides. It has always been a matter of trying to get people involved.
  There has been a dramatic change in Sinn Fein-IRA's principled attitudes. They were distorted principles, but it adhered to them. It would not involve itself in the institutions of the Republic or of Northern Ireland, because it was a divided Ireland. Now, not only is it keen

  73
  to manoeuvre to win whatever seats it can in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, but it is on the Executive. That poses problems because of the nature of its links, and it is trying to get rid of its past connections. It would take its seats in the United Kingdom Parliament if it were not for the problem of the Oath. That is a dramatic change from any position it has held in the past, but it means recognising the body that it believes has divided Ireland into two. It sees the possibility of advancing politically by engaging in the De Valera technique.
  Those who were associated with paramilitary activity at one stage and lost out should switch to the ballot box. When they do so, they will take a constituency with them—a constituency that never wanted them to engage in such activity, but will support them now because they have proved that they are the stronger, as it were, republicans through the very activity that they engaged in before.
  That is the avenue that those people are going down, the avenue that they should be encouraged to go down, and the avenue in which we should defeat them politically by saying that there are alternatives that will give people in Northern Ireland a better life. I am thinking of Labour's provision for pensions and welfare generally—for instance, its attempts to improve health services. Such matters should form part of day-to-day discussion of politics in Northern Ireland, and it would help if we engaged in the tussle.
  Kate Hoey: As my hon. Friend knows, more than 100 Labour Members agree with his last point. How quickly does he think we could give all United Kingdom citizens the right to be members of the Labour party?
  Mr. Barnes: That involves an internal battle in the Labour party. It is not a question of constitutional positions, unless some feel that human rights are infringed when people are not allowed a say and an involvement in a body that forms the Government of the country, but must sit and watch on television a Labour party conference that will affect their lives. The sooner my comrades do something about that, the better.
  Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those Labour supporters could register their protest by joining the Northern Ireland branch of the Liberal Democrats?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I think we are straying rather wide of the Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Barnes: I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker. When we talk of joining the allies of the Liberal Democrats, we are moving very far from the politics that need to develop in Northern Ireland.
  I said earlier that certain moves had been made to tackle Sinn Fein and its links with the IRA, and referred to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill. I think that discussion of the basic building block of a democratic system—the right to a vote—is tremendously important. I know that democracy cannot be secured merely through votes; there must be the proper pressure groups and other organisations, there must be some freedom of expression, and there must be an end to pressures that have existed for too long in Northern Ireland communities. I think, however, that we are beginning to move in that direction.
  74
  What I have said does not mean that I will agree entirely with everything in the Bill if it is given a Committee stage, but the general principles strike me as necessary at this stage. I am not sure what the objections in the amendment are meant to be about, apart from an attempt to establish some political link with various members of Unionist communities and to carry them along—and to sound as though something very different is being said from what is actually being said.
  We could have a much more sensible and open debate today about what, in Committee, could be added to the Bill to deal with problems that still exist in Northern Ireland, such as the increasing Unionist disillusionment with the whole process. We must be very aware of the need to do that, but we can do it without damning the Bill.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who, as always, made a serious speech-although I fear that his keenness on the trade union movement and its relationship with the Labour party led him to stretch an analogy a bit too far, in a way that was not entirely helpful.
  The Bill relates to arms decommissioning, and in that context we must first welcome a first act of such decommissioning by the IRA. [Interruption.] It is important. Those whom I hear offstage to the left should bear in mind, when trying to cast doubt, that they are undermining their own case. They want to see the transition of organisations away from paramilitarism; they want to see an end to terrorism; they must want to see decommissioning. Therefore, they should not try to undermine the progress that has been made.
  I have no doubt that the decommissioning did occur, and I have no doubt that it was significant. Indeed, I suspect that it was more than just significant: I think it was substantial, and that that should be welcomed. The act of decommissioning was carried out by the IRA, and after a beginning of decommissioning by the IRA—a beginning that we hope will lead to a continuation; indeed, must lead to a continuation—it is appropriate to make a couple of points. First, we hope the decommissioning will indeed continue. Secondly, it returns the focus to loyalists.
  Until the IRA's act of decommissioning, loyalist paramilitaries hid behind the IRA—engaging in discussions with the international commission, agreeing the modalities of decommissioning in general terms, but not actually doing anything, and saying that they would not do anything unless republicans did. Now republicans have acted, and consequently I think loyalists need to think very seriously. I hope they will think very seriously not just about their relationship with the agreement and the political process in Northern Ireland, but about their relationship with society in Northern Ireland as a whole.
  Over the last year or so, we have observed with great sadness the lack of coherence in certain elements of the loyalist community, and the continued and increasing violence perpetrated by some of them. There have, however, been a few hopeful signs in recent weeks and months. The fact that some loyalists helped to resolve the difficulties in north Belfast with regard to Holy Cross is welcome, and they should be congratulated. There are other signs of an effort to bring about coherence and

  75
  serious thought in loyalism, which should also be welcomed. I think the Secretary of State could do a bit more to encourage the process.
  Nevertheless, there is a difficulty involving loyalists, which others have mentioned today. A certain leverage can be exerted in the case of republicans. Sinn Fein participates in the Administration, and is therefore vulnerable to political pressure. Loyalist paramilitaries are not vulnerable in the same way because they are not part of the Administration; indeed, a whole segment is not represented in the Assembly. The only pressures that can be exerted are pressures of a different kind, one of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). If the Secretary of State were to look more closely at the prisoner release scheme and the legislation, he would find that they contain means whereby he could exert pressure, so I hope that he will consider that.
  The Bill can be regarded as a technical measure to facilitate decommissioning, because if decommissioning is to occur, there must be a legislative framework for it and a provision whereby the Commission can, when it is appropriate, grant amnesties for those engaged in decommissioning. However, I can understand some of the frustration of Labour Members because it is clear that, despite its being a technical measure, the Bill's consideration this evening has become a point of controversy, leading to the tabling of a reasoned amendment. I have signed that amendment and will support it, along with my colleagues, in the Division Lobby.
  The reason for that controversy over what would otherwise be a technical measure is simple. When the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act was passed in 1997, providing a five-year period in which renewable intervals could be set for amnesties, it was not controversial. The Act itself does not contain any element of timetabling, any deadlines or any target dates. Those came separately, from the agreement. We had hoped that they would come from the original report by Senator Mitchell and his colleagues way back in January 1996, but it was not until we had the agreement in 1998 that we had a framework that gave targets.
  As I said in an intervention, those targets were in the agreement itself, which set a deadline of 22 May 2000, which was extended to June 2001. Now, there is no target, and that is where the Secretary of State is making a serious mistake. That is why we have to register our position through tabling and voting on the reasoned amendment. We need targets.
  The Bill would not have been controversial if the Secretary of State had done what I thought the Government were going to do a few months ago. They should have responded positively to the ideas expressed by Mr. Mark Durkan, now the leader of the SDLP, when he said, after the first act of decommissioning, that it was necessary to get together the parties that support the agreement so that they could recommit to the decommissioning process to General de Chastelain. Inevitably, a fresh target would have had to form part of that recommitment. That target, like the original one in the agreement, would have been endorsed by all the parties, which is important because it would have been better than a target that does not really exist. The best
  76
  that the Secretary of State could say in response to my intervention was that the target is implicit in the date that has been set, which is 27 February 2003. That is where the mistake has been made.
  The Secretary of State made comments with which I profoundly disagree. Unfortunately, they are almost an accepted part of the normal discourse on this matter. He said that deadlines do not work and that there should be no pressure. That is absolute rubbish. No other word can be used to describe it. Of course pressure works. Of course deadlines are important. Targets may not always be met, but if we do not set them, we do not have the opportunity to say to certain parties, "You are in default." It will not now be so easy to tell republicans that they are in default, and being able to say that is the beginning of being able to apply pressure to them. That is the Government's mistake.
  Over the past three years, there has been movement by republicans on decommissioning. They started off, in April 1998, denying that they were under any obligation from the agreement. They were wrong, but worse was the error made by those who supported republicans in their error.[Laughter.]We hear them laughing, but the agreement placed a clear obligation on republicans and we moved them, by stages, to a point at which they accepted that obligation. At the first Hillsborough meetings, Sinn Fein accepted that an obligation stemmed from the agreement. In May 2000, the IRA accepted that obligation. It was on the basis of their acceptance of it and their promise to fulfil it that the Government, with the consent of the parties, shifted the timetable.
  Those moves were achieved only as the result of pressure. We got the IRA's promise to decommission only after devolution was suspended in February 2000. That produced movement. The IRA were dilatory in carrying out its promise, thus confirming our suspicion that, given time, it would spin things out and Mr. Adams would waste that time. That is precisely what he did. It was necessary then for me to take action. Are the Government going to hide behind me again? Are they going to leave it to other people to start to take action?
  The Government need to think about this very carefully. It is primarily their responsibility to achieve decommissioning. It should not be up to us to carry that burden, to a large extent without support from others. Tonight the Government are shirking their responsibility. They should have faced up to it, and could have done so by taking the opportunity offered by Mr. Durkan to bring the parties to agreement on the way in which the process would continue.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman with great attention and in great agreement. Does he agree that if the Government abdicate their proper duty to take the lead in pressing for decommissioning and applying pressure using whatever instruments are available, rather than simply throwing them away as has too often been the case up to now, pressure will need to be applied by himself or the new institutions in Belfast, which will guarantee a series of political crises that could destabilise those institutions every time a new act of decommissioning is needed? Surely, that would be a fatal recipe for achieving the peace, stability and decommissioning that we all need.
  Mr. Trimble: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. If the Government reflect on the matter,

  77
  they will realise what a bad thing it is for the development of the political process to have these recurrent crises. Those are not good for the development of the Administration or of confidence in it. One has to ask why the Government are sitting back and adopting the approach that they will do nothing until a crisis occurs. A responsible Government should be acting in advance, particularly as the development of such a crisis is clearly predictable and should be anticipated by them. It is not responsible government, nor is it desirable, to bring about a situation in which such a threat to the political process in Northern Ireland is inevitable.
  I find the Government's attitude disappointing. They know that people in Northern Ireland compare the supine attitude that the Government have adopted to events there with the hyperactivity that we see on other fronts, and they are not encouraged by it. If the Government wanted to increase confidence and a sense of community in Northern Ireland, they would address the disparity between their domestic policies and their international policies. The continued gap between those approaches deepens the crisis of confidence in Northern Ireland, and a sensible Administration would not allow that to develop.
  Our experience in dealing with republicans reinforces the need for clarity and firmness. We are dealing with an organisation that does not operate on the normal principles that we understand; it does not reciprocate; it never displays any generosity; it acts only when it has to; and if given an opportunity to wriggle out of anything, it will do so. There is a clear need for firm lines. That need is based on pragmatism, but it should not just be based on that. There are principles here that have to be vindicated. In terms of the level of confidence within the community in Northern Ireland, the Government must show that there is no moral vacuum in their approach to the issue, that they understand the basic principles and that they will be firm on them. Those basic principles come back to the underlying point of the Good Friday agreement; that it is there to support peace and democracy and to support the democratic process.
  The comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on electoral fraud were significant and I hope that the Government listened and will act. We must support the democratic process, but the objective at the end of the day is to produce a normal society in Northern Ireland that operates by normal, peaceful and democratic methods. That necessarily means an end to paramilitarism; we should be clear about that. Weapons decommissioning is part of the process, but that process must continue with the dissolution or the transformation of the paramilitary organisations into something that is entirely peaceful and democratic.
  We may find that some elements, individuals or even organisations are not prepared to make that progress and wish to continue racketeering. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire knows, the Official IRA started a ceasefire in 1972 but, 25 years later, we discovered there were still elements of it in parts of Newry and West Belfast, simply in order to maintain rackets in which they had been engaged over the years. There will be a need to deal with racketeering, and the Government have come across a good example of how that can be done in recent weeks. I hope that the response is positive.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has pointed out, there is a need to tackle the criminal activity that has developed; again,
  78
  probably largely from former paramilitaries who are now lining their own pockets. All those things need to be done to produce the situation that we want, but we will not be able to move paramilitary organisations down this path unless a firm framework is put in place and it is made clear to them that they need to move that way. Essential to that is the setting of some form of target date. The Government have failed to do that, and for that reason I am afraid that this measure, which would otherwise have been a technical one, has to be opposed.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: It is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate, which represents the latest incremental step in what has been a long progress towards normalisation in Northern Ireland. I am aware that many hon. Members here tonight have a detailed knowledge of the subject at hand, particularly those Members with constituencies in Northern Ireland. However, they, too, will be aware that many of us with constituencies outside Northern Ireland have constituents with a great deal of interest in the subject. My constituency is no different.
  That makes the comment of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—that the Labour Government have nothing to lose in Northern Ireland—seem a bit cheap, given that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spent several minutes saying how large the responsibilities were of the Labour Government in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] I did not miss the point. The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government had nothing to lose in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: In an intervention on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), I said that there was no political price to be paid by the parties in this House because they did not stand in Northern Ireland. I was talking about parties, and not the Government.
  Mr. Joyce: I appreciate that, but the Labour Government have a great deal of responsibility in Northern Ireland and therefore a great deal to lose in terms of the interpretation of constituents, including my own, of what happens in Northern Ireland.
  The technical purpose of the Bill is to extend the Northern Ireland arms decommissioning process and associated amnesty, initially for a year, in order to maintain the momentum of the decommissioning process. It is essentially a technical Bill.
  Of course, on one level it is disappointing that this measure is required at all. We might think that, in an ideal world, the violence, and the arms that have represented the means for maintaining it, would have disappeared from Ireland by now, but that would be a false construct since in an ideal world the violence would not have started in the first place. We should temper our disappointment with the knowledge that, for most people, not only is Northern Ireland a far more hospitable place to live today than it was 10, 15 or, indeed, five years ago, but that, in the more immediate sense, there has been some real progress recently in the decommissioning process.
  It might not always be the wisest thing for a politician to apply the term "optimism", as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) did in relation to Northern Ireland. I would not go that far, but there is room for a real sense of progress when we reflect on the historic

  79
  act of decommissioning, witnessed by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and reported on 23 October of this year.
  That single act of decommissioning may or may not have been modest in terms of volume—it certainly satisfied the commission—but its significance lay in the fact that it represented an acceptance by people formerly of violent intent that their methods had to change for good. I would not wish to say today that these individuals do not desire the same political ends as they ever did, but the important thing is that their recent action serves as powerful evidence that they recognise they can pursue their objectives only through peaceful and democratic means. That is why it would be a wholesale failure of peaceful governance if the decommissioning momentum—achieved, most notably, in recent months—were not maintained by means of the legislation under debate this evening.
  Of course there will be other objections to the extension of the decommissioning process. One objection is that, in negotiations of any kind, it is sometimes useful to be able to put those on the other side of the table under some form of time pressure, or constrain them to given time horizons. That is the essence of the amendment tabled by the Opposition today and supported by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
  But surely it is clear that, in the circumstances that pertain today, even if all paramilitaries agreed tomorrow to decommission, it would not be possible by February 2002. That is not a practical proposition, and it should lead us to the not unreasonable conclusion that what is important is that things are steadily moving forward, rather than to attempt to present artificial and unhelpful time frames.
  Indeed, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann agreed with the broad principle that artificial time frames are unhelpful in 1999 when he said
  "It would be beneficial if people looked carefully at the decommissioning scheme. It does not refer to timetables. Timetables have been mentioned, but there is no explicit reference in the decommissioning scheme to a timetable."—[Official Report, 13 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 189.]
  Another objection sometimes made is that the act of decommissioning witnessed by General de Chastelain and his colleagues was somehow bogus—a very weak objection indeed. Like all of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I take the integrity of the members of the commission as axiomatic and I would suggest that people who wish to doubt it prove by their very approach the wisdom of removing from the political arena the physical process of verification itself.
  A wider objection is to argue—as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has done before today—that the IRA has control rather than peace in mind, and would simply return to violence if the Good Friday agreement as a whole did not provide acceptable outcomes. That objection seems to miss the point that, in a democracy, people and groups can have whatever objectives they want, provided the means by which they pursue them are peaceful and lawful.
  The objection also ignores the way in which the world has changed, even since the events of 11 September, so as to make a return to the bullet and the bomb
  80
  unacceptable to all but a tiny splinter of people who will, in due course, be mopped up by sound policing in the Province and elsewhere.
  Our concern this evening should rest with progress in the short to medium term. This debate is not so much about the ultimate constitutional structure that is to pertain in Northern Ireland, but rather with the processes that ensure that, however the people of Northern Ireland choose to order their affairs, guns and explosives have no part in the public, or indeed private, discourse. The recent history of Northern Ireland has sometimes been characterised by the rejection of arguments based on process on the grounds that they could lead to political solutions not in accordance with the views of one group or another. However, in the 21st century, and post-11 September, that is not a view that even many former paramilitaries find sustainable.
  Indeed, 11 September, when a similar number of people died in one day as have died in Northern Ireland in 30 years, is likely, through its apocalyptic scale and effect, to have helped to force the hand of the Provisional IRA by closing off the remnants of support for terrorism in any form that may have existed outside Britain or Ireland. It is true that that argument allows for the fact that without the violence in New York some in Northern Ireland—other than the splinter groups I mentioned earlier—may still have considered violence to be a feasible option. It is also fair to say that Ministers must make fine judgments regarding who among the several groupings in Northern Ireland with a history of violence is to be specified and who is not. At the end of the day, the finer points of detail surely have to yield to common sense. The bare fact is that there has been progress, and there is good evidence to suggest that it will continue. It is therefore now time for loyalist paramilitary groups to enter the decommissioning process, too.
  Specification is not a one-way street and the decommissioning process is therefore a most fundamental part of the process of ensuring that competing visions of Northern Ireland's future are reconciled in democratic, rather than lawless, fashion. It is essential that all sides are able to press their cases, and it is fairly clear that if loyalist groups are to come on board, there is no real possibility—as hon. Members on the Opposition Benches know full well—of the process being completed before February. That is why the Bill is so important in helping to ensure a peaceful future for the people who live in Northern Ireland. It is pity that some hon. Members cannot see that and prefer to put up mindless opposition for its own sake.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) will forgive me if I do not pursue the points that he made, although I listened to his speech with interest. I strongly agreed with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when he said that decommissioning was essentially the responsibility of Government. It is an issue on which the Government to date have been defective. I was also intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the IRA's decommissioning event was substantial. The rest of us are unaware of any evidence that supports that view. If I may say so somewhat lightheartedly, we look forward to him sharing that evidence with us.

  81
  It has been predictable for three or so years that one day this Bill or something like it would come before the House. It was only a matter of time before the Government reflected in legislation their lamentable failure to deliver meaningful decommissioning. Further, nowhere is the saga of our surrender to domestic terrorism more clearly illustrated than in successive Governments" handling of the issue of decommissioning. I say successive Governments, because I am mindful of the retreat on that point that was made between 1993 and 1997. The unpalatable truth is that what started as a peace process long ago degenerated into a process of appeasement. The Bill is largely the consequence of capitulation to the threat of terrorist violence and fear of renewed terrorist violence.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, because it was earlier argued that the Conservative party is going back on 1997 in the reasoned amendment. Does he agree that when one realises a mistake has been made, the best thing to do is to rectify it?
  Mr. Hunter: I strongly agree, but I have also been intrigued by the frequent references to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, because I remember clearly its passage through the House and the arguments in the Chamber and behind the scenes. That Act was aspirational. It prepared the way, controversially, for the recommendations of the Mitchell committee and it came at a time when the Conservative party was still uncertain how strongly to insist on decommissioning as a precondition for entry to the talks. So the climate was very different from today.
  The Bill will lengthen the timetable for decommissioning and, therefore, represents the Government's failure to deliver an integral part of the Belfast agreement. It is an expression of that failure, the reasons for which significantly lie in the agreement itself. During the past three or so years, my hon. Friends and I have lamented the absence of linkage. We lamented the absence of linkage between early release and decommissioning and between places on the Executive and decommissioning. If only that linkage had existed, the situation today could have been very different.
  There was no linkage, and far from decommissioning being completed by February 2001, another five years will be allowed in which it may take place. That will bring the entire decommissioning process even further into disrepute and it will make fraudulent nonsense of Sinn Fein's position at the heart of Government in the Province.
  A simple principle is at stake and we lose sight of it at our peril. It cannot be morally right to sustain a system of democracy in which one side reserves the right to use force if its will does not prevail. How can a power-sharing Executive possibly work when parties are asked to share power with political opponents who have kept open the option of recourse to violence?
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is no longer in his place, because I listened to his speech with interest. He got close to saying that decommissioning is like the icing on the cake, or an added attraction. That is not true. It is a core imperative for the maintenance of democratic society.
  82
  A long time ago, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said:
  "You cannot negotiate with people who have guns on the table, under the table or outside the door."
  If one cannot negotiate with such people, one most certainly cannot share power with them. The requirement that terrorists must decommission their weapons embodies a basic democratic principle, and that principle has been diluted by the Government's failure to achieve meaningful decommissioning and is diluted further by the protracted timetable that the Bill provides.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, if the Bill had provided for a reasonable and limited extension of decommissioning of, say, one year, we might have been prepared to support it, but five years is totally irresponsible. A state that agrees to give executive power to people who are members of an armed body is undermining the rule of law on which its stability rests. That principle seemed to be understood by British and Irish Governments at the beginning of the process. So great, however, has been the desire to appease domestic terrorism that they have regressively diluted that principle.
  Let us consider the past few years. We were told that decommissioning would be resolved by May 2000. That did not happen, and a new deadline was set for June 2001. It did not happen then, and the deadline was extended to February 2002. The Bill gives a new date—February 2003—and makes further extension available. The point is that if we extend the deadline, we shall extend the time until decommissioning becomes reality. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill.
  I remember that, shortly after the agreement was signed, the Prime Minister wrote to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to say that decommissioning should start straight away. A few weeks later came the Prime Minister's handwritten pledges to the people of Northern Ireland. On the basis of what proved to be worthless pledges, the majority of voters in the Province backed the agreement. They were essentially conned.
  So it has gone on—fudge after fudge after fudge. There came the joint communiqué in April 1999, which the IRA's Brian Keenan described as an Easter bunny. There followed the Prime Minister's initiative and his article in The Times in June 1999, then "The Way Forward" document in July. The Mitchell review of the process followed, and then the IRA's so-called seismic change of thinking. So it has gone on.
  The objective has been to secure Unionist acceptance of Sinn Fein's participation in Government without decommissioning. The Government have largely succeeded in that. I find it wholly unacceptable that they should now seek more time for decommissioning when they have squandered so much and shown themselves incapable of delivering the goods. The Bill should be rejected.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Some weeks ago the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seemed to say that he understood something of the alienation in the Unionist community. He seemed to understand—given the results of recent elections, he could hardly have done otherwise—that the Unionist community did not support his agreement. He referred to the cold house that seemed to exist for Unionists in Northern Ireland.

  83
  The Secretary of State has done himself no favours in his performance today. He demonstrated clearly that he was prepared almost to be a spin doctor for Sinn Fein-IRA and to put the best possible gloss on Sinn Fein-IRA activity. He could have said that Sinn Fein-IRA is full of despicable people who have failed us time and again. He could have said that they had made us promises and pledges, and then broken them. He could have said that they were still going on with their violence, but that the Government feel that we should give them a final chance. We could have disagreed with that judgment, but at least it would have been clear that he did not think that anything in the behaviour of Sinn Fein-IRA was worthy of commendation.
  As it was, however, the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box, and the worst that he could say of Sinn Fein-IRA was that there had been massive imperfections in the way in which it had operated within the so-called peace process. By and large, he referred to the great significance of what Sinn Fein-IRA has done.
  Before I turn to what Sinn Fein-IRA has done, let me leave one fact with the House. Any Member who has not been following events in Northern Ireland may be unaware of it. The Provisional IRA has more weapons and explosives in its stockpiles and armouries today than it had when it declared its ceasefire: so much for decommissioning.
  The security forces will make it clear to those who inquire that the IRA has continued to bring weaponry into the country. Indeed, it was caught bringing weapons in via Florida when its network was uncovered by chance by a scanning machine in Great Britain. The IRA has continued to bring in weaponry while talking of the great need for decommissioning, its great desire to see that happen and its preparedness to be part of such a process. Rather than reducing its number of weapons, it has, during the so-called peace process, increased the weapons at its disposal.
  It is essential to consider the backcloth against which our debate takes place. Several hon. Members have mentioned that the Provisional IRA and others have given a number of commitments over the past few years. The Government's position before 1994 was that there had to be complete decommissioning of weaponry before Sinn Fein-IRA could be part of any talks process. That position was weakened during the period of the three Washington principles. Lord Mayhew, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, changed the position so that if Sinn Fein-IRA started on the road to decommissioning, Sinn Fein could be part of the talks process.
  The position was weakened further when the Government brought in Senator Mitchell to consider decommissioning. His report said that some people wanted decommissioning to happen before talks could take place, but the IRA did not want to decommission until after the talks were over. Perhaps we should do something in the middle, he said, and he judged that decommissioning should occur during the talks process. Of course, it did not. After the talks took place, we had the Belfast agreement, and all that it gave was a commitment on the part of all participants to use best endeavours to bring about decommissioning by May 2000.
  84
  When that date came, another change was made. It was decided that June 2001 would be the appropriate hour. In June 2001, the Government stretched the deadline until February 2002. The measure before the House tonight will take us right through to 2007.
  We are told that there is great reason for hope today because there has been a decommissioning event. We are told that that event was of some significance, not because anyone knows what was decommissioned, but because General de Chastelain thought that it was significant. If his judgment is to be used, we should consider just what General Chastelain has said. His statement talked about our having witnessed an event that "we regard as significant".
  In the desire to know and to test what the general considers significant, my colleagues and I went to see him. We asked if the commission considered the amount of weaponry to be significant, or whether the fact that anything at all had occurred was significant. He replied that the fact that an event took place was, to him, significant. He said that he had seen written on the gable ends of walls in republican areas, "Not a bullet; not an ounce". In that context, what had happened was significant, he said.
  I asked whether the general regarded his meeting with us that day as significant. He said that yes, it was. That might give the House some idea of how easily he is persuaded that any event is of significance. I then asked him whether, if the IRA had decommissioned one gun—just one—he would have considered that to be significant. He said, "Yes, I would." It would thus have been significant if the general had seen only one weapon put beyond use. We are asked by some hon. Members to take as evidence of the Provisional IRA's bona fides—its willingness to see total decommissioning—the fact that in some unspecified place an unspecified event took place, whereby an unspecified amount of weapons of an unspecified classification was put beyond use in an unspecified way, with no suggestion that there would be a further act to put weapons beyond use.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of the "Not one bullet, not one ounce of Semtex" slogan, one might accept that meaning of "significance". However, is it not more significant that people talk about seeing decommissioning although they did not see it, and that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic demands further steps from the British side so that demilitarisation—knocking down the watch towers and so on—is visible? Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  Mr. Robinson: I could not agree more. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that we saw that act of decommissioning, but we saw nothing at all. The only people who saw it were a bunch of IRA men and three people from the international decommissioning body, who left the site of the so-called act of decommissioning, while the IRA men stayed behind with whatever weaponry was there.
  Mr. McCabe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to mislead the House, but when he says that the general said that he would regard the decommissioning of

  85
  one gun as significant, is it not the case that the general's report stated that a quantity of guns, arms and explosives were decommissioned?
  Mr. Robinson: It would not be correct to say that. The report said that arms, ammunition and explosives were included—no quantities were given. My reference to the statement that one gun was significant was intended to show Members how easily the general is persuaded that something minor is of significance—something that might also be considered minor by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
  In a legal context, we are often told by respected members of the judiciary—people whom we have learned to trust—that for justice to be done, it has to be seen to be done, yet we tell a bunch of gangsters, "Oh well, we don't need to see it." Why should we need to see weapons destroyed? If the whole idea of decommissioning is to build up confidence within the Unionist community, to let it know that the IRA has changed its ways for ever and that it has left its horrible past behind, it is essential that people see decommissioning take place.
  However, all we have is that unspecified event—and no timetable. We specifically asked the general whether he had any indication as to when another act of decommissioning might take place and he said, "No, there is no timetable for further decommissioning." Indeed, the Bill is testimony to that fact. If there had been a timetable for decommissioning, the Bill could have fitted into it, but the Secretary of State, on a wing and a prayer—if he either flies or prays—tells us that we shall let the process go on for another five years and then see what happens.
  The shadow Secretary of State turned the arguments of the Secretary of State back on to him in a way that was evident to everyone. If the Secretary of State says that it is in the nature of deadlines that people in Northern Ireland—the Provisional IRA and others—will take things to the wire, that must also apply to the Bill. If he shows them that five years are available, we can be dead sure that, when that five years come around, either the Provisional IRA will be looking for more concessions to meet the demands placed on it, or the Secretary of State or his successor will have to come to the Dispatch Box once again to extend the period.
  It is clear that the Secretary of State has the difficult task of convincing people in Northern Ireland and throughout this kingdom that the Provisional IRA deserves that further chance. The reality is that the Provisional IRA has not been acting solely as democrats since the signing of the Belfast agreement. The House needs to know something about what a ceasefire means to the Provisional IRA. During that period, the Provisional IRA murdered 12 people—the last of them only last week. The Provisional IRA shot 150 people. They carried out so—called punishment beatings on 250 people during that ceasefire period.
  As I pointed out earlier, the Provisional IRA has been running guns in from Florida. It has been involved in its usual gangsterism throughout the Province, including major robberies when millions of pounds worth of goods were stolen. As everybody knows, it has been engaged with the FARC in Colombia, attempting to improve its terror machine. As recently as this weekend, we heard that it was leaving manuals so that FARC could learn the deadly business of terrorism at the feet of the masters—the Provisional IRA.
  86
  That is the record of the Provisional IRA—still engaged in terrorism. Who are these people? They include, as chief of staff of the Provisional IRA, the Minister of Education. Let us think about that for a moment: the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland, as chief of staff, sits down in the army council of the Provisional IRA and sanctions the murders that take place. That is the reality. That is what he did last week when a person was killed in south Armagh at the hands of the Provisional IRA, when the IRA was sent off to Colombia and when the guns were being run from Florida. While that same Mr. McGuinness was talking to the general and, indeed, Senator Mitchell, about decommissioning, he was sanctioning the bringing in of weaponry from Florida.
  That is the organisation with which we shall be rubbing shoulders in the corridors if the Government have their way during the next few weeks. Three of its four Members of Parliament are members of the army council of the IRA: the head of its southern command, Pat Doherty; Gerry Adams, former chief of staff of the IRA; and its present chief of staff, Martin McGuinness. Those are the people we are dealing with—people with high positions in the Government of Northern Ireland.
  That is the difference from the position adopted by the Conservatives in 1997. They took that position when the Provisional IRA did not run Departments in Northern Ireland—but now it does. The Secretary of State urges us to allow the IRA to continue its ministerial role in Northern Ireland without handing over its weaponry for five years, because everyone knows that for the IRA that deadline has become a period of relaxation.
  It is essential to consider a further factor. The measure takes us beyond the last possible date for the next Assembly election in 2003. In theory at least, that means that the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister—whichever of those positions is held by Sinn Fein after that election—will have the power, under Government-sponsored legislation, to appoint High Court judges. At the same time, they will be in command of an armed terrorist organisation. That certainly should give people some cause for concern.
  The Bill shows that the Government are not really serious about imposing deadlines on decommissioning. They have relaxed, taken a laid-back approach and shown that they have no bottom line when it comes to dealing with Sinn Fein-IRA. The Bill removes the pressure from the IRA and shows that it has until 2007 to bury the issue. The Government have made it fairly clear—this Bill is evidence—that they have not agreed with the Provisional IRA a timetable for decommissioning, which proves that the event that took place was nothing more than a stunt and a con. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's statement that the event was in some way historic.
  The Bill is evidence of weak government. There is nothing that requires the scheme to run for five years. The legislation could say one year just as easily as five; it could say two or 10. The Secretary of State chose five years so that he can stretch out the process and allow the IRA even more time in government.
  It ill becomes the purported Northern Ireland First Minister to indicate to the House that, as far as he is concerned, the burden of ensuring decommissioning rests on his shoulders. The purported First Minister would not have done anything if it had not been for the reality of

  87
  facing the electorate. As he faced the consequences of the concessions that he made to secure decommissioning, he was forced to take some action by way of putting the matter to Sinn Fein-IRA.
  I agree with the comments of hon. Members across the Floor that by far the most relevant issue to the IRA's event—whatever it may have been—was it being caught out in Colombia, and the fact that it was losing support in the United States, losing its funding and losing the gentrification that its leadership had been given over the previous months. The bottom line is of course that, since then, the events of 11 September have shown clearly that there is a view in civilised democracies across the world that those who engage in violence to advance political causes are persona non grata and that to a much greater extent it is hard for Sinn Fein-IRA to peddle its argument across the world.
  The Government, by this Bill, have become complicit in Sinn Fein-IRA's charade. If the Secretary of State had meant what he said and shown that he felt that the Unionists were in a cold house, he would have approached the Dispatch Box very differently today. Indeed, I recall it being said—I think by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), although it may have been the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—in reply to the Secretary of State, that words simply would not be enough to do that. If, as I believe, that is right on that point, is it not also right on decommissioning?
  To a community of people who were born under the threat and actuality of IRA violence and witnessed its activities over many decades, words simply are not enough. The general's few lines in a press statement will not convince them. Opinion polls have shown that the majority of Unionists are not convinced that the event is one of some significance, so decommissioning needs to be seen to be believed.
  Nothing that the Secretary of State has said will have convinced by one iota any Unionist in Northern Ireland that he is right in giving the IRA a further period of time. It would be far better if it did what the Prime Minister indicated should be done. If it does not meet its obligations on decommissioning, we shall have to make proposals to ensure either that it does so or that its representatives are put out of Government until it does so.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I come to this debate in disappointment as much as anything else, as it is a very sad day. Those of us who want a lasting and just peace in Northern Ireland—I hope that includes everyone present—will agree that there must be concessions and some pragmatic ways of making progress, because to get an agreement one must be pragmatic. Unfortunately, experience of the past three to four years teaches us that the pragmatism is all on one side and that a long history of appeasement began with the Belfast agreement.
  I was in the Chamber when the original Bill was passed in February 1997. It implemented a framework to allow an amnesty for people handing in weapons in the future. It did not say that people could have an amnesty. That was nearly five years ago, and as some Labour Members have said, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since
  88
  then. Sadly, we have since seen nothing, apart from an event that General de Chastelain believed was significant. I do not think that that is really what anybody expected when the Belfast agreement was trumpeted as such good news in April 1998.
  I say with sadness, not with anger, that this Bill is another step down the road of appeasement. I remind newer Members of the Mitchell principles and what Senator Mitchell said in 1996 for John Major's Government. He produced six principles and said in the second that to be involved in all-party talks, participants had to agree to
  "the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
  Talks occurred in 1997–98, but I do not think that all participants did so agree. That was a pity, but of course we were being pragmatic and as a result went one step down the road.
  Then we had the Belfast agreement. It is now getting on for four years old and some hon. Members may not have read it. I remind Members present that it says on page 20:
  "All participants … confirm their intention … to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsements in referendums North and South".
  Mr. Stephen Pound: On a recent television programme on Ulster Television, the hon. Gentleman stated that he did not support the Good Friday agreement and said that that view was shared by many members of the Conservative party. Will he take this opportunity to clarify once and for all whether he is with his party or without his party?
  Mr. Robathan: There must be some mistake; I do not remember doing any interview in the past year or so with Ulster Television. I have done one in the past, but I think that that was before the hon. Gentleman became a Member of the House. I will clearly state that the Belfast agreement was entirely reasonable. I did not agree with everything in it. There are disagreements in all parties, but that is why there is a coming together to form a consensus. My point has always been—I do not think that I said it on Ulster Television—that all parts of the agreement had to be implemented. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Marjorie Mowlam, said that we cannot "cherry-pick" the agreement and that "all parts" must be implemented.
  The two years ran out in May or June 2000—some time ago. The two years came and the two years went. There was then another year of extension, and then another six months. There is still 10 weeks left to decommission all loyalist as well as IRA weapons. Apparently, the IRA has made the decision to decommission. How long does it take to tell everybody? There are all sorts of ways to let people know—telephone, e-mail, even snail mail. How long does it take to tell the fighters in the field—or whatever those ghastly terrorists call themselves—to hand in their weapons? Surely not longer than 10 weeks. As I said previously, it took only two months in Rhodesia, as it then was, in 1980, and 30 days in Macedonia. It does not take very long to organise the handing in, the destruction or the decommissioning of weapons.
  Mr. Pound: I do not want to trespass on the House's patience, but is the hon. Gentleman really positing Rhodesia-Zimbabwe as a model of a peaceful, pacifist democratic state?
  Mr. Robathan: No—I would not insult the hon. Gentleman's intelligence by pretending anything of the sort. My point is that the handing in of terrorist weapons in 1980 under the Lancaster House agreement was given a total of two months—it might even have been less, and the process certainly took less than two months. That was a far more difficult situation, with fighters out in the bush, not a country that has e-mail, television and other means of communication.
  The hon. Gentleman is clearly unhappy, so let me help by quoting from his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In February 1996, before the Mitchell principles were published, in reference to the IRA attack on the tallest building in London—he was very firm on that, as he was on the attack on New York's twin towers—the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said:
  "On this matter, we shall stand foursquare together in the cause of peace."
  He added:
  "Decommissioning weapons was one way. In our judgment it is, and remains, the obvious way."
  Two years later, on 22 April 1998, in reference to the Belfast agreement, he said:
  "We said that we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … Meanwhile it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the Assembly while they continue to be engaged in or threaten terrorism".
  We know that McGuinness, Adams and the IRA are still engaged in intimidation, in threatening terrorism and possibly—as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) says—in carrying out acts of terrorism. The IRA has continued to commit terrorist acts while McGuinness sits as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that everyone agrees with the Prime Minister on how that is a travesty of democracy.
  It is important that we all understand what it is we are to vote on. Last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) pointed out that when he interviewed Martin McGuinness in 1974, McGuinness told him that
  "he had had a dozen Catholic informers killed."—[Official Report, 13 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 1–17.]
  I do not recall Mr. McGuiness ever being put on trial for that. He remains a member of the Provisional Army Council of the IRA—if the Minister has any intelligence that says otherwise, perhaps she will tell us about it. We all know that he is deeply involved, as is Adams, yet the Secretary of State says that we must give those people more time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made an excellent point about whether the Secretary of State was again trying to distance Sinn Fein from the IRA, as he appeared to be doing. The right hon. Gentleman said that Sinn Fein had no power over the IRA, yet on 22 October—seven or eight weeks ago—Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness both made statements indicating that they had asked the IRA to begin the decommissioning process and, amazingly enough, General de Chastelain put out a statement on 23 October
  90
  saying that the IRA had decommissioned some weapons. Is the juxtaposition of the two events mere coincidence, or is it conceivable that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams have significant influence on—or might even be the same people as—the IRA?
  The Government are being disingenuous in the extreme, they are being economic with the actualite, they are guilty of dissembling. I shall not name individuals, because I would be ruled out of order. We are fighting a laudable war against terrorism in Afghanistan—a war that most hon. Members present support—yet we will not fight a war against the terrorists who have killed British citizens on British soil on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. We will not fight a war against those who attacked the tallest buildings in London, but we will against those who attacked the tallest buildings in New York. I am not arguing that we should fight such a war; I am saying that we must be honest with ourselves.
  In the Terrorism Act 2000, at the top of the list of proscribed organisations we see "the Irish Republican Army". In March last year, when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) whether that meant the Real IRA, the Provisional IRA or Continuity IRA, the then Home Secretary said that it meant all the Irish Republican Army: Provisional, Continuity, Real, Official if that still exists—the lot. That Act specifically states in section 11:
  "A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation."
  We know that Martin McGuinness is a member of the Provisional Army Council—the Secretary of State is free to intervene to tell me otherwise. The Act further states in section 12:
  "A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is …to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation"—
  or—
  "if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation".
  I seem to recall Gerry Adams visiting America once or twice to collect money. There seems no doubt that those people should be prosecuted under the Government's own Act, yet they are not.
  I am willing to accept that the Real IRA and Continuity IRA are splinter groups—different from the IRA. However, the truth is that the explosives used in Omagh had been in Provisional IRA stockpiles. Anyone with knowledge of Northern Ireland knows that in the organisations in which Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are involved much is known about where those explosives came from, and that they might be able to help. They could show good faith, as we are doing by giving them an extra five years, by letting us know who committed that outrage and providing some evidence, instead of shedding crocodile tears. They could help us to nail the bombers who murdered those 20-odd people in Omagh.
  We have seen little good faith from the IRA since the Belfast agreement, except for the fact that, although they have not stopped killing people, they have, very decently, killed fewer people than they killed before. They have not stopped intimidation beatings, nor have they ceased organising. We all want peace, but the Government—motivated by the good intentions with which the road to

  91
  hell is paved—have acted shamefully. They have, as a Government, been dishonest and dishonourable. Ministers should hang their heads in shame over their appeasement on decommissioning.
  The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying:
  "as the Agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal; an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
  None of that has happened. We should be honest about that. Although the end may desirable, we should remember that only rarely is an end justified by dishonest means.
  Unbelievably, in their appeasement, the Government intend to allow public funding for IRA propaganda by allowing four Sinn Fein MPs to take the generous—over-generous, in my opinion—office allowances. The money will be public funding for propaganda on behalf of an organisation that commits murder—an organisation that has in the recent past murdered Members of Parliament, as every one of us remembers.
  It will allow terrorists with access to illegal weapons to walk the corridors around us all. Surely that can give no one any pleasure, and should worry everybody. I know the Sinn Fein office in the Falls road. I used to walk past it with a rifle quite often. I was well protected by several other people. It was known then, and now, that that office acts as a nerve centre or control centre for intimidation and beating. People could be found who have been beaten and knee-capped. They are taken there first to be told—
  David Burnside: The hon. Gentleman has referred to one Sinn Fein office in west Belfast. Is he aware that there are now 18 such offices in west Belfast? Does he agree that the Government's decision to allow fundraising and to make Sinn Fein an exception from the other political parties in the House has allowed the financing of one of the strongest organisations in western Europe?
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am out of date. I did not know that there are 18 offices. That surely makes my case. Fundraising is still allowed in America and, more terrifyingly, British taxpayers' money will be funding the offices of a terrorist organisation. Surely that should worry us all. It is disgraceful, shameful and dishonest. All Ministers should recall from their days at school, if they learned any history, that we do not buy peace by paying danegeld, and that is what we are doing tonight.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I apologise for the fact that I was unable to be present at the beginning of the debate, but I had a previous engagement elsewhere in the House. I think that the entire House respects the views of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on these matters, especially given that he served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland, although I think that by overstating his case he has undermined it somewhat.
  I turn to the underlying analysis of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). He quoted the statements that were made by my right hon. Friend the
  92
  Secretary of State a few weeks ago that for Unionists, Northern Ireland had become a "cold house". There is much truth in that. Many of the examples that the hon. Gentleman quoted are evidence that it has, indeed, become a "cold house".
  I accept that people such as Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Mitchell Mcloughlin and many others have made the psychological adjustment from terrorism to politics, but the activities of the IRA have not necessarily always followed that course. That is all the more regrettable because I believe that, certainly in the case of Martin McGuinness, and almost certainly in the case of Gerry Adams, they have the authority within republicanism to deliver what was meant to be delivered in terms of decommissioning in the Good Friday Agreement.
  It is a matter of regret that, for whatever reason, they have not been able to use, or have chosen not to use, that authority to exercise the leadership that is undoubtedly theirs within republicanism—especially in terms of the IRA, with which they are intimately connected—to deliver everything that was promised. There is an interesting contrast between the way in which they behave on decommissioning specifically and the leadership that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has exercised as the leader of his party.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has often been some way ahead of his party in this context. He has been willing to accept difficult situations. He has also been willing, often with a great deal of reluctance and a great deal of concern, almost to take a leap in the dark. He has been willing to accept stepped progress as it moved forward. That has often been difficult for him within his party, and it has certainly been difficult for him in acting as a spokesman for Unionism within Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, he has done that in a party structure that is far more democratic than the structures of republicanism, and in a climate of public opinion that has often been doubtful, afraid and worried. He has kept the process together. So far as he was capable of delivering all of the things that he was meant to under the Good Friday agreement, and so far as he has been able to provide leadership as First Minister, he did so and has done so.
  That record stands in marked contrast to the leadership of republicanism. As I have said, I accept that it has made the psychological shift from terrorism to politics. However, it seems not to be able to make the organisational shift that all of us believe is necessary.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a good speech that was based on a long involvement in politics in Northern Ireland and on an intimate knowledge of all of the events that we are discussing, but he was not able to provide an answer to the "What if?" question: for example, what if we did not extend tonight the legal framework within which decommissioning can take place? What would happen next?
  There is much criticism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about some of the activities that have allegedly been carried out by the IRA since the time of the Good Friday agreement. Specific allegations have been made about certain incidents of violence, which have been well recorded and well documented. The hon.

  93
  Member for Belfast, East alluded to the continued so-called punishment beatings. The word "justice" is used, which I find bizarre.
  Mr. Pound: Community justice.
  Mr. Howarth: Yes. Community-administered justice is a bizarre way of defining justice.
  There have been occasions on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had to consider extremely carefully whether to specify organisations in relation to which some of the activities that were taking place were close to the line. I know that that was true of my right hon. Friend's two most recent predecessors. There were times when the determination as to whether the IRA could continue to be regarded as being on ceasefire was on a knife edge. The hon. Member for Belfast, East was right to point out that those incidents are of great concern.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who played a constructive role in Northern Ireland during his time in office. He chided me for not answering the question, "What if?". The House has already decided that question in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, when it determined that there would be a consequence if parties associated with violence did not commit themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The answer to the question, "What if?" is that they are put out of government.
  Mr. Howarth: I acknowledged that that was the case just before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I made the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the two Secretaries of State preceding him came close to acting on that basis. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has specified one of the loyalist organisations and, as far as I am aware, that still stands.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that that power is available. I was not chiding him; he knows that, although I do not agree with him, I respect the view that he and his colleagues share as a view within the Unionist community that needs to be discussed. If I had to choose between different political grounds of Unionism, I would go with that espoused by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann every time, because his approach is more constructive and, in the long term, more likely to bring about peace. However, it is important that we are aware of the different views within Unionism and, indeed, the wider community in Northern Ireland.
  I come back to the question, "What if?". What if my right hon. Friend or one of his predecessors had excluded Sinn Fein from the process? They made a careful study of the facts available at the time before determining not to do so; it was not an easy decision to make. Had they excluded Sinn Fein, it is possible that the peace process in which we are involved, imperfect as it is—and I entirely accept that—would have been derailed, and the consequences of that are too horrendous to imagine.
  I would not have wanted to do what we are doing tonight 12 months ago or at the time of the Good Friday agreement; I do not think that any of us would. I am not absolutely certain that, by approving the Bill tonight, as we are being asked to do, we shall ensure that everything is delivered in the specified time, but I hope that that is
  94
  so. The fact that I can still hope that it will deliver is sufficient reason for me to support the process. I honestly believe that it would be dangerous to take any course of action that results in someone saying, "Too late. We are not accepting decommissioning unless you decide to do it voluntarily—and then we will consider what action we shall take in recognition." All those things are uncomfortable and difficult; nobody pretends otherwise.
  I do not wish to chide any hon. Member from any quarter of the House, and I am making this statement because I believe it to be true: frankly, there is not another way available to us. I shall therefore vote for Second Reading without any difficulty, not because I have infinite trust that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness or anybody else will now walk a rose-strewn path to a better tomorrow—they may choose at some point not to do so, although I do not think that they will—but because I do not think that there is a viable alternative.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may be pleased or perhaps surprised to learn that I respect him also. However, if he believes that decommissioning is important—it is in the Belfast agreement—when should it take place? There has to be a deadline, the purpose of which is to achieve an objective by a certain time.
  Mr. Howarth: One reaches a point in one's career where praise from any quarter is welcome; I like and admire the hon. Gentleman, and his praise is well taken. He asked me when the deadline for decommissioning should be. I am somewhat detached from all the discussions that are taking place, although I have seen a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing on the subject in the past, so for me to specify a time would not be helpful. The only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is not a satisfactory one, but it is the best that I can give: decommissioning should happen as soon as possible. There cannot be a balanced political system in Northern Ireland while one of the major political partners in that system is still intimately involved with an organisation that has a large quantity of arms available to it. If I were a member of the Executive or the Assembly in Northern Ireland, I would still look with suspicion at Sinn Fein because of that connection and the continued existence of those arms.
  Imperfect though it is, and unable though I am to give a realistic deadline, the proposal before us is better than any conceivable alternative that I or any other hon. Member could offer.
  8.35pm
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware from the briefings that he received when he entered office that decommissioning has been a major item on the Northern Ireland political agenda for a number of years. I was involved in the negotiations that culminated in the Belfast agreement; decommissioning was discussed at length in those negotiations.
  The Mitchell commission, which had the task of considering the decommissioning issue, drew up proposals for decommissioning to take place alongside those negotiations. As each party entered the negotiations, it committed itself to what became known as the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence. It is worth recalling that one of the principles to which all the

  95
  parties—including the Progressive Unionist party, linked to the UVF; the Ulster Democratic party, linked to the UDA; and Sinn Fein, linked to the Provisional IRA—committed themselves was the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. That commitment existed even before the agreement was concluded.
  The agreement itself reiterates the commitment, albeit in language that I felt did not go far enough towards ensuring that decommissioning was not only a commitment made by parties and thus, in a sense, an aspiration, but that there were clear obligations on the parties linked to other aspects of the agreement.
  The agreement has two essential characteristics, one of which deals with the constitutional and institutional arrangements for Northern Ireland. Within those arrangements, political compromises have been made between Unionism and nationalism. The other feature is the confidence-building measures, which were designed to run alongside the implementation of the institutional and constitutional arrangements. They were intended to give people confidence that we were making the transition from 30 years of violence to a new era of peace based on democracy and political stability.
  The difficulty for Unionists, which the Secretary of State recognised, at least verbally, in his recent speech in Liverpool, is that the confidence-building measures specifically designed to build confidence in the community, particularly among Unionists, that those who had engaged in violence in the past had moved to democracy, have not been fulfilled to the extent that Unionist confidence has been built. The Secretary of State spoke about the "cold house effect", and it is true that, in respect of many of the proposals flowing from the agreement, Unionists have felt the breeze of change, which they considered unbalanced. In particular, their sense of British identity has been eroded in a way that has made them feel extremely uncomfortable.
  Nevertheless, Unionists want the Assembly to provide good, stable government for Northern Ireland. Among Unionists right across the board, there is support for the Assembly. There is also support for the principle that parties should work together to achieve the objective of good government, but when we entered the negotiations it was clearly understood that parties that participated in the new institutions should commit themselves exclusively to peaceful and democratic means. It is clear that in respect of the republican movement, such a commitment has not yet been fulfilled to the extent that I, as a Unionist, feel comfortable with the idea that republicans are in the Government of the part of the United Kingdom in which I reside and which I represent.
  I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about the difficulty for many in Northern Ireland of having Martin McGuinness as the Minister of Education, when that individual is still linked to an illegal terrorist organisation, as a member of that organisation and part of its leadership. That presents enormous difficulties for ordinary, decent people who want a better future and stability and peace for their children. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State not only recognises but genuinely understands the discomfort that Unionists feel.
  96
  That brings us to the nub of the issue. The Secretary of State will have heard the comments of the Conservative spokesman and the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. We do not oppose in principle an amnesty for those who decommission their illegal weapons or extension of that amnesty, but we are against creating circumstances in which there is no deadline and no target date for the completion of the process of decommissioning, and in which the amnesty period is potentially extended until 2007. That sends completely the wrong signals to the Provisional IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, as it suggests that they have bought themselves more time through their procrastination and delay, and also to the Unionist community, to which it says that the decommissioning process is becoming open ended, will never be completed and will continue to be a shadow that is cast over the political process. That does not engender stability and confidence.
  We have recently seen some positive steps. The agreement of the Policing Board on a new police badge was significant. My preference would have been to retain the existing badge. I have argued in this House that it represented fairly both traditions in Northern Ireland with the harp, the crown and the shamrock. However, I believe that the new badge is a sincere attempt by representatives of both traditions to reach agreement on something that was controversial and shows what happens when democratic political representatives from different traditions come together to try to resolve a problem.
  There was, however, a missing dimension in that decision: Sinn Fein-IRA. It is worth recalling that Sinn Fein-IRA has so far refused to support the new Police Service of Northern Ireland and to participate in the Policing Board. Thus, Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive are participating in the government of that part of the United Kingdom but refusing to support its police service. Surely, that is an absurdity in any democratic scenario. It demonstrates that Sinn Fein has not yet made the transition from a past in which it was engaged in violence—and, indeed, a present in which it is continuing to engage in unacceptable levels of violence—to a commitment to exclusively peaceful means.
  Decommissioning is not only an end in itself, although the removal of the gun from our politics is important, but a means of building confidence in the political process in Northern Ireland. It was a confidence-building measure in the agreement, but the problem with such a measure is that if it is not delivered, it has the opposite effect and undermines confidence. That is precisely what has happened within Unionism. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will understand that there is a wide degree of scepticism among Unionists, whether they support the agreement or are sceptical about it, about the speed with which the decommissioning process is being implemented. That is why, on this side of the House tonight, there are some hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland who strongly support the agreement and some who strongly oppose it, but all of them will be supporting the Conservatives' reasoned amendment. We are dissatisfied with the Government's extension of the amnesty, potentially to 2007, when they have not clearly established a deadline or a target date for completing decommissioning.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the Government's responsibility for decommissioning. In the past, we have had to bear

  97
  responsibility for applying pressure to the republican movement to decommission. We will not shirk that responsibility in future. If necessary, we will take action to bring pressure to bear on the republican movement and loyalist paramilitaries to decommission.
  I do not agree with the Secretary of State that pressure does not work: it does and it has. I do not agree that deadlines do not work: they have worked in the past and they can work in future. If necessary, we will apply pressure through the political process and democratic methods on the republican movement and on loyalists to decommission.
  We want loyalists to decommission. As Unionists from a Unionist tradition, we have always unequivocally opposed the violence of so-called loyalist paramilitaries. We want them to end the violence and decommission their weapons. The Secretary of State can apply pressure to those groups through the prisoner release scheme, under which individual prisoners are released on licence. If they breach it, they forfeit the right to freedom and have to return to prison.
  The Secretary of State and his predecessor have so far twice returned people to jail. In view of continuing loyalist violence, surely there is a case for the Secretary of State to review the matter and make it clear that if the violence continues and organisations fail to decommission, he will return the released prisoners to prison. That will put pressure on the groups to end violence and enter meaningfully into the decommissioning process.
  If we turn a blind eye to the violence, we breach the agreement and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which clearly linked the ceasefires to the release of prisoners, albeit imperfectly.
  Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that deadlines sometimes work. What mechanism would make the deadline that we are considering work? The Bill is an enabling measure, which does not create pressure. If it is passed, we can provide meaningful deadlines and staging posts for decommissioning.
  Mr. Donaldson: Several mechanisms might be used to bring pressure to bear. I have mentioned the prisoner release scheme; another possible mechanism is excluding from office those who have failed to fulfil specific decommissioning obligations. The Government could apply some pressure points if they have the will.
  If the Secretary of State is trying to build confidence in the Unionist community and deal with the cold house effect, he is going the wrong way about it. Every time we make suggestions or proposals, they are rebuffed. Every time we make suggestions about how the Government should handle decommissioning, they are not backed. The Secretary of State expects the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to show leadership, make concessions and stick his neck out, yet he is not prepared to give us the means to apply the pressure on the republican movement and on loyalists to honour their commitments under the agreement. If he is not prepared to do it, we must do it, but that should not be the way. The Government are responsible for ensuring that decommissioning works.
  My difficulty with the Bill is that it sends out the wrong signal to the paramilitary organisations. It says to the UDA and the UVF, "You've got until 2007 to do something." It says to the IRA, "Don't worry, boys—
  98
  2007." That is the signal. It may not be the Government's intention, but that is how it will be read by the paramilitaries on the streets, and that is how it is being read by the communities in Northern Ireland, which see decommissioning becoming an open-ended process. That is not a recipe for creating political stability in Northern Ireland.
  If the Secretary of State wants to address the confidence issue with regard to Unionists, he should understand that they want him to be more resolute in dealing with decommissioning. They want him to send out stronger signals to paramilitaries that their violence and their procrastination on decommissioning will not be tolerated, and that if they fail to deliver an end to the violence, and the decommissioning of their illegal weapons, there will be political consequences.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the process of concession—others have called it appeasement. Whatever it is, the reality is that on the ground among Unionists, it has sapped any confidence that they had, and the Government need to address that issue. They are not addressing it to the extent to which Unionists can feel that there is now a balanced approach.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I concur with everything that he said. It is very sad—disappointing is too weak a word—and I am appalled at the fact that nearly four years after the Good Friday agreement, the IRA-Sinn Fein and other paramilitary organisations continue to hold the threat of a return to violence. I sincerely believe that we must stop being weak, and show resolution. We must show that we intend to treat people who act, or threaten to act, with violence as the criminals and gangsters that they are. We need a much stronger approach from the Government, but we are clearly not getting it.
  The hon. Member Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) spoke about the momentum of decommissioning, as if the amount of weaponry decommissioned in October represented a momentum. I do not believe for a moment that we would be in this position today had it not been for the atrocities of 11 September. The IRA-Sinn Fein clearly knew that, for political reasons, they had to do something. They had to present an image of wanting to decommission so that we would believe them to be sincere. I do not believe that they are.
  We need to show that we mean what we say, and that weakness is not the way to defeat terrorism, or to encourage those who hold weapons to decommission them. I speak in this debate with a heavy heart for the future of Northern Ireland, because I fear that the Bill will set a precedent that will send a dangerous signal to those who bear arms there. The British Government appear to be too weak to stand up to those people, and too afraid to call their bluff. There has been a great deal of talk in recent years about historic moments. The Prime Minister spoke of "the hand of history" on his shoulder at the signing of the Good Friday agreement, yet the true markers of historic significance do not come with such agreements, but with the effect and success of their implementation.
  There is no doubt that the peace process has moved forward since the mid-1990s. There is now an open dialogue among parties that would not even have

  99
  acknowledged one another as having a vaguely relevant case 10 years ago. Indeed, since the Belfast agreement was signed, most sides have kept to their part of the bargain and significant changes have occurred. I can think of three: Northern Ireland has certainly gained devolved government, terrorists have certainly been released early from prison and, shamefully, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has been abolished.
  What is not certain is the status of decommissioning, which remains dubious at best, as limited decommissioning has occurred only under duress and following extreme political pressure. Furthermore, it is important to note that even when such decommissioning takes place—that in October, for example—it is further rewarded through the dismantling of British military structures such as the observation tower at Sturgan mountain in south Armagh, an observation tower at Camlough mountain and many others.
  I appreciate that good will needs to be shown, but the decommissioning episodes by Sinn Fein-IRA in October, supposedly part of a reciprocal deal, were delivered late, given the sacrifices made by the Unionist community and the Governments of Britain and the Republic of Ireland. There is a limit to how far good will and trust between groups with no fundamental reason to trust each other can go. We must not forget that ceasefires have been broken before and that hopes have been shattered.
  I shall never forget the disappointment and anger that I felt in 1996 when the IRA broke its ceasefire and planted a bomb in docklands, killing two people and injuring many more. Indeed, that very day, I was at South Quay station an hour before the bomb went off. I shall remember it for the rest of my life. There was so much hope for peace in Northern Ireland, and, most significantly, the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties were starting to believe that real progress was being made—a bit like now, as the position today is similar.
  There is hope for the future, but so long as full decommissioning is continually delayed and the message goes back to those who hold weapons that the Government will keep moving the deadlines, we cannot know what might happen as a result and we shall betray those who acted in good faith, believing that decommissioning would happen.
  Lembit Öpik: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that the Conservative Government were correct to introduce the original amnesty in 1997?
  Mr. Rosindell: I shall not comment on what Conservative Governments did; I have never been part of a Conservative Government. I shall speak about what this Government are doing today. Over many years, there has been not so much a peace process, but a process that seems to appease those who act violently. The situation must not be left open ended. The time has come to deal with it and show paramilitaries on both sides that the Government will not be forced into continual compromise, and that they will stand firm.
  I knew two Members of the House who were killed by the IRA—a former Member for Eastbourne and a former Member for Enfield, Southgate, who was killed in the
  100
  Grand hotel in 1984. I was there that evening. Such events leave a scar, and we cannot go on compromising with these people. At some point, we must make it clear that the vast majority of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland are the people whom we shall defend. Compromising with the men of violence will not result in true peace in Northern Ireland.
  Groups on all sides of the debate in Northern Ireland are determined and passionate about what they believe in, and violence has been used for decades as a way of articulating those beliefs. The consequence of that has been the deaths of thousands—3,321 according to the latest statistics published by the Northern Ireland Police Service. The violence and intimidation continues. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Bureau estimates that, following terrorist threats, more than 1,000 people have been forced to move to the mainland since the Good Friday agreement was signed, with a further 2,519 families having to be rehoused since 1998.
  It has also been reported that the ceasefire years have seen some of the most intense and sustained vigilante campaigns of the entire troubles. That does not necessarily mean that there will be a return to the widespread terror and violence of the past, nor is it likely that the better known groupings will recommence their campaigns of violence. However, the threat from the dissident groups remains high. It would be extremely naive to ignore those threats, and to allow the weapons used as central to them to remain in use or ready to be used.
  It is particularly bizarre that, when there is so much action against terrorism and so many precautions being set, the Government should introduce a Bill that potentially gives those capable of more terrorist atrocities a further five years, when they have already had nearly five years to hand over their weapons. I do not believe that any Member of the House would have argued in favour of giving international terrorist groups such a long time to remove from bank accounts moneys raised for terror campaigns. It was right that extra moves were made to freeze such assets immediately. Little international credence would have been given to the suggestion of giving the Taliban seven years to hand over Osama bin Laden before military action was to commence. Immediate action was taken to deal with that serious threat.
  I appreciate that decommissioning of arms in Northern Ireland is a matter of delicate political negotiation. I understand that some give and take is necessary to build up some semblance of trust. However, I urge Members to recognise that there is a clear threat. So long as those weapons exist, there is no guarantee that they will not be used. So long as others, such as the Unionist community, make sacrifices and receive nothing in return, whatever trust has been established will soon fade.
  Indeed, the Northern Ireland Assembly has already been suspended three times due to lack of progress on decommissioning. That signals that faith in the agreement has already sunk. If we permit the Bill to extend the lack of progress, how many more times will the Assembly have to be suspended? How many more times will Northern Ireland Ministers have to resign simply to force a tiny show of decommissioning? How long will we have to extend the deadlines beyond 2007, if full decommissioning has still not occurred.

  101
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) argued that the Government have tied their hands behind their back by permitting the early release of terrorists without any reciprocation. The Bill destroys any remaining sense of urgency.
  The Bill is soft on terrorism at a time when, in every other respect, the civilised world is being hard on terrorism. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the Bill, and send a message to the holders of arms in Northern Ireland that we will not tolerate this threat any longer, and that we will not keep on extending deadlines year in, year out until the whole agreement has been utterly undermined. The agreement can work only when all parties stick to their side of the bargain. If we do not send out that message, we shall be permitting the scenario to continue indefinitely, and setting a precedent that the British Government will always back down.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Before I begin what will be a fairly brief speech, in view of the time, let me apologise for having had to pop out for about 20 minutes. Although I was here for the beginning of the debate, I had to stand in for Father Christmas earlier. If there are any small bits of white fluff clinging to my head, they are what remain of my hair rather than the beard—but I must not extend this suspension of disbelief too far.
  Let me say this to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) and the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I doubt sincerely whether the cause of Northern Ireland is best served by speeches such as theirs—the Manichean descriptions that we have been hearing. I observed some Northern Ireland Members almost wincing when the lines were trotted out yet again.
  It is very easy in this life, and in this place, to play the plastic Palmerston and hurl the bombast on the Floor of the Chamber. It is very easy to come up with marvellous expressions of undiluted negativism. I have slightly more respect for the hon. and gallant Member for Blaby, who has worn the Queen's uniform and knows a bit about the realities of life on the streets of Northern Ireland; but too many of us seem over-keen to establish what we think it should be, rather than what it can be.
  History, as we know, is written by the winners. History is not a matter of black and white. It is not a matter of people beyond redemption. It is not a matter of someone remaining as they are for ever. I understand the pain and distress that are felt when those who in the past have either espoused the cause of violence directly or been associated with it become part of a democratic process—I can imagine what has been described tonight as revulsion—but we have been here before.
  Politics is a business for grown-ups. We all know that Nelson Mandela was imprisoned as a terrorist. Menachem Begin—a close associate of a former Conservative Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher—was a member of the Stern gang back in the 1940s, and a member of Irgun, the organisation that slaughtered British army sergeants in Jerusalem and was responsible for the massacre at the King David hotel; but when that group made peace, did anyone in this place say "We will never treat with Menachem Begin, because he has been a member of the group that directly murdered our soldiers in what was then the Palestine mandate"? No, we did not say that.
  I am not trying to make comparisons between Palestine and Northern Ireland. The late Golda Meir was asked precisely that question: whether an analogy could be
  102
  drawn between the two states. She said, "The problem is that in Israel and Palestine there are two sides who are both in the right, whereas in Northern Ireland there are two sides who are both in the wrong." I do not happen to agree with that analysis. I think that there is a future in the north of Ireland, which lies before the eyes of those of us who visit the Province regularly.
  Let me say some thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Almost against my expectations, I have come to feel considerable respect for Northern Ireland politicians over the years. I have not had a great deal to do with loyalism and Unionism in the past—that is no secret—but I have worked with those politicians. I have sat in Committee Rooms with, and talked to, Members such as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), whose home was blown up around his ears less than 30 years ago.
  We are talking about something very serious—far too serious for bitter, nonsensical talk of appeasement from the safety of London seats. When the hon. Member for Belfast, East, who I suspect was not educated by Jesuits, talks of his meeting with General de Chastelain and applies Occam's razor to "If we said it was this, would you say it was that?", I begin to doubt whether he is not too close to the situation to be truly objective.
  It is presumptuous of me, from the safety of my London constituency, to claim objectivity in this matter, and I would not even begin to do so, but I can see why decommissioning is not the be-all and end-all of the process. It is the process that matters. If every single piece of ordnance in the entire Province were destroyed tomorrow, would peace suddenly arrive on the wings of a dove with the dawn? Would there be no rearming? Would nobody bring in arms from Libya? I do not think so.
  What makes the verifiable act of decommissioning so incredibly significant—to use General de Chastelain's word—is simply the fact that it happened. For years, I have begged republicans and nationalists to give up that one bullet or that one ounce of Semtex, and they told me that I could not even begin to understand what would happen in the republican community if they did so. They talked about the pikes in the thatch, about 1690 and about the fact that the IRA was called "I Ran Away" after 1968. They said that if they started to hand in their weapons, the cohesion among the republicans who are signed up to the peace process would be destroyed and we would see a hundred so-called Real IRAs and a hundred groups of murderous, inward and backward-looking people. Yet somehow republicans have gone beyond that stage and committed themselves to a verifiable act of decommissioning. I do not think that we in this House should underestimate for a moment the immense significance of that act. We have to pay tribute to it.
  Hon. Members have said that this is all part of a charade, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about the decommissioning of the two sites as a stunt. If this is a charade or a stunt, what is it for? The Irish Republican Army had an virtually limitless supply of finance and so-called volunteers. It has been described tonight as the most successful organisation of its type in western Europe. We are told that 11 September changed all that, and people are no longer able to occupy themselves in that way.
  If that is the case, why has not ETA started decommissioning? Why is there not a peace process in the Basque country? Decommissioning is not about

  103
  11 September; it is not about the nonsense in Turkey or the farce in Colombia. It is part of a much longer process. Anyone who spends time studying the evolution of republican political thought in Ireland will see that decommissioning is part of a movement away from violence and towards engagement in a political process. That is the result not of a suspension of disbelief but of very careful analysis.
  Why on earth would the IRA want to take part in the decommissioning process if it was not serious? Anyone in the Chamber who has had anything to do with the process knows that a member of Sinn Fein who stands up at a meeting anywhere in the United Kingdom now will be attacked by someone in the hall saying that Sinn Fein are the appeasers who have sold out, who have betrayed the glorious history and who are turning their backs on the terrible beauty of 1916 and all that sad, bitter, old music that we have known for so many years. Decommissioning has not been easy for republicans; it has been desperately, desperately hard.
  I am not, for a moment, trying to make a case for the IRA. If there is one thing that has made me deeply respect those Northern Irish Members to whom I have spoken, it is the fact that they have never failed utterly to condemn ruthless gangster murders, even when they are committed by people in their community against people in that community. I take second place to no Member of the House in recording my respect and admiration for those Northern Irish Members who have had the courage to utter that condemnation.
  I will not seek to defend the IRA or Sinn Fein, but to those Members who have tried to convince us that the process should be derailed, because Armalites have not been fed into angle grinders or smelters, I say that the de Chastelain commission, in which the House has expressed its confidence, has witnessed those acts and that has to be good enough. If we want to make a judgment on that, we should look at the impact within the republican communities. It is a sad fact that I have addressed myself to the speeches made by Northern Ireland Members in particular, but we are debating a Conservative amendment to the Bill. The fact that the Conservatives have come to the House tonight with no alternative, no plan B and no great vision for the future of the political process—nothing but bitter negativism—is a terrifying indictment of their political immaturity on the issue.
  Politicians in Northern Ireland have the right to say what they think; they have earned it. We know that they represent their communities and that they must speak according to their own beliefs. The Conservative party appears to be playing the old trick of party politics on an issue that should be above it. The amendment says nothing; I am sorry, it says one thing. It says no. That is it. I feel sad. I also feel a certain amount of contempt for Her Majesty's official Opposition, who chose to try to derail a process that is not perfect but is the only game in town and the only possible avenue in which any hope exists or in which any chance is identifiable. Yet tonight they say simply no.
  Other hon. Members wish to speak and I will conclude by saying that I hope that we will pass the Bill tonight and reject the amendment. If I have caused any offence to any Northern Ireland Members, I bitterly regret that.
  104
  As someone who comes from an entirely different community, I have come to hold you in considerable respect. As long as there are people like yourselves—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember to use the proper parliamentary language.
  Mr. Pound: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise unreservedly to the House. As long as there are politicians of the calibre that we have elected to the House, I see hope for the future of Northern Ireland.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Nigel Dodds: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), and I admire his sincerity and conviction. He referred to having left the Chamber momentarily to act as Father Christmas. That must mean that there are two Members tonight who have acted as Father Christmas; the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber and the Secretary of State, in terms of what he has offered to IRA-Sinn Fein, inside it. Let us make no mistake about it: that is exactly how the Bill is seen in Northern Ireland and how it will be taken by the republican constituency. They are delighted at the fact that once again the deadline for decommissioning will be extended, if the House so votes tonight. Once again, it is going to be fudged and put back, as many hon. Members have predicted. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said to the Secretary of State at Question Time that it would not cause a ripple of surprise in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, that is not to diminish the outrage that is felt among ordinary grass-roots Unionists in Northern Ireland at the way in which concession after concession has been given to the republican movement; and on the issue of the decommissioning of illegal terrorist arms, they have been pandered to and appeased.
  Reference has been made to the 1997 Act and to the fact that this Bill is an extension of that Act. When the Act was introduced, it was not introduced in a vacuum, as some have said. It was introduced in the wake of the Mitchell report. The Mitchell commission was set up to look at how progress could be made through talks, and at the barrier that was said to exist for republicans because of their refusal to decommission. The Mitchell commission made a proposal for a twin-track approach, with political discussions and, at the same time, the decommissioning of illegal terrorist arms for those who took part in the talks. That is why the 1997 Act was introduced by the then Conservative Government. It was on foot with the Mitchell review.
  What actually happened? Despite the clear outline given by Senator Mitchell, and the Government's acceptance of the need for political talks to run in parallel with decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons by those engaged in the talks, what happened was that, once the talks started and IRA-Sinn Fein was admitted, just six weeks after the atrocious murder of two RUC officers on the streets of Lurgan, that issue was put to one side. It was forgotten, and no decommissioning took place.
  Then we had the agreement. Nowhere in the agreement does it say explicitly that there was a deadline for decommissioning of illegal terrorist arms, but we were told by those who signed up to the agreement and by the

  105
  proponents of the agreement that the deadline was 22 May 2000. Of course, we saw that deadline moved to June 2001. The then junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), made it clear that the target date was June 2001. That has passed and now the deadline of February 2002 is also to be extended to a date that means that the Government hope that decommissioning will simply disappear as a political issue. That is the purpose of the Bill and it is why so many people in Northern Ireland are so angry about it in the context of all the other concessions that have been allowed to the republican movement. On the one issue on which something was demanded of it, the deadline will be put back to 2007. As has rightly been pointed out, the original IRA and other terrorist organisations will take whatever time is available to perform whatever responsibilities they have.
  The Secretary of State came to the House not long ago and quoted the editorial in the Belfast News Letter against hon. Members, and he urged us to take account of what it said. That newspaper is not generally supportive of those of us who have taken a sceptical view of the agreement—far from it—so I hope that the Secretary of State will take account of that paper's editorial on 12 December, which said:
  "The Secretary of State is again making the mistake of allowing paramilitary organisations to duck their responsibilities."
  That is what the Bill will achieve.
  We have had discussion of the wonderful progress that has been made, but many people in Northern Ireland would scratch their heads in amazement at some of the descriptions we have heard from hon. Members, especially Labour Members, about the progress that is supposed to have been made. The Belfast Telegraph publishes opinion polls—which it does not generally use to bolster up my side of the argument—and it published one in the aftermath of the gesture carried out by the IRA, which showed that only 51 per cent. of all respondents, Unionist and nationalists, Catholics and Protestants, believed that an act of decommissioning was in fact carried out. It said that 52 per cent. of Protestants who were asked whether they believed General John de Chastelain when he said that a significant act of decommissioning had been carried out by the IRA said no. I am reminded of what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said on 28 June 1999:
  "recognisable, quantifiable decommissioning before any Executive is established remains the only way in which democrats can safely see that the war is indeed over."
  I wish that the right hon. Gentleman still took that position, and that he had stuck to it before allowing IRA-Sinn Fein into government.
  The gesture that we have seen from the IRA is just that. It is not linked to a timetable or a process. We were told that it had to be part of a timetable leading to the complete and verifiable destruction or decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons.
  There have been gestures before. People have urged us to consider the historic significance of the IRA's acts, but another event, already referred to today, involved the Loyalist Volunteer Force. There was an act of decommissioning. The LVF ceasefire has been declared over since then because that gesture turned out to be meaningless. Why was it meaningless? Because it was not part of a process linked to a timetable for the complete and utter destruction of all weapons. It was a gesture, a stunt.
  106
  Ministers have been unable to tell us today that they know even what the IRA's gesture amounted to. The IRA, as General de Chastelain confirmed to us, made it clear that it wants no one apart from the commission—not the Government, not even the Prime Minister—to know what the event was, how many weapons were involved, where it took place or anything else. On that basis, we are supposed to keep Martin McGuinness, the IRA chief of staff, and Gerry Adams and other such people in the Government of Northern Ireland.
  Let us consider the so-called historic and significant event in the light of what happened following the LVF gesture. The LVF ceasefire has been declared bogus. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise how strongly people on the Unionist side in Northern Ireland feel. I accept what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) said about recognising where Members from Northern Ireland come from on these issues, but I wish people would take more time to speak to Unionists in Northern Ireland and realise the depth of anxiety and anger that exists at the process of concessions that is under way.
  We have seen the Royal Ulster Constabulary shabbily treated and discarded. The Minister can shake her head, but the RUC has been shabbily treated and discarded. That is the view of the vast majority of the Unionists of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the Minister herself said that the RUC had been laid to rest.
  The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to the fact that people in our Government refuse to support the new Police Service for Northern Ireland. Not only do they not support it; they are on record as saying that they want its recruits to be treated in the same way that recruits to the RUC were treated. We know exactly how they were treated—they were murdered and intimidated, and their families were murdered and intimidated.
  There is a cold house for Unionists, as the Secretary of State said in his speech in Liverpool. Instead of offering measures to remedy that, he comes before us with a measure that will put back the deadline for decommissioning. Tomorrow, along with his colleague the Leader of the House, he will come here with a motion to allow IRA-Sinn Fein into the precincts of this House, a special privilege not granted to other Members who refuse to take the oath. The Secretary of State needs to start acting on his words. The vast majority of Unionists, whether or not they supported the agreement, have lost faith both in the agreement and in the Government's capacity even to acknowledge the fears of the Unionist community.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The debate has shown that the measure is anything but technical—the suggestion made by one or two Labour Members. It has shown the importance of timetables and process. The measure is central to the process that we all want to achieve.
  Following the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), it is appropriate to reflect that his constituents experience anything but normal life under the peace process. They have no experience of political normality—unlike the majority of our constituents. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind us of the twin-track process that Mitchell set up. He was also right to remind

  107
  us that the Government are allowing paramilitaries to duck their responsibilities. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Government's treatment of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  I shall deal with the Secretary of State's speech towards the end of my contribution, but I shall refer first to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe), who said that timetables have bedevilled the process. In that case, what was the Prime Minister doing when he insisted on a timetable for the Belfast agreement and said that it had to be finished by Good Friday—hence its name? The Prime Minister gave graphic descriptions of how he put his back to the door and said that no one was to leave until there was an agreement.
  What about the first act of IRA decommissioning? The decision of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to remove Ulster Unionist Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive led, four days later, to the first act of IRA decommissioning. For the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green to say that another five-year period, as proposed by the measure, is the minimum needed to achieve the objectives flies in the face of experience not only in Ireland but throughout the world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) pointed out how long it took in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to complete a decommissioning process in circumstances that were much more challenging and wholly different from those we face in Northern Ireland. In Afghanistan, the decommissioning of al-Qaeda and the Taliban—admittedly an involuntary process—was achieved in only three months.
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who opened the debate for the Opposition, on his cogent arguments. I regret that I shall be unable to respond to the hon. Gentleman entirely in kind. His criticism was that our current position is inconsistent with that of the Conservative legislation in 1997. However, he must understand that in 1997 the Government were setting up a mechanism to test the genuineness of terrorists' intentions to give up violence.
  The inevitable concessions to bring together all sides that are linked to the Belfast agreement had not been made. The Conservative Government brought in the 1997 Act to implement the Washington principles, as enunciated by Lord Mayhew, and then to give effect to the Mitchell principles that followed. The situation was wholly different. It began the process that led to the Belfast agreement in 1998. In 1997, the then Government and the then Parliament were opening up that process.
  In a typically independent and refreshing contribution, based on years of commitment and experience, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out that the measure proposed merely a minor amendment to the 1997 Act. However, it goes much further than that. We are talking about the signals that the measure sends out. It is not merely a minor amendment, although I have no doubt that we shall return to that issue in Committee if our reasoned amendment is not carried this evening.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford on the appalling failure of the Government to deal with prisoner releases and the complete lack of
  108
  connection between those releases and decommissioning. I know that some of my Republican friends will have enjoyed the links that he made between Presidents Castro and Clinton in their terms of welcome for Gerry Adams—I of course refer to my Republican friends in the United States.
  The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in his unrelenting message that Sinn Fein must be opposed. He was concerned over the constant concessions made to Sinn Fein as the party of violence, of the bullet in conjunction with the ballot box. It has pursued that strategy with success, and now with electoral success in Northern Ireland at the expense of the constitutional politicians of the SDLP. He is right to say that that is significantly to be regretted.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) intrigued the House in reporting that IRA decommissioning had been substantial. I am sure that we all look forward to further substantiation of and evidence for that remark. The Secretary of State is not, it seems, in a position to deliver it.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann was, however, absolutely right—he added his name to the reasoned amendment that we tabled—that it is the Government's responsibility to achieve decommissioning. The Government should not be hiding behind him any more. It is the Government who must deliver and not expect the right hon. Gentleman as First Minister to do the difficult work for them.
  The contribution to the debate of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) must be respected. He served in Northern Ireland, but his memory seems to have been overtaken by his latter experience in the Army following his earlier experience alongside colleagues in the Black Watch. I wonder how many of his former Black Watch colleagues, knowing what has happened to morale in the Northern Ireland Police Service, have his confidence that in the end the Real IRA and loyalist paramilitaries who remain at violence will be mopped up by sound policing process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), whose long experience and personal commitment to the issue is peerless in this place, has shown courage in consistently putting forward his views in the face of the threats that he has opposed. That makes it appropriate for him to comment on what he called the retreat and appeasement between 1993 and 1997. I do not share his conclusion, as it was right for the then Government to pave the way for the Belfast agreement in 1998. It was right for the Ulster Unionist party to sign the Belfast agreement and right for the Conservative party to support the agreement in the campaign that followed to achieve a yes vote in the referendum. All the work done by Lord Mayhew and his predecessors as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland led to that process, which remains the best available for achieving a lasting peace.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) brought to the debate his usual uncomfortable clarity. He rightly disinterred the meaning of the word "significance" in his discussions with General de Chastelain, to confirm what most of us expected that de Chastelain was saying—that he considered not the amount but the event as significant. That is true; we must acknowledge that the event of decommissioning itself was of psychological rather than practical importance.

  109
  The point from which we cannot escape, however, is the record of the Provisional IRA since the Belfast agreement, to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention. It is a damning indictment of that organisation.
  The Secretary of State says that we cannot tolerate private armies indefinitely. Inescapable logic leads from that remark to the conclusion that at some point we must cease to tolerate them, but the signal that the Bill sends is that we will tolerate private armies indefinitely, because it mirrors precisely the legislation that laid down the timetable five years ago. The message is that in five years' time, we shall be back here again, debating a precisely similar piece of legislation, with nothing substantial having happened in terms of decommissioning.
  We had an extraordinary diversion in the form of the Secretary of State's definition of Sinn Fein-IRA and his assertion that they are not the same organisation—that they enjoy the same relationship as the trade unions and the Labour party. Is John Monks the director of the Labour party in some sense, or is the Prime Minister the director of the trade unions? I must have missed something.
  Dr. John Reid: The hon. Gentleman is incapable of following a logical argument. I did not say that Sinn Fein and the IRA enjoyed the same relationship as the trade unions and the Labour party. I said that it is possible to be interlinked but not the same, and I gave as an example of that phenomenon the Labour party and the trade unions.
  Mr. Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman is dancing on the head of a pin. Who does he think Gerry Adams was talking to when in October this year he said:
  "Martin McGuiness and I have also held discussions with the IRA and we have put to the IRA leadership the view that if it could make a ground-breaking move on the arms issue that this could save the peace process from collapse and transform the situation"?
  As we all know, he was talking to The Mirror. If the Secretary of State believes that the distinction he makes is credible, we are playing Alice in Wonderland politics—politics through the looking-glass.
  The Secretary of State referred to dissident republicans and rejectionist loyalists, saying that they were the true enemies of Northern Ireland, opposed by all the people of Northern Ireland, but his remarks did not persuade me that the Bill is aimed at them. Five years ago, when the timetable was discussed in Standing Committee, Ulster Unionist party Members tabled an amendment in support of their argument that five years was too long. The position of the then Government was that a shorter timetable would be far more appropriate for the Provisional IRA, because there was supposed to be a prospect that that organisation, through Sinn Fein—the other side of the coin—would become involved in the process. In resisting that amendment, Sir John Wheeler, then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, made it clear that
  The maximum duration of five years depends on an annual renewal within that period. It rests on the premise that—as members of the Committee know—there are small groups whose much smaller stocks of weapons and explosives need to be taken out of circulation. That may take time."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 December 1996; c. 23.]
  However, the Government have not suggested that the five-year timetable set down in the current Bill is designed to address those smaller groups. Instead, it is aimed at the
  110
  Provisional IRA—the main holder of weapons in Northern Ireland. That is why we should resist the Bill as it stands being given a Second Reading.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) challenged the Secretary of State to say that, if no decommissioning takes place within a year, he will not propose another extension in February 2003. The Secretary of State simply replied that he could not predict the future. The problem is that we are dealing in signals. General de Chastelain said that the decommissioning that took place was significant as a signal of IRA decommissioning, and it was accepted and welcomed by the Opposition as a signal. The signal that the Bill sends is the wrong one. It ignores the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland. It is a signal of pressure being taken off the Provisional IRA.
  The Bill is another concession in an endless series to Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government's concessions have not been to constitutional politicians. Instead, they have always been to those who are illegally holding arms. To introduce another five-year Bill in precisely the same terms as previous legislation, which was introduced in an entirely different situation before the ceasefire and before the Belfast agreement, is a message that the process will be endless. There will never be closure.
  It is time for the Government to seek to achieve a return to normality. It is time for them to show some commitment to achieving normality and not to hide behind the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. That is what our reasoned amendment seeks to achieve, and that is what I hope the House will support.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It mellowed into an interesting discourse on the moral dilemmas facing us, as a Parliament and as a Government, as we grapple with progress in moving from armed conflict and terrorism to a fully democratic and peaceful Northern Ireland.
  The Bill simply provides a legal framework to allow decommissioning to happen; no more and no less. It mirrors closely the Bill that was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1997, which was supported by the then Opposition. It extends legal immunity from prosecution for one year only. Any further extension requires the approval of the House.
  Contrary to what may have been understood if someone had wandered into the debate, the framework that the Bill provides will assist in the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, both loyalist and republican. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that there is little between us, I think. He criticised the Bill's timing and the period in respect of which it is designed to provide legal immunity. Timing could always be better, especially with hindsight, and, as I said, the legal framework will last for one year only. I am sure that we will debate that issue further when we come to consider the Bill in Committee after we return from the Christmas recess.
  I hope that we are all agreed that we want to achieve decommissioning. The original Bill was introduced in 1997, five years ago. The political context has been transformed since then. No one could have predicted then where we would be today, five years later. Would we have

  111
  a process in place that still warranted the provision of a legal indemnity for the decommissioning of weapons? The five-year life span of the original Bill reflects that uncertainty.
  If I may pay tribute to him, in a powerful and incisive speech, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) touched upon the courage and vision of the then Conservative Prime Minister, John Major. The hopes and aspirations of the Conservative Government in bringing forward a Bill five years ago have been vindicated by the progress that has been made subsequently.
  The point made by the hon. Gentleman is the more powerful because when the Conservatives took their measure forward, the Provisional IRA was not even on ceasefire. Its ceasefire had ended in February 1996 and was not restored until the summer of 1997. The hope and aspirations fully justified the extension of the principle that the Conservative Government introduced and that we supported. We have made huge strides over the past five years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined many of those at the beginning of his powerful speech, when he laid out the strong reasons why we are bringing the Bill forward now.
  I say to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that Conservative Members do not have a monopoly on distaste. I understand and share the view that is held by many people in Northern Ireland and elsewhere that the early release of those convicted of terrorist offences was profoundly distasteful. However, without prisoner releases we would have had no agreement; we considered that that was a prize worth taking risks for.
  I am grateful to many of my hon. Friends who participated in our debate. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), and welcomed his contribution, which was based on his extensive knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland and, as was acknowledged, the constructive role that he played there.
  I shall deal with points made by other Members in our debate. I heard a lot about concessions to the IRA. We are not in the business of making concessions. Our concern at all times has been to create a society in Northern Ireland in which both sections of the community can feel a sense of belonging and in which all political aspirations are recognised. That is why we now have devolution, which gives real power to Northern Ireland politicians; the principle of consent, which establishes Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom; and the removal of the Republic of Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland.
  David Burnside: Since no concessions have been made and none are planned, does the Minister expect the Government of the Irish Republic and Fianna Fail to be consistent with the British Government in keeping Sinn Fein out of a coalition Government if, after their election in May next year, Sinn Fein does not give up the private army within the state, which is unconstitutional under the Irish Republic's constitution?
  Jane Kennedy: That is a matter for the Government in the Republic. I shall just finish the list of positive things that have happened that cannot possibly be described as
  112
  concessions to Sinn Fein or the IRA. We have a new police service with cross-community support—[Interruption.] Absolutely not; that is not a concession to Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It does the hon. Gentlemen no good to shout at the Minister. I will stop them doing that.
  Jane Kennedy: Equality for all and individual human rights are being promoted. How those fundamental aspects of the Belfast agreement can be conveniently overlooked or presented as somehow pro-republican is beyond me. They are good things in their own right that clearly demonstrate our commitment to promoting peace, stability and democracy for all.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady said that the Government are not in the business of making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. Does she think that prematurely releasing terrorist prisoners, murderers, convicted murderers and multiple murderers is not a concession, or does she think that that is a perfectly normal and sensible thing to do on its own merit? Does she think that the motion that the Government are introducing tomorrow is a concession or is it something perfectly normal that should be accepted on its own merits?
  Jane Kennedy: I have already said that the early release of prisoners was distasteful.
  Mr. Davies: It was a concession.
  Jane Kennedy: No, it was not, because it applied equally to republican and loyalist prisoners, so the point made by the Opposition cannot possibly hold.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
  Jane Kennedy: No, I shall just finish my point about concessions.
  The Bill is said to count as one of the so-called concessions to Sinn Fein. That is a misunderstanding of its significance, because it will provide a legal framework for decommissioning by all paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican. This is not about Sinn Fein but about continuing to fulfil our duty to support the Belfast agreement and, in particular, the decommissioning process. If the Bill is not enacted we will, in effect, let the paramilitary organisations off the hook. Surely, it is right to keep working towards our ultimate goal by giving those groups every opportunity to decommission and allowing them no excuse for failing to do so. I shall try to come to the points made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, but shall give way for the last time to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
  Mr. Robathan: Those groups have had nearly four years since the Belfast agreement—or will have had by February—in which to decommission. How much longer does she intend to give them? Could she specify whether it will be one year, five years or 10 years?
  Jane Kennedy: The framework that we are establishing today will allow one year before we have to consider the matter again in the House.

  113
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) outlined the range of pressures that are brought to bear on paramilitary organisations. I agree with him that the most effective pressure that can be brought to bear is international opinion. We can be instrumental in bringing that about by ensuring that there is no impediment to decommissioning and no excuse for further prevarication.
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Jane Kennedy: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I said that I would not give way again, and there are several points to which I should respond before the end of the debate.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) suggested that if the Government set target dates and deadlines, there would be fewer crises than if his party had to do so. I do not find that line of argument persuasive. The difficulty is that deadlines and public threats are unlikely to achieve the objective that we all share: securing full decommissioning. Yes, we need pressure, public and private, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we shall not sustain the peace process merely through deadlines and public ultimatums. Perhaps life would be easier if we could do so, but the process is not like that.
  On the significance of the act of decommissioning, many hon. Members dismissed what happened a couple of months ago. We should not dismiss that act of decommissioning so lightly. The IRA constitution expressly prohibits the destruction or surrender of any weapons, so the general is right to describe any decommissioning as significant. In recognition of the need to further the peace process, the IRA has set aside one of the cornerstones of its existence. No one should be in any doubt about the significance of that.
  The commission told us in its report that it witnessed the event. Members of the commission are relying not on the words of others, but on their own eyes. The commission regards the act as significant—a judgment that I am confident that it would not reach lightly—and the judgment is shared by the Chief Constable.
  The commission confirms that the material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives. It says that those have been put completely beyond use and dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme under the legislation previously approved by Parliament. That scheme is satisfied only if arms are destroyed or made permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable. Whatever the method, the arms can never be used again by anybody.
  As we draw to the conclusion of the debate, it is worth pondering the fact that in the Belfast News Letter the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford stated that the debate would mark a turning point in his approach to supporting the Government. I had looked forward to hearing him outline his alternative vision for the future of Northern Ireland, but all we have heard from the Opposition tonight is negativism, shameful opportunism and posturing. It seems that one can always rely on the Conservatives to fall to the occasion, but even now I am surprised how low they can go.
  I know that some things seem unpalatable, but we are not at the pick 'n' mix counter at Woolworths, where we choose only our favourites when it comes to making the
  114
  peace process work in Northern Ireland. No objective observer expects decommissioning to be finished by February next year. The Opposition conceded as much tonight. After tonight's debate, it is clear that something has been verifiably and completely put beyond use: the critical faculties of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
  How does the hon. Gentleman expect decommissioning to continue after February without the legal provisions that would allow it to take place? Does he think that those holding illegal arms would be more or less likely to decommission if they lay themselves open to prosecution in doing so? When the Conservatives went to the pick 'n' mix to get their policy, I fear that they passed over the Quality Street and went straight for the Curly Wurly. We propose to extend for an extra 12 months the period during which guns can be put beyond use within a legal framework—that is all. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 342.

  Division No. 115]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Flook, Adrian

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Francois, Mark

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Gale, Roger

  Bacon, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Gibb, Nick

  Barker, Gregory

  Goodman, Paul

  Beggs, Roy

  Gray, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Grayling, Chris

  Bercow, John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hammond, Philip

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, John

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burnside, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Cameron, David

  Hermon, Lady

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hoban, Mark

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Horam, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Conway, Derek

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Loughton, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flight, Howard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  115

  Mercer, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Steen, Anthony

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Swire, Hugo

  Ottaway, Richard

  Syms, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Pickles, Eric

  Trend, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Prisk, Mark

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wilkinson, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Ruffley, David

  Wilshire, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Selous, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

  Spink, Bob

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allan, Richard

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Casale, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Challen, Colin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chaytor, David

  Banks, Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, Iain

  Best, Harold

  Colman, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Connarty, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom

  Brennan, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Bryant, Chris

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burnett, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burnham, Andy

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Cairns, David

  David, Wayne

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Davidson, Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  116

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Joyce, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Efford, Clive

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Lamb, Norman

  Farrelly, Paul

  Laxton, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lucas, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Luke, Iain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lyons, John

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCafferty, Chris

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gidley, Sandra

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  McWalter, Tony

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWilliam, John

  Havard, Dai

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heath, David

  Mann, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marris, Rob

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Olner, Bill

  117

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Perham, Linda

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Picking, Anne

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pike, Peter

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tami, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Price, Adam

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Todd, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Touhig, Don

  Pugh, Dr John

  Truswell, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Rapson, Syd

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Tynan, Bill

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Vaz, Keith

  Rendel, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watson, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Watts, David

  Ross, Ernie

  Webb, Steve

  Ruane, Chris

  White, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Willis, Phil

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Winnick, David

  Simon, Siôn

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Helen

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Rachel

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third Reading),and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  NORTHERN IRELAND ARMS DECOMMISSIONING (AMENDMENT) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill: —
  Committal
  1.The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Programming of proceedings
  2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and all remaining proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.
  Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading

  3—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.

  (2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on that day or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.

  (3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 148.

  Division No. 116]

  [10.15pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Caplin, Ivor

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Challen, Colin

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coaker, Vernon

  Benton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, Iain

  Best, Harold

  Colman, Tony

  Betts, Clive

  Connarty, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cox, Tom

  Breed, Colin

  Crausby, David

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cummings, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bryant, Chris

  Cunningham, Jim (Covtry S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Burden, Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burnham, Andy

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Cairns, David

  David, Wayne

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Davidson, Ian

  119

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Joyce, Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dowd, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Efford, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lamb, Norman

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Laxton, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Lepper, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Flynn, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lucas, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Luke, Iain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lyons, John

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McCafferty, Chris

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gidley, Sandra

  McDonnell, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hanson, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWalter, Tony

  Havard, Dai

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heath, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mann, John

  Hendrick, Mark

  Marris, Rob

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heyes, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoey, Kate

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Julie

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  120

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stevenson, George

  Organ, Diana

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Perham, Linda

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Picking, Anne

  Stringer, Graham

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pike, Peter

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tami, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Price, Adam

  Todd, Mark

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Touhig, Don

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Pugh, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rapson, Syd

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Tynan, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rendel, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Watson, Tom

  Watts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Webb, Steve

  Rooney, Terry

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruane, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Willis, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sheridan, Jim

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wood, Mike

  Simon, Siôn

  Woodward, Shaun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Soley, Clive

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Southworth, Helen

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Jim Fitzpatrick.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brady, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burnside, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cameron, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chope, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  121

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Conway, Derek

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Malins, Humfrey

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mercer, Patrick

  Dodds, Nigel

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paice, James

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paterson, Owen

  Flight, Howard

  Pickles, Eric

  Flook, Adrian

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Prisk, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Francois, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Gibb, Nick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Goodman, Paul

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Ruffley, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Selous, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Spink, Bob

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Hendry, Charles

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hermon, Lady

  Swire, Hugo

  Hoban, Mark

  Syms, Robert

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Walter, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Whittingdale, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lidington, David,

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Mr. Laurence Robertson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Employment Rights
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
10.31 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: Since 1997, the Government have adopted an approach to employment rights which recognises that individuals work best when they are properly rewarded for their work and able to achieve an effective balance between work, family and leisure. The introduction of the minimum wage, the right to a minimum of four weeks' paid holiday, improvements in maternity pay and leave, new regulations on part-time work and the implementation of the EU working time directive have, without doubt, significantly improved the quality of life of workers in this country. Millions have benefited from those policies. More than 1.5 million workers, around 7 per cent. of the work force, are better off because of the minimum wage, while more than 3 million people have benefited from the right to four weeks' paid holiday.
There is, however, strong evidence from trade unions and citizens advice bureaux that a large number of workers, many of them low paid, are still not receiving all the employment rights to which legislation brought in by successive Governments entitles them. Every year, citizens advice bureaux throughout the country deal with more than 650,000 cases of employment-related problems. Many of the cases that CABs handle concern contractual disputes between employer and employee or issues connected with redundancy or dismissal.
A great many cases, however, concern employers' failure to grant their employees' full employment rights. Many of those workers are in low-paid, low-skilled service sector jobs, are non-unionised and have been denied a full written contract by their employers. They are therefore in an extremely weak position to challenge their employer about their rights as employees. Routine abuses include the denial of the right to four weeks' paid holiday, the denial of statutory sick pay and the denial of full maternity or paternity rights, such as the right to maternity leave and pay and the right to time off for antenatal care.
Some employees have been pressured by their employer into opting out of the 48-hour limit on the working week, while others have been pressured into giving up their right to Government tax credits, such as the working families tax credit, because of the supposed extra administration involved for companies. Some employees have even had their hours cut below 16 a week to ensure that they do not qualify for tax credits or other benefits.
It is clear that many companies that fail to meet their statutory obligations to their staff are doing so deliberately, claiming, for example, that part-timers do not qualify for rest breaks, holiday pay or statutory maternity pay, or that the working time directive does not apply to every company. It is equally clear, however, that not every company that is falling short is doing so deliberately. Many companies are simply not aware of their full responsibilities as employers.
Some 95 per cent. of UK companies, a far higher percentage than in most European countries, are small operators that employ fewer than 10 people. As their budgets are tight, many companies of that size do not

123
employ a personnel specialist. Consequently, most of them have no employee with an in-depth knowledge of employment law or human resources management. Although they want to do the best for their employees, they simply lack the requisite funds and knowledge to ensure, first, that they are up to date with legislation and, secondly, that they are able to implement it.
The problem that we face is that the mechanisms of enforcement that currently exist, such as the employment tribunals, are expensive to access and rely on the employee bringing a complaint against his or her company. As many employees are either unaware of their entitlements or unwilling to jeopardise their position in the company by making a complaint, only a small number of cases of employers evading their responsibilities are ever heard by tribunals.
The insignificance of most awards made to successful plaintiffs by tribunals—the median award in 2000–01 was only£2,700—acts as a further disincentive to employees with a grievance. A few thousand pounds and the satisfaction of proving the culpability of one's employer is a poor substitute for a broken career and long-term loss of earnings. The tragedy is that most of the people who are missing out on their proper entitlements are working long hours in low-paid positions and are precisely the sort of employee whose quality of life would be improved enormously by even a small increase in their hourly wage or a few days extra spent with their family.
Clearly, we need a more transparent, accessible and proactive system that is less reliant on individual employees bringing their case forward for consideration. Furthermore, we need a system capable of improving the lot of every employee in the company, rather than a system that is able to give redress only to the individual employee who chooses to bring his or her case before a tribunal. There are precedents. The minimum wage enforcement agency, recently set up by the Inland Revenue, is precisely the kind of practical enforcement agency that we need.
My suggestion—it has also been proposed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—is that we create a body that I suggest we call the national employment rights office, or NERO. This would ensure that employers were aware of their responsibilities to their staff and, hopefully, we would find far fewer problems. NERO is a particularly apt name because those employers who routinely fiddle the system, abuse the law and exploit their staff will end up getting their fingers burned.
As a first step, NERO should devote itself to ensuring that employees are given written statements of their terms and conditions and itemised pay slips, and that they are paid holiday and statutory sick pay and receive maternity and paternity rights. NERO should also commit itself to tackling inequality between full-time and part-time workers, to ensuring that the working time directive is observed and to ensure that employees receive the tax credits to which they are entitled.
The main role of the office would not be to penalise employers for non-compliance—although it would need to be equipped with the appropriate powers of enforcement—but to advise and guide employers and employees as to their responsibilities and rights. For the
124
thousands of small companies who want to ensure that they are meeting all their obligations to their staff, a service such as this, funded by the state, would provide the means for them to do so.
Under the system, employers would be able to approach the service for cost-free information about employment law without the risk of incurring a penalty for past non-compliance. They would also be able to receive practical assistance, again cost-free, from trained support officers about how to comply with the law and advice on current best practice. When an employer was failing to meet its statutory duties, or where a firm did not have the necessary policies or procedures in place to allow it to meet its obligations, the agency would step in and provide the firm with advice on how to meet its requirements and a clear structured programme to follow.
There could be considerable productivity benefits for small and medium-sized employers. Properly funded, the service could instigate the replacement of many entrenched and inefficient management attitudes and workplace practices that are holding back growth in small and medium-sized businesses. After all, it is not in the interests of anyone—least of all the employer—to have tired, overworked, badly paid and demotivated workers, incapable and unwilling to do anything for their company beyond that stipulated by their contracts.
Employers would also benefit from the creation of a more level playing field. Responsible employers would no longer be undercut by less-scrupulous employers who can offer a cheaper product by neglecting their responsibilities towards their staff. NERO could also raise public awareness of the basic statutory employment provisions and encourage companies to take advantage of its services by issuing certificates of compliance, or even star ratings for the best employers. Potential employees would then be able to get some idea of the employment track record of a company before making the decision to join them. If employers are able to seek references from a potential employee, why should not a potential employee have access to an independent assessment of a company's suitability as an employer?
If we can get an idea of the relative quality of a school or college—or, indeed, a hospital—by looking at a league table, or if we can judge a restaurant or a hotel by how many stars it has, why should not the same be true for employers? It seems strange that while a hotel guest has a reasonable idea of the calibre of the hotel from the number of stars it has before deciding to stay there, a chef looking for a job at the same hotel has no idea what sort of employer the hotel is before deciding to work there.
There are some awards in place which recognise excellence in an employer, such as the investor in people standard, which acknowledges a company's commitment to supporting the professional development of its staff. But there is no single, universally recognised standard of excellence as an employer which encompasses everything from compliance with legislation on maternity rights to the calibre of training and professional development on offer. In a competitive labour market, an independently administered ratings scheme would provide a powerful incentive for employers to ensure that they complied with the latest employment legislation. Not only would a high rating prove beneficial to a company in terms of recruitment, but potential clients would be able to see that a company was meeting its obligations as an employer.

125
The creation of a national employment rights office would help to ensure that each and every employee was decently paid, had control over the number of hours that he or she worked and was not discriminated against or exploited in the workplace. After all, improving the quality of work experience of the working population of this country is a goal every bit as important as the goal of full employment. If we were to ask people of working age in the UK what it is that they most want from a job, the chances are that a friendly and decent working environment would be high on their list.
It stands to reason that employees who are well rewarded and respected by their employers are likely to be happier, healthier and more capable of making a full contribution to their communities and the companies that they work for than those employees who are treated with scant respect and decency by their employers. As Karl Marx, whose analysis of the sociology of work is still highly relevant today, said:
"What then constitutes the alienation of labour? First, the fact that labour is external to the worker, i.e. it does not belong to his essential being; that in his work he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy; does not develop his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind."
Establishing an effective mechanism for enforcing employment rights would provide a means for tackling what Marx described as the alienation of the worker from the work they do.
With effective enforcement we would create a healthier working environment and enable employees both to engage with their work and to strike a better and more productive relationship with their employers. It is therefore high time that quality of work issues were placed at the heart of the political debate in this country. As Fidel Castro said recently, in a speech to the Cuban Young Pioneers at Jose Antonio Echeverria social club in Havana:
"En un país justo, no existe el egoísmo & o & explótacion."
which translates as "In a just country, there is no selfishness or exploitation."
Mr. Bob Laxton: Follow that!
10.43 pm
The Minister for Employment and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) on securing this debate and I am grateful to him for raising this important issue. I am not sure whether I can follow that and quote so eloquently from Marx and Castro, although if time allows I might have a go at the theory of surplus value. Perhaps it would be better if I addressed the major points of my hon. Friend's speech.
This Government took office in 1997 with a determination to improve employment rights for working people. Indeed, we had a determination to introduce basic, civilised minimum standards in this country in the workplace practically for the first time. In the past four years, we have introduced many important measures that have created a substantially better working environment for many employees. The measures in the current Employment Bill—which I urge my hon. Friend to read, because it addresses some of the issues that he raised—will continue to take that good work forward. However,
126
while we must recognise that most employers happily comply with those measures because they recognise the link between good employment relations and success in the marketplace, we also have to accept that that is not always the case and that some workers are not receiving all the employment rights to which they are entitled.
The key question is how best to address that problem. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has identified two principal difficulties with the present system. The first is that some employees are not aware of their rights, and that some employers deliberately or through ignorance do not apply those basic minimum standards. Our approach to that is to try to help to build constructive employment relationships, and thus ensure that workers and employers alike are aware of their rights and responsibilities. Advice on employment rights is provided by a range of bodies, including ACAS, which has seen a step change under Rita Donaghy's chairmanship and a new chief executive. It is now committed to increasing the number of seminars that it conducts with businesses to help them to understand the complexities of employment rights.
Apart from ACAS, the Department of Trade and Industry, equality commissions, the Trades Union Congress, voluntary sector bodies such as the low pay units, and advice agencies such as citizens advice bureaux raise awareness as far as possible through publicity campaigns to improve understanding of specific employment rights. An ever-increasing amount of information is also available on the internet, including the Tiger website, which the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has helped us to develop. That will continue to expand to cover a broader spectrum of employment issues.
Much guidance material is available from both the DTI and ACAS, which also runs conferences, seminars and employer workshops to raise awareness of statutory duties and rights. The Small Business Service provides employers, especially in small firms, with a single entry point for guidance on regulations on employment legislation from across Government. The Government and the bodies that I have mentioned are always reviewing the available guidance and advice to see how it can be improved and better publicised. It is clear that a wealth of guidance material is already available to employees and employers.
My hon. Friend argued that employment tribunals are expensive to access and that few employees think that the risks involved in taking an employer to a tribunal are worth the perceived benefits of winning a case. It is precisely such problems that the dispute resolution measures in the Employment Bill are designed to tackle. We are ensuring that all workplaces must have grievance procedures. The proposed steps are simple and easy to use. They will ensure that a dispute is tackled where it arises, in the workplace. Employers will have to take the process seriously, or they could find that any award made against them is increased by up to 50 per cent.
We are ensuring that all employees are issued with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment that lays down those procedural steps. At present, there is a requirement to do that, but companies employing fewer than 20 employees have no obligation to include disciplinary and grievance procedures. In any case, there

127
is a problem with compliance. Mitigation awards of between 10 and 50 per cent. will apply in that respect. Everyone in the workplace will know where they stand and how best to approach a dispute. The use of such procedures should mean that far fewer disputes have to be taken to tribunal for resolution.
My hon. Friend mentioned the awards made by tribunals. Just under 50 per cent. of awards are for unfair dismissal, which is not relevant to this debate. It is true that the median award is not high, but we are not trying to create a compensation culture in employment tribunals, and awards are designed to compensate for actual losses. Tribunal chairmen assess the level of an award as they deem fair, taking into account the circumstances of the person against whom the award is made.
In addition to the measures in the Employment Bill, we have set up a partnership fund to promote understanding between employers and employees in the workplace. That is an important non-legislative measure aimed at improving work relations. The Government and business have invested £10.3 million in it.
My hon. Friend suggests that the answer to the difficulties that he raised would lie in creating a new body, to be known as the national employment rights office. That would act as an independent assessor of whether employers were meeting their legal obligations to their staff. I am aware that others, including the Institute for Public Policy Research and NACAB, have made the same suggestion.
I remain to be convinced that the formation of a single, over-arching body would be the best way forward. In many respects, it would duplicate work that is already being done. It is not clear to me that the creation of NERO would necessarily improve the volume and quality of information available about employment rights. It is entirely possible for us to improve that within the present system, and we are always looking to do so. Nor would NERO improve the way that employment tribunals work. Employment disputes often lead to complicated and intricate cases and would not naturally lend themselves to resolution through an investigative agency. Tribunals are structured as they are because the expertise of lay members combined with the legal knowledge of the chairman is required to reach a solution.
It is also not entirely clear how the new body would fulfil its role. How could NERO be seen by employers and employees as an independent adviser and conciliator on the one hand while also acting as the body responsible
128
for enforcing employment rights? ACAS, for example, does vital work in both its advisory and conciliatory roles while maintaining its independence and integrity. It is difficult to imagine how NERO could continue as an independent body if it were to take on the dual role suggested by my hon. Friend.
The creation of a single body does not of itself resolve any of the difficulties in the present system. Indeed, it is even possible that, if not carefully handled, the body could create additional difficulties: effort and resources could be drawn into the creation of a new bureaucracy, rather than being used for the operation and improvement of the existing system.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, we made an exception in relation to the minimum wage: because of a service agreement between the DTI and the Inland Revenue, Inland Revenue officers are dedicated to enforcing the minimum wage and to taking cases through employment tribunals. That is fundamental because the matter relates to people's pay and because we introduced a minimum wage for the first time in 1999, whereas such arrangements are well established in other countries.
The Inland Revenue does an excellent job on our behalf, but other employment rights—such as weighing up part-time and full-time work in relation to the directive on part-time workers—are more subjective. To create a body to enforce all employment rights across the board would demand substantial resources, and I am not convinced that it would deliver a better result.
That is not to say that the Government are irrevocably opposed to the idea of NERO. Incidentally, there seems to be awareness of our minimum standards. Last week, it was reported that Madonna said that every worker on her new house knows that they are entitled to four weeks' paid holiday, to the minimum wage and so on. I do not know whether she intended that as an accolade for the Government, but we shall accept it as such.
We are not irrevocably opposed to my hon. Friend's idea. Although I am not convinced that it offers significant advantages at present, I should be happy to reconsider it at a later date. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We do not intend to set up basic minimum civilised standards only to have them ignored by a minority—thankfully—of unscrupulous employers. We shall look at the proposal again, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o' clock.