HC Deb 02 July 2001 vol 371 cc19-32 3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on recent developments in Northern Ireland.

As the House will know, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) resigned as First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly with effect from yesterday. I regret his resignation, and the reasons that brought it about. He has played a courageous part in the process so far and will, I am sure, continue to do so. Under the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which implemented the devolution arrangements in the Good Friday agreement, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) automatically ceases to hold office as Deputy First Minister at the same time. Both have provided distinguished leadership to the devolved Executive over the past year or more—a year in which the four parties in the Executive have worked together to tackle real problems on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland.

Under the Act, the Assembly must hold an election to fill the vacant offices of First and Deputy First Minister within six weeks. In the meantime, the functions of both offices can be exercised, but if that period expires without a successful election, I am obliged to propose a date for fresh Assembly elections.

We face a serious and sombre situation in Northern Ireland, but I think that it is right at the outset to recall the progress that we have already made: a new Assembly; devolution of power to a cross-community Executive; new North-South and British-Irish institutions; new protection for human rights and equality of opportunity; new policing legislation; and the first recruitment exercise for the new Northern Ireland police service, on a 50:50 basis. All that is already under way.

This process has, I believe, created the conditions of stability and confidence in Northern Ireland in which economic development is thriving. What we have achieved so far has been the result of efforts by all the parties in Northern Ireland. Of course, we still face many challenges: to ensure the stability and full operation of all the political institutions; to deliver a police service that attracts and sustains support from the community as a whole; and to take further steps towards the normalisation of security arrangements, as the threat diminishes.

Crucially, the basis for progress in Northern Ireland is the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in full, in all its aspects. That requires every party to be committed, and to be seen to be committed, exclusively to democratic, non-violent means. It requires that every party rejects the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

It also means that, as the institutional, social and legal changes set out in the Good Friday agreement are implemented, they must be accompanied by the putting of illegal weapons completely beyond use. In this, of course, we all have a collective responsibility, but some parties have a particular position of influence with the paramilitaries and, under the Good Friday agreement, are obliged to use such influence to achieve decommissioning.

It is because there remain problems in implementing the Good Friday agreement in full, as I have described, that I am here today to report further developments to the House. Over the weekend, we and the Irish Government received a further report from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, chaired by General John de Chastelain. Both Governments have published the report today and a copy has been placed in the Library.

The report notes that during the past year, the Ulster Volunteer Force and Ulster Freedom Fighters representatives gave the commission general agreement on methods of decommissioning and supporting issues. It also notes the opening of some IRA arms dumps to inspections by the international inspectors.

Regrettably, however, the report also notes that despite previous commitments and assurances being reaffirmed in good faith, and all the paramilitary representatives wanting to continue to engage with the commission, there has been no decommissioning by the IRA, the UVF or the UFF to date.

The commission reports that the IRA representatives assured it of the IRA's commitment to put arms beyond use, completely and verifiably, on the basis it set out last year. This is, of course, welcome, but I am disappointed that the commission has still to receive answers to the other two key questions—how and when arms will be put beyond use. The simple fact is that the Good Friday agreement needs to be implemented in full.

The people of Northern Ireland want to see a fair and equal society, but they—indeed, as the Taoiseach has made clear, the people of Ireland, both North and South—insist that illegal arms must also be put completely beyond use, as part of the process of transformation. We will succeed only if we all work together to move forward in all these areas.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said after their meetings in Northern Ireland on Thursday, there is now little time left to resolve the difficulties and obstacles that remain. We are determined to live up in full to our obligations under the Good Friday agreement; but others must do so as well. The agreement involved compromise—even pain—for all sides; it will not work if each side implements only those parts with which it is entirely comfortable.

The overwhelming desire of the people and parties in Northern Ireland is to see Northern Ireland's democratic institutions functioning as intended. They are valued greatly. They want to see them working, not suspended, but on the basis of a total commitment by all to democracy and exclusively peaceful methods.

I expect to be working with the parties, together with the Irish Foreign Minister, this week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have stated their clear determination to engage intensively to resolve these issues as soon as possible.

I will not hide from the House the difficulties we face. We have seen, in recent weeks, the dangers when politics appears to be stalling. There have been murderous sectarian attacks. People have been intimidated out of their homes. Young children have been used as pawns in sectarian disputes and, as so often, the police have had to step in, with the support of the Army, to maintain the peace and uphold the rule of law. In the course of so doing, 57 police officers were injured on one day at the end of May in Portadown, and a further 39 in north Belfast, on the evening of 21 June alone. The security forces have come under attack from a range of missiles, including petrol, acid and blast bombs, and shots have been discharged too.

Nevertheless, Saturday's Whiterock parade in Belfast passed off relatively peacefully. I commend the responsible attitude taken by the vast majority of those on both sides in a very tense situation, as we approach further parades and marches over the coming weeks.

In the corning weeks, all of us must show that it is politics, not violence, which works. After such a long period of division, death and deep pain, it is not surprising that we face difficult challenges. But these hurts of the past impel all of us to find a way through to peace and stability for the future—a way that ensures that the bomb and the bullet are put completely beyond use as a way of solving our problems. This is not a matter of victory or defeat for one side or the other. It can only be a victory for all of us and all of the people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

This is a very bad day for the people of Northern Ireland, but it is an almost inevitable day, because the Government have appeased the men of violence and are now paying the price. I put it to the Secretary of State that the Belfast agreement has not been implemented by the Government. He stated today that the agreement was a deal, but the deal has not been met. Every single terrorist prisoner has been released from jail, yet not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex has been handed in.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the process started by John Major has been squandered by his Government and his Prime Minister? Would the Secretary of State be good enough to reiterate to the House what his Prime Minister said to the people of Northern Ireland at the time of the referendum? He gave pledges, in his own handwriting, that there would be decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives ahead of all terrorists being released and ahead of Sinn Fein members of the Assembly becoming Ministers in the Executive. He has let the people of Northern Ireland down.

The Prime Minister has also let down my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I commend everything that the First Minister has done in terms of moderate Unionism and trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland together. I regret to conclude that he has been right to resign: he had no possible alternative.

Will the Secretary of State look again at General de Chastelain's report? After all this time, without a gun or an ounce of Semtex having been handed in, the general reports to us that the IRA has not spelled out how it intends to put arms beyond use. It is not surprising that the arms have not been put beyond use, because the IRA has got what it wanted: it has got all its terrorists out and Sinn Fein members as Ministers.

I have several questions for the Secretary of State. Assuming that no decommissioning occurs in the foreseeable future, will he bring before the House or before the Assembly an order that excludes Sinn Fein Ministers? They cannot remain as Ministers when those to whom they are inextricably linked have not given up violence and have not decommissioned any of their weapons. Secondly, if it is necessary to reintroduce direct rule, can we have an absolute assurance that there will be no question of increasing the involvement of the Dublin Government in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom? Finally, will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be absolutely no question that—to obtain decommissioning—the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be further reduced and demoralised or security arrangements put at risk? Those questions need to be answered in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Dr. Reid

It has just occurred to me that I may have made a slip of the tongue and said that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had resigned his position from the Assembly. I should, of course, have said the Executive, since he remains in the Assembly as leader of the Ulster Unionist party and obviously as an honoured Member of this House as well.

I think that we should distinguish between sound and fury and constructive engagement in a process that all of us—at least those on these Benches and, I think, all in Northern Ireland—still want to succeed. It is important, in so doing, that we should be seen to have kept our side of the bargain, to have acted honourably and to have gone as far as we possibly could, as I believe the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has done, because of his will to meet the circumstances of a peaceful Northern Ireland. I do not think that it helps in that process when a few cheap debating points are thrown across the Chamber.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) may regard human rights incorporated into Northern Ireland society, the equality agenda or a police service that is acceptable to and participated in by the whole community as unworthy objectives that are merely concessions and appeasement to Sinn Fein. I believe that they are good things in a modern democracy. If we are, from a position of moral and political legitimacy, to criticise anyone in this process for failure to meet their commitments, we are better placed to do so if we can illustrate, as this Government can, that we have met our commitments in all these areas.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell spoke of what might happen in the case of exclusion, suspensions or the process falling apart. The Prime Minister, the Government and I are intent not on suspending parts of the agreement or excluding people from it but—because it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland, expressed in overwhelming numbers in a referendum—on implementing the agreement and saying to everyone who has signed up to it that they are obliged, politically and morally, to implement it as well. That is not because I say so and not because the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or anyone else in this House says so, but because the agreement was supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It is their will that we are all engaged in implementing.

Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool)

I think that most people in the House this afternoon will deprecate the grandstanding of the Opposition spokesman. I compliment my right hon. Friend on the very clear and measured tone of his statement this afternoon and of his remarks on television and radio over the weekend. I think that most would share the view that the First Minister's resignation is highly regrettable but also, I am afraid, inevitable in the circumstances.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sinn Fein's logic-chopping over the British Government's failure to implement and fulfil every last dot and comma of our obligations is, frankly, risible in the light of the IRA's refusal even to have a sustained telephone conversation with General de Chastelain's decommissioning body? More importantly, does he also agree that for the coming talks on decommissioning, security normalisation and police reform to be successful, the two Governments must stand together and be equally involved in making a success of these talks? It is very important for the Irish Government to identify themselves strongly with an agreed position with the British Government. Is my right hon. Friend confident that that will be the case?

Dr. John Reid

I thank my right hon. Friend. On behalf of the House, I also thank him for his contribution to the whole peace process.

My right hon. Friend is right to point to the progress made. By definition, a process involves a series of events, some of which are interlinked, and many of those on constitutional issues are utterly interlinked. He is right to point to the fact that progress on the institutional side in Northern Ireland and on the social and legal side in recent years has been, by any standards, monumental: the establishment of the Assembly and of the Executive, and the powers passed to it; the incorporation of human rights—the Human Rights Commission; the equality agenda; and, on policing, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the police commissioner and the police ombudsman. There has been a whole host—a plethora—of moves forward.

There is a widely held perception in the whole island of Ireland—not led by me or, indeed, by the House, but by the Taoiseach, the Social Democratic and Labour party, every opposition party south of the border as well as every party north of the border, with the exception, I think, of Sinn Fein, and also expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—that any movement on decommissioning has not been commensurate with the movement made on other sides. We must all recognise that any agreement has to carry two sides. When people believe that the process is not advancing as it should in all its aspects, we run the risk of losing their support for that agreement. That is what should concern us: with due respect to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, it is not so much his resignation but what it symbolises—the concerns of the people whom he represents about the progress of the process.

As my right hon. Friend said in the second part of his contribution, it is necessary for the two Governments to work together. They have been working extremely closely together, and I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach has recently made his view on the issue plain—in the Dail, in public, and on radio and television: that is, that the decommissioning aspect is vital to the process; that all the parties must be seen to have eschewed not only violence but the threat of violence; and that the democratic process demands that there be further progress in putting paramilitary weapons beyond use.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about me and for correcting so quickly the little slip that he made during his statement.

Will he confirm that the timing of my resignation as First Minister was determined wholly by the Government's decision to set June as the date for the full implementation of the agreement? Does he remember coming to the House, towards the end of the previous Parliament, with provisions for the extension of the remit of the General de Chastelain commission until February next year? Does he recall the advice that we gave him then—that such renewals should be limited to the end of June? Does he appreciate that it would probably not have been necessary for me to resign had he followed the advice that we gave him then?

The Secretary of State has made reference to the report published today by the Decommissioning Commission. I am sure that he will confirm that a close reading of that report reveals that there has been absolutely no progress whatever by the republican movement in the discussions—brief, or whatever—held during the past few weeks or months. There has been no progress at all in carrying out the obligation in the agreement. During the past few months, I have made frequent references to the failure of the republican movement to keep the promise it made directly to us 14 months ago; but much more serious is its failure to keep the obligation in the agreement. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recalls that we made that agreement only after we had received assurances from the Prime Minister on the afternoon of 8 April 1998, one of which stated specifically that, in the Government's view, decommissioning had to begin immediately—immediately in 1998. It is more than three years later.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that folk in Northern Ireland, across the board—I am not thinking of our own party's supporters or indeed of Unionists generally—will be appalled if, more than three years later, the failure of the republicans even to begin to keep their obligations is rewarded by the Government, by the making of further moves on policing that have already done so much to undermine policing in Northern Ireland? Does he not realise that the only way to see that that obligation is kept is to make it absolutely clear to republicans that they will suffer if they fail to carry out their obligations?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall what my colleague the Deputy First Minister said in an interview yesterday, when he invited the Government to take a lead in the matter and referred specifically to the Government's power to table provisions to exclude? Will the Government also consider what will now happen with regard to the Decommissioning Commission? Two deadlines—22 May 2000 and June 2001—have been ignored by the republicans. What will the Government now do with regard to the Decommissioning Commission's remit, bearing in mind the fact that the legislation has only some six months left to run and that there is now a very great urgency in ensuring that the issue is tackled?

Perhaps the Minister might like to point out the irony that republicans could have sustained progress over the past few months by taking even modest measures, but the situation can now be resolved only by ensuring that the issue is completely dealt with and resolved once and for all, and there is now less than six weeks left to do that.

Dr. Reid

On the last point, I think that most observers would remark that, in the course of the process, when things are done early, in good faith and with good heart, they have a much better effect than if there is a continuing concern and pressure for them to be done, and I take the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I also take the point that the Deputy First Minister, as he was yesterday, has drawn to our attention the constitutional requirements and potential as regards exclusion. That is, of course, a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly in the last instance, on a cross-community basis, but I note what he says on that.

All I would say is that we are still committed to making the agreement work. We are still committed to implementing the agreement because my own view is that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have concerns about the manner in which it is being implemented, but they want it to be implemented and, therefore, to turn away from that would not be to the benefit of any hon. Member or anyone in Northern Ireland.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that, at Hillsborough last May, the two Governments anticipated and, indeed, believed that substantial progress would be made on all those issues, including putting paramilitary weapons verifiably and permanently beyond use. That has not been done; it is reflected in the de Chastelain report, and I expressed in my statement deep disappointment about that. What we are now resolved to do in an urgent and intensive fashion is to engage once more with the parties—in particular but not exclusively to address the concern about paramilitary weapons. Of course, if other people have concerns, we have made it plain all along that we will listen to such concerns, but not to the exclusion of actual progress and putting paramilitary weapons beyond use.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is disappointing that, seven weeks after the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) expressed his intention to resign, no progress has taken place in the key areas that could have prevented that from happening? Does he also agree that it is good that the paramilitaries are still talking with the Decommissioning Commission, but that it is not good that deadline after deadline has come and gone and still a small group of paramilitaries, together with some hardliners, stand in the way of creating lasting peace?

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept—I believe that it is very important to say this—that it is disappointing to hear Her Majesty's official Opposition apparently mixing up the role of the House with the responsibilities of those same paramilitaries to deliver that part of the Good Friday agreement which it is self-evidently in their hands to achieve, and that it will not be achieved simply by our passing resolutions in the Chamber? In that context, does he agree that the challenge is now for the British and Irish Governments to work together to create the conditions that will generate such public pressure in both key communities in the Province that the paramilitaries will filially realise that, for all their holding on to those weapons, they will not achieve a lasting settlement of interest and benefit to their own communities without finally renouncing control of the tools for war?

Finally, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that if he proceeds in a strategic way and works with Dublin in a public and open fashion with clear and specific deadlines, he will continue to have the support of the Liberal Democrats?

Dr. Reid

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's constructive comments, which—I regret to say—stand in contrast to the contribution made by the official Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman.

Yes, I welcome the fact that the paramilitaries are still talking to the de Chastelain commission and I should also place it on record that I welcome the fact that the IRA has opened up its arms dumps for inspection. That was welcomed by everyone and I do not for a minute diminish the significance of that.

However, just as we are prepared to meet our responsibilities, I ask everyone involved—on either the political or the paramilitary side—to reflect on their responsibilities. Very often, there can be commitment, sincerity and good faith all round, but people can make dreadfully wrong judgments. I do not want anyone to make dreadfully wrong judgments and that is why I share with the House my view that, although the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want the agreement implemented, they have great concerns about the manner in which it is being implemented. I hope that people will reflect on how to use their influence to make sure that what is probably the major concern is addressed. If they do that, they can be assured that every other party, including this Government and, I am sure, the Irish Government, will accept our responsibilities and use whatever influence we have.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

Has not the official Opposition Front-Bench spokesman entirely misjudged the position? We should not be entering into a party ding-dong in the current circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have agreed with him in the past on several issues and on what developments should take place, but we should be united in directing our attention towards Sinn Fein and the IRA. We should tell them that the time has finally come for decommissioning to take place.

I understand the concerns and arguments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He has highlighted the fact that he had nowhere else to go. Therefore, everyone should be behind the demands that are being made and that point should be made as clearly as possible by Conservative Front Benchers as well as by the Government.

Dr. Reid

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In a liberal frame of mind, the best that I can say about the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is that it was perhaps motivated by frustration and anger at what he sees as a lack of progress on the issue. Frustration and anger, however, are very rarely a good guide to action.

Of course, we must be prepared to be determined to retain the integrity of the whole process and, in that sense, we must be ever watchful that it is implemented in all its aspects. The best way to do that is to maximise the unity of those people who are committed to its success. That is why I was heartened recently to hear that some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann were not exclusive to him. They have been made by people from different traditions and different parties and by people in different countries, such as the Taoiseach and the Opposition parties in southern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)

From time to time, the Secretary of State has reminded my party and me that he was absolutely convinced that IRA-Sinn Fein would decommission their weapons. A long time has now passed. Our view was scorned; it was abused in this very House when I expressed it and people said that we had no faith and that we should be prepared to take the leap.

Does the Secretary of State not realise from the tone of what has been said from the Government Front Bench that the heart of this matter rests with putting restrictions on IRA-Sinn Fein in government in Northern Ireland if they do not keep to the terms of the agreement? Sweet words from Bertie Ahern or from anyone else are no use. The IRA will not decommission. Therefore, it must pay the price of not decommissioning and sanctions must be taken against it. I agree fully with the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who made that point.

The Secretary of State must respond to urgent matters that concern the ordinary individuals of Northern Ireland. A serious security situation is arising. Will he assure me categorically that he will not put on the table to IRA-Sinn Fein conditions that will drastically change the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998? Will he also assure me that the watch towers in South Armagh, an area that members of the so-called Real IRA claim to be theirs, will not be demolished, because the people there live in fear of the Real IRA and its supporters?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm to the people of Northern Ireland that the full-time police reserve will not be laid off until security is fulfilled? Will he give them the opportunity, which is in law in the agreement, of an election to the Assembly so that they can say who they want to represent them? Knowing that the Secretary of State has read the hearts and minds of all Unionists, and bearing in mind the fact that the Prime Minister told me not long ago that the vast majority of Unionists agree on that, why does he not put it to the people?

Dr. Reid

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual constructive contribution and I shall try to respond to the five points that he raised.

We believe that we have enshrined the Patten recommendations in legislation. If any parties believe that we have not and want to make their concerns known, we shall speak to them. The RUC has undertaken a monumental change in a very professional and very determined fashion. Any organisation would find such a change difficult even without coping with the security situation. However, if someone believes that we have not implemented parts of the Patten recommendations, we shall discuss that with them.

As for the military presence in Northern Ireland, if the threat lessens, we may be in a position to reduce it, but only on the recommendation of security advisers and so that it is commensurate with the threat. The hon. Gentleman might know that discussions on the full-time reserve are under way between the federation and the Chief Constable. They will take a little time and, again, any decision will be made in the light not only of those, but of the security situation.

On elections, it is my intention—so far as it is within my power—to implement the Good Friday agreement, not to suspend or exclude or throw aside sections of it. If we are asking others to implement aspects of it, we should be prepared to say that we, too, aim to do that. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that there will never be any circumstance in which we might have to take other action. He understands that. However, it is not my intention to do that. My intention is, as far as possible, to leave those matters with the people of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman claimed that I had said that I was absolutely certain that the IRA would disarm. I think that he must have been speaking about some other Secretary of State. I have never been absolutely certain of anything in this process. I have exercised my judgment and said that I believe, on the basis of what I heard and the discussions that we had, that there was the will to put paramilitary weapons beyond use. Like any sensible person inside or outside the House, I make my judgments on the basis of evidence. People are beginning to question that evidence. I believe that it is still the will of those engaged in the process to put paramilitary weapons beyond use, but I am merely reflecting a general concern in political parties and the wider constituency of Northern Ireland that there should not be an indefinite time scale for that. It has to be part of the process, and it has to take place alongside the other changes that we are making.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Is it not the case that the IRA's refusal even to start putting its arms beyond use plays right into the hands of those Unionists, such as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who are totally opposed to the Good Friday agreement, regardless of any form of decommissioning whatsoever?

The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) certainly went over the top. Would not it be useful for the Conservatives to bear in mind the way in which, during the years in which Labour was in opposition, we fully supported the Government on Northern Ireland, even when they were found to be negotiating with the IRA, although there were always denials beforehand? That is the support that a responsible Opposition would give on Northern Ireland matters.

Dr. Reid

I think that we have said enough on that last point. My hon. Friend has made his point, and I shall merely reiterate what I believe to be the essence of the matter. Yes, there are many details to be addressed, and hon. Members have raised them, but the essence of the problem is that the agreement will not work if individual parties pick and choose which parts they are prepared to implement. The success of the agreement depends on its full implementation in all its aspects.

Secondly, cross-community consent and co-operation are at the heart of the agreement. Ultimately, the institutions and the agreement itself are sustained and sustainable only if they continue to command the support of both sides of the community. On the basis of that simple but profound knowledge of the nature of the agreement, I hope that everyone in the House and far more widely will reflect on the role that they have to play in ensuring that cross-community support continues.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

Is it not tragic that we seem to have delivered extremist government in Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—a man with whom I have not always agreed but whom I greatly admire—has to resign his position, yet representatives of terrorist organisations remain in government, the RUC is being dismantled and terrorists are allowed on to the streets. Is not the reason for all that the fact that the agreement was slightly flawed in the first place? It was not watertight in requiring decommissioning to take place before prisoners were released, and it does not allow Ministers to be removed from Government without the full agreement of both traditions in the Assembly. Is it not time to start again? In doing so, should we not be determined to place the blame for the situation where it really lies—not with the Unionists but with the terrorists in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Reid

I understand why the hon. Gentleman says what he says, but there is a misunderstanding. He speaks as though the agreement were a sort of legal insurance contract, whereby if the parties to it did not agree, we could take them to court and sue them.

This is an historic agreement—an historic compromise—based on the voluntary participation of people from different backgrounds, with different histories and different pain, although that pain may in a sense be indivisible, and they have come together to try to fit together the pieces that enable such an historic move to be made, but they all do so voluntarily. I can no more dictate to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, as anyone who knows him will know, than I can to the IRA or to the paramilitaries on the other side. I can of course use some sanctions, but, ultimately, we are all masters of our own fate in this matter, and, ultimately, if the agreement is to work, it must do so by the principle of consent. That is what we shall be trying to do during the next few weeks. Of course, in that, there will be benefits for everyone and difficulties for everyone, but if the agreement is to work, ultimately it must be with the full participation of every party to it.

The question is not just one of collective responsibility. Yes, we have collective responsibility but it is also a question of us using our appropriate influence. Just as I have some influence greater than other parties in some areas, so some parties have greater influence over the paramilitaries in that area. Therefore, it is no excuse, in order to avoid the use of our influence, to say that we all have responsibility. Yes, we do, but part of that responsibility is to use our influence in the area where it is most effective.

Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the process as a result of the Good Friday agreement has largely moved from open war to what one might call bad-tempered peace? Does he feel, like some on the Opposition Benches, that the problem is a shortage of rhetoric and ultimatums or does he agree that we must continue to seek progress in the spirit of the agreement? Will he confirm that, despite everything that we have said today, and despite the concern that we all feel about the deadlock, there is no evidence that any of the parties has turned away from the basic commitment to move towards a Northern Ireland at peace? If we had that impression, that would be the most serious issue of all. Will he confirm that they appear still to be intent on peaceful means?

Dr. Reid

My judgment is that all the parties to the agreement still wish to move towards a Northern Ireland where decisions are made by democratic and peaceful means—yes it is—but translating that into action is not easy, as the events of the past few days have shown. However, I am sure of one thing: the agreement will never be translated into action unless each and every aspect of it is addressed and we avoid one aspect appearing to lag behind the others. It will not work that way because it will not take the broad swathe of the whole community and the two traditions with it. I think that it is as simple as that.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

Those of us in the House who want a lasting peace in Northern Ireland will share the disappointment at today's events, of which the Secretary of State has spoken. He also spoke of good faith and of evidence. What evidence does he have of the good faith of the IRA and Sinn Fein in decommissioning weapons? Does he now come to the conclusion that many of us have reached that the IRA and Sinn Fein have no intention of decommissioning weapons and, indeed, probably never had any such intention? If he accepts that view, what will he do about it?

Dr. Reid

The hon. Gentleman asked me a very fair question: what is the evidence? The evidence on which I base my judgment is not the psychoanalysis of any of the parties or individuals involved, but what has happened over the past five to 10 years. Many of the things that have happened would have been entirely outwith the realm of predicted possibility 10 years ago.

I would not want to assume that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the cessation of violence by the IRA was of huge significance, but I think that in the history of the past 30 years it was of considerable significance. He may not believe that the decision by the Irish Republican Army to open up its arms dumps was of huge historical importance, but anyone who knows anything about the history of the IRA knows that that was a hugely significant step. Therefore, there is evidence that the people who said that they were committed to going on this journey, as it is sometimes called, did indeed embark on the journey and wish to continue it. That is not the question.

The question is not whether nothing has happened—things have happened—but whether progress has been sufficient. I believe that progress has not been sufficient. Along with accompanying changes on the legal, social and institutional side in Northern Ireland, I believe that there was a commitment to make progress in putting paramilitary weapons beyond use. At the moment, not one weapon has been put beyond use. Therefore, to hold the view that there is evidence about the sincerity and commitment of those engaged in the process is perfectly compatible with believing at the same time that progress has been insufficient.

Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)

I can assure my right hon. Friend that his words on the futility of war and blood sacrifice spoken yesterday on the still blood-soaked fields of the Somme, surrounded by the ghosts of the lost generation, resonated far beyond those fields. They stand in stark contrast to much that I have heard in the Chamber this afternoon. When next he hears expressions like "Sinn Fein must pay the price", I ask him to look to the future, not the past. For a more stark and graphic example of the failure of constructive negotiation, he need not look much further than the fields that he saw yesterday.

Dr. Reid

Yesterday's visit to the battlefields of the Somme was a very moving experience, as it always is. One general point and one particular point came back to me. As my hon. Friend says, if there is anywhere on earth that exhibits the tragedy of the failure to resolve differences by peaceful means, it is surely the Somme. First, I think that in about 48 hours during the opening of the battle, more than 5,500 members of the 36th Ulster Division died. The second point that came back to me, in historical terms, is that not far from the Ulster Tower is another monument—to the members of the 16th Division who also gave their lives. They were not from Ulster, but from the rest of Ireland. I was there with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.

It struck me that in those circumstances, pain is indivisible. I am sure that, like me, the House does not want the next generation of young people in Northern Ireland to see more than 300 police officers killed and murdered, 40,000 or 50,000 people injured, and 3,500 families experience the pain of seeing their loved ones killed. We in this country should remember that to achieve commensurate figures for the rest of the United Kingdom, we would probably have to multiply those figures by 35 or 40: we would be talking about almost 100,000 dead. Preventing that from happening to the next generation is the measure of the prize that we can achieve if the process succeeds. I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members want to achieve that.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

I shall not give in to the temptation to follow the bizarre interpretation of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) of the events that led to the first world war. Given the equivocation that so often surrounds matters to do with Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what he means when he talks of putting illegal paramilitary weapons completely beyond use?

Dr. Reid

What I mean is an acceptance of some form of action, under the remit and legislation that has been given to him, by General John de Chastelain.

David Burnside (South Antrim)

What precisely does the Secretary of State mean by sanctions? We have yet another deadline: there was 22 May and the end of June, and now we have another six weeks. Will he define sanctions against republicans and rewards for democrats? In the political set-up in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour party are purely and 100 per cent. committed to democracy. Other parties—Sinn Fein-IRA and loyalist paramilitary parties—still adhere to terrorism, violence and the threat of violence. In six weeks' time, what sanctions will he impose on terrorist-related parties and what reward will he give to the democrats in Ulster?

Mr. Reid

I said that a range of sanctions are open to all the parties and to the Government in a number of instances. One of the sanctions was raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the Deputy First Minister, and that was exclusion. The issue is not whether sanctions are hanging about but whether it is sensible and productive to use sanctions to exclude people from the process. I have made my view known, and it is that I am committed, as are the Government, not to suspending, excluding or putting people or parts out of the process, but to implementing the full agreement.

If the full agreement can be implemented, it will create a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland. Also, it is exactly what the people of Northern Ireland voted for in overwhelming numbers. I am concentrating on that. What sanctions might be available in what hypothetical situation should perhaps be considered when such a situation arises. At present, surely we should all be ascertaining what can be done to implement the full agreement, and thereby maintain the full support of the full community in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North)

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the main causes of concern in Northern Ireland has been the on-going process of concession to the IRA and Sinn Fein, with little or nothing in return? That is accepted on all sides.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that further concessions to the IRA and Sinn Fein as part of any fudged settlement on the question of terrorist arms would further increase alienation of the Unionist community and lead to further political instability in the long run?

All decent and right-thinking members of my constituency share the right hon. Gentleman's abhorrence of the attacks on the police that have taken place in my constituency, to which he has referred. However, they want assurances that the police will be present in sufficient numbers to protect them, that reforms such as reducing the number of police, as suggested by Patten, will not take place, and that police numbers will be maintained, with the police being strengthened, and not demoralised and decimated as proposed by the Government under the Patten reforms.

Mr. Reid

First, the hon. Gentleman seems to think that anything that has been agreed and already implemented arising from the agreement is somehow a concession. I do not accept that these things are concessions. Most constitute a major move forward in creating a new, open and democratic Northern Ireland, and should be seen as such.

Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman is asking me—if we leave the word "concession" aside—whether I realise that there is concern in Northern Ireland about how things have been implemented, with some things being implemented faster and more substantially than others, the answer is that I do.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about policing. The intent behind a police service that is participated in and accepted by the broad swathe of Northern Ireland society is to create the conditions, along with the rest of the agreement, where we do not have the sacrifices that had to be made by members of the RUC, with more than 300 deaths, and we do not have the widows who have been left—at the very least, not in the same numbers.

In implementing the agreement, I will listen carefully to my security advisers, including the Chief Constable. The operational capability of the RUC and then the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be of paramount importance, not least because that is what the people of Northern Ireland as a whole want. Catholics as well as Protestants are murdered. They are burgled and their cars are stolen. I want to see operational capability, but above all I want to see a Northern Ireland where the ultimate sacrifices that had to be made by so many in the RUC do not have to be made by the next generation.