HC Deb 24 October 2001 vol 373 cc302-19 4.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid)

Mr. Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement about developments in Northern Ireland. It is the statement I have often been told I would never be able to make to the House.

Yesterday, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed an event—which it regarded as significant—in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms beyond use. The materiel in question had included arms, ammunitions and explosives. The commission was satisfied that the arms in question had been dealt with in accordance with the scheme and regulations. In other words, the IRA's act constituted an act of decommissioning under the commission's statutory remit.

The word "historic" tends to be over-used about the Northern Ireland political process. There have been so many twists and turns, so many moments of optimism and so many setbacks along the way. But yesterday's move by the IRA is, in my view, unprecedented and genuinely historic. I believe that it takes the peace process on to a new political level.

That has been recognised in Northern Ireland itself. Rarely has the whole community been so united. As the Belfast Newslettersaid this morning, for most people. Ulster this morning seems a more hopeful place in which space created by the IRA's unprecedented move will be seized by those with political vision and courage". From another perspective, the Irish Timessaid that a rubicon has been crossed … a historic milestone has been passed. It is an affirmation by the republican movement—in tangible terms—that it cannot operate in both the paramilitary and political worlds". Let us recall why we got here. We got here through a widespread recognition—after 30 years of death and pain and misery—of the futility of violence. That was the spur and its memory should remain the spur to all of us.

Let us remember also just how far we have come in the past four years. There have been major constitutional changes, including the establishment of the principle of consent and the ending of Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The new institutional architecture, which has been shown to work, can and must be revived by yesterday's historic move. The Human Rights and Equality Commissions have been set up and are already hard at work. After much debate, an unprecedented new beginning to policing, with cross-community support, has been made. None of those has reached full fruition, but we were told that all of them were impossible to accomplish. Yesterday, another seemingly impossible vision became a reality.

This is the culmination of efforts by many people over many years, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach in the Irish Government, John Major, successive United States Administrations, the republican leadership, which has shown itself to have the vision and confidence to bring an armed movement to the point of ceasefire, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and the party that he leads, and the smaller pro-agreement parties.

I also pay tribute—I hope it is not embarrassing—to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues. Were it not for his persistence, willingness to take risks and sheer courage under attack, it is no exaggeration to say that yesterday's events are unlikely to have happened. It is a vivid illustration of the power of engagement and the powerlessness of detachment. It is those who have taken risks for peace who have achieved this progress, not those who have doubted from the sidelines. Of course, the whole House will want to join me in thanking General John de Chastelain and his colleagues. They have shown endless patience and dignity. The best thanks that we can give them is to let them get on with the task that they have been asked to discharge.

Yesterday's events opened up opportunities, which we need to seize, and also challenges, which we need to face in three areas. First, the political institutions that are the democratic core of the Belfast agreement—the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council—should now be restored to full operation as quickly as possible, and should operate in a stable and uninterrupted way. The decision of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party earlier today to put Ministers back into government is a helpful step in creating a new dynamic.

Secondly, we need to press on with the implementation of the Good Friday agreement in all its aspects. I have placed in the Library of the House the Government's fuller response to the Decommissioning Commission's report. I should mention in particular that we will complete the implementation of the Patten report, including the review of the new arrangements to which we are already committed and the introduction of legislation to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to reflect more fully the Patten recommendations.

We intend shortly to publish an implementation plan for the criminal justice review and to draft legislation to be introduced during the current Session. We will undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalisation, reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland as the security situation improves. Our aim is to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements. That is the task that now confronts us in the period ahead.

I can today announce a step in that direction. The IRA's action in putting weapons beyond use has wide political significance. It also, in itself, makes a contribution to the improvement that we all want to see in the security situation.

In the immediate aftermath of yesterday's event, I have discussed the situation with my security advisers, including the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. There is, of course, a significant continuing threat from republican and loyalist dissidents. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Constable confirms that yesterday's developments represent a real improvement.

We therefore intend, as an immediate response to yesterday's development, to demolish the observation tower on Sturgan mountain in South Armagh; work on this has already started today. We will demolish one of the observation towers on Camlough mountain in South Armagh; work on this is starting today. In addition, we will demolish the supersangar at Newtownhamilton police station adjacent to the helicopter landing site; work on that will begin tomorrow. We will also demolish the Magherafelt army base; work on that will begin tomorrow. All of this done on the advice of a Chief Constable whose integrity and knowledge of these matters is unsurpassed in the House.

There is a third priority: all paramilitary groups should now play their part in building on yesterday's progress. That is not just about decommissioning. When small children cannot go to school without being terrorised, or innocent civilians cannot sleep in their bed without fear of being bombed, the scale of the challenge still confronting us is evident. Some of the loyalist organisations have played a crucial part in the peace process. I ask them to ask themselves what they can do now to move the process forward. Whatever else happens, there must be an end to the mindless sectarian violence of recent weeks.

There are other difficult legacies of the past. The early release scheme was, I know, one of the most painful and contentious aspects of the agreement. All qualifying prisoners have now been released. We and the Irish Government have now accepted that it would be a natural development of that scheme for outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10 April 1998 not to be pursued against supporters of organisations now on ceasefire and contributing to the peace process. Both Governments have agreed to take such steps as are necessary to resolve the issue as soon as possible, and in any event by March 2002.

Piece by piece the Belfast agreement is taking shape. As the Prime Minister said last night, we are a long way from completing our journey. There will, no doubt, be obstacles ahead, but at a time when the world is grappling with the effects of the most evil terrorism and we see in the middle east the awful consequences when political dialogue breaks down and opportunities are missed, I can tell the House that the political process in Northern Ireland is alive and moving forward. To sustain that, we will require hard work, steady nerves and the continued ability on all sides to reach out and make difficult compromises. The Government are ready and eager to play their part in doing that.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement, which I much appreciate.

This is unambiguously good news for the people of Northern Ireland. I endorse utterly the right hon. Gentleman's tributes to all those whose efforts have brought about today's result. However, I should like to give nuance to some of his remarks. It is a fact that many people in Northern Ireland in both communities have, reasonably and rightly, immediately welcomed the excellent news. But it is not entirely surprising, given the suffering and horrors of the last 30 years, that a significant number have reacted to the news with cynicism and scepticism. I think that they are wrong to take that view, and hope and pray that they will come to change their mind. However, we in the House must all make an effort to consider the concerns and feelings of all the people of Northern Ireland in both communities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what has happened is the first vital step in a process that must be completed and must continue until all the arms in the hands of former terrorists have been decommissioned? Does he agree that the next move must come from the so-called loyalist paramilitaries? Does he agree that in the vital continuing process of decommissioning no one will want to make unilateral or unreciprocated concessions? I hope that he himself will not make any such concessions. On the other hand, we do not want a crisis in the institutions—another stand-off—every time a new act of decommissioning needs to be made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree therefore that it would be highly desirable to negotiate some kind of co-ordinated and programmed process leading to full decommissioning? Does he consider that General de Chastelain's remit is sufficient to allow him to negotiate such a package? If not, will he consider other ways of achieving the same objective? Will he now give the House a clear answer to the question to which the Prime Minister did not give a clear answer when he was asked it earlier today, both by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? What happens—we hope that this is not the case—if decommissioning is not completed by February next year when General de Chastelain's remit runs out? It is only common sense to make contingency plans for that eventuality. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that that has been done, even if he does not want to tell us what those plans are?

Turning to a matter that will be of considerable concern to many in the House and outside, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his reference to abandoning outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings amounts to the promise of an amnesty for people who are now on the run? Does he accept that there was no mention of an amnesty in the Belfast agreement and no such proceeding was envisaged at that time? Does he accept that the House has never had an opportunity to consider such an eventuality? Is he convinced that such an amnesty is consistent with United Nations conventions?

I now come to another vital point that was touched on, but no more than that, earlier this afternoon. Can we have an explicit and unqualified assurance from the right hon. Gentleman—the Prime Minister was neither explicit nor unqualified on this subject this afternoon—that there will be no question of any reduction in police numbers, troop numbers and their equipment and support below the levels that the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding believe necessary to fulfil adequately the tasks that they have been given? I would very much appreciate a clear and explicit assurance on that vital matter.

Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a splendid opportunity for all those involved in lesser degrees of confrontation in Northern Ireland, including aggressive demonstrations such as stone throwing, to make a contribution to de-escalating tensions and begin to heal the hatred that exists? In that context, will the right hon. Gentleman join me in appealing to all community leaders in north Belfast to take advantage of the present conjuncture to begin to negotiate an end to the harassment of parents and children at the Holy Cross school, and to the difficulties that Protestants have recently encountered in neighbouring Catholic streets?

Dr. Reid

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for yesterday's news. Any hon. Member, however healthily sceptical, who did not welcome yesterday's move forward would be regarded by the entire House as rather churlish. The hon. Gentleman's fulsome welcome did not detract from the legitimate questions that he asked.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I understood the scepticism and the cynicism that will exist in certain quarters. There is indeed a degree of scepticism, which is not unuseful. After so many decades of pain on all sides, it is healthy for people to be sceptical. Cynicism is somewhat different. It is our job to illustrate to those who are dominated by cynicism that politics can work. Recognition of the futility of many long years of trying to solve problems by violent means is increasingly reinforced by making political progress and thereby defeating cynicism. Nevertheless, I understand how painful and how difficult many of the decisions are to people in Northern Ireland.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the move is the first step in a process that must extend wider and longer. It is part of a process that will take many years to bear fruit. For example, in the general political process, we have embarked on policing, but it is just a beginning. No one thinks that we will have attained the object of that exercise within a short period. When we form the new democratic institutions, they will take a considerable time to become stabilised. New powers—criminal justice and so on—should perhaps be passed down in due course to the new institutions. That will take time, and the same applies to all other aspects of the agreement.

It is understandable that such things, including the resolution of the arms issue, take time. I wish that it had come about earlier; that would have been more helpful, but now we can truthfully say that we have begun the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement.

I agree that we must ask the loyalists to ask themselves what they can do. There are those who wear the banner of loyalism and demean the idea of allegiance to any country, riot just to the United Kingdom. Gangsterism, racketeering and thuggery do not always appear on the stage carrying a banner with the words, "Gangsterism, racketeering and thuggery." However, there are other loyalists who have played an extremely constructive part in the process.

I would want not to damn everyone because of some of the people who have been engaged in what we have seen. I hear from them the response, "We may not be prepared to do what the IRA has done." I encourage them to tell us not what they cannot do at this stage, but what they think they can do. Any movement, particularly a movement away from the murderous bomb campaign that has been taking place, would be another part of the dynamic of changing the recent vicious circle.

The hon. Gentleman asked about unreciprocated concessions. There are two parts to that. Many of the things that we are doing are not concessions. Human rights protection and equality legislation are not concessions but the building blocks of a civilised society. However, if the hon. Gentleman is asking whether everyone who is part of the process expects that we should be able to move all the elements and that everyone should gain from that, I agree.

That is sensible. It does not mean that we should allow timidity to become the byword. As we build trust, which has been sadly lacking, perhaps we should all contemplate whether we could move just a little further politically than we might have done hitherto. Yes, to moving forward together.

I applaud General de Chastelain and his commission. More than any, they have suffered the brunt of cynicism and sneering over the years. I thank them on behalf of the whole House and everyone in Northern Ireland—I am sure that I speak also on behalf of the two Governments and Ireland as a whole—for their endurance in staying there. They have obtained a discretion, an integrity and an independence that are vital to the process.

The hon. Gentleman repeated a question that is perhaps based on a misunderstanding and which he said my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not answer to his satisfaction. The remit of the de Chastelain commission does not finish in February. Its remit stems from the two Governments themselves. What finishes in February is the legislative framework that enables decommissioning to take place. That is an important distinction. General de Chastelain will therefore remain for as long as the two Governments wish him to do so.

It is important for paramilitary groups to build on what happened yesterday and for that to happen across the board, laterally and as part of a forward-moving process. There are many tricky problems, but it is my firm belief that the trickiest of all—moving from conflict to peace and from people who were previously engaged in terrorism to people who say that they now want to adopt exclusively peaceful means—is immensely helped by the independence of John de Chastelain and the integrity that he holds. I think, therefore, that it is wise for us to say that we will take his advice on these matters as the process continues and see what he would prefer to have happened.

The hon. Gentleman then turned to the resolution of issues that arise from the early release of prisoners and those who are on the run. He referred to an amnesty. It is important to recognise that the people to whom he referred do not fall into a single category. For instance, there are people on the run of whom the security forces have never heard, those about whom they have no evidence or suspicion and people who have served longer in prison than they would have done if they had stayed there and obtained early release. There are others against whom there may be evidence for long-outstanding charges. It is precisely because of that difficulty that we have expressed the intent to resolve the issue, but have not yet decided on the method that will be deployed. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that when we make that decision, the House will be the first to know and we will bring our proposals before it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would allow us to do otherwise.

The hon. Gentleman's other question—I am sorry for answering his questions with such fulness, but he asked them with sincerity and integrity and it is worth answering them all—was whether we take and heed advice on security matters. Of course, that goes without saying. There is still a threat out there. There are people who, unlike the IRA, which is moving in a direction that we all applaud, have stayed entrenched. Some of them are republicans and some are loyalists. We will combat them in the illegality and malice of what they are doing as resolutely as we will pursue peace with those who wish to work in partnership with us towards it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we must not allow them to act as a veto on the rest of the process because of their commitment to using violence.

I hope that I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman's questions. On north Belfast, despite all the difficulties, efforts are being made behind the scenes and many community leaders are trying to resolve a very difficult situation. I merely say this to the people who are protesting there: first, whatever they may think their grievances are, we are willing to address them. They do not have to take the action that they are taking. Secondly, and perhaps more important, to hold young children to ransom as they put forward their demands is not only wrong and should be stopped, but does nothing to advance their case anywhere in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom or internationally.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I would like to say that the House obviously knows that this is a very important statement, and I want to call as many hon. Members as possible. Short questions and, of course, short answers, will be of great assistance.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

On behalf of the people whom I represent, I would like to thank the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Northern Ireland Office Ministers, their predecessors and their counterparts in the Government of the Republic of Ireland for being part of the process that has brought us to this point today.

This is an historic event. It is the first time in a century that Irish republicanism has yielded one single weapon or bullet, and that is significant. Let us not question the motivation behind the event, but rather accept the event as the gateway to the future that has been created. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that this gateway will, perhaps, produce a gun-free society in Northern Ireland, and a society free of political violence.

Does the Secretary of State agree that all of us in the House and in Northern Ireland need to encourage the loyalist paramilitaries to see that they have no cause to retain their weapons, and that they can now confidently disarm and leave the protection of any community to the proper security forces in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that it is important that the dissident republican movements adopt and subscribe to the will of the people of Ireland that this should happen? The intractable problem of the Good Friday agreement and decommissioning is the keystone to our new future.

The other matters to which the Secretary of State has referred—policing, demilitarisation—are moving along, and we hope to hear of the reinstitution on a permanent basis of the institutions. I am sure that the Secretary of State will welcome the statement made in the House today by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that his Ministers have been reinstated in their positions of ministerial responsibility today. I would like to hear the leader of the Democratic Unionist party say that his Ministers will also be restored, and that all four of the coalition parties will at long last work together as an Executive in this Administration of Northern Ireland and in the north-south bodies.

Does the Secretary of State also agree that the real victors, the real benefactors, of this process—which I hope will now move rapidly to its culmination—are the ordinary men and women and their leaders who have personally endured violence and the threat of violence over the years, and who have at all times stood by their abhorrence of violence and their determination to see the democratic process victorious in the end?

Mr. Speaker

When I asked for short questions, I was expecting them to be shorter than that.

Dr. Reid

That was short by Northern Ireland standards. I will attempt to be even more brief.

I thank my hon. Friend for his tribute, his thanks and his accolade to me. I can assure him that the people whom I mentioned earlier are much more important; I just happened to be around when this happened. That is also a good caveat for distancing myself from any consequences if it all goes wrong. One of the first phone calls I received about the news was from Mo Mowlam, who was delighted. I pay tribute to her and to her predecessor.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the stability of the institutions and about the need for those decent, good loyalists to consider how they can contribute to the process. He is also right about the marginalisation of the dissident republicans. I do not believe that they represent any people, any strategy or any modern reality at all. That is why I think they will eventually be completely marginalised.

My hon. Friend is also right about the people of Northern Ireland. They have a character that has been forged in a crucible over decades. They never cease to amaze me, and I am privileged to have been asked to work alongside them.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

Despite my evident seniority in the gang of three here, I shall keep my comments proportionately brief. First, I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Secondly, does he agree that its real historic significance is to show that, through dialogue and acting in good faith, the pathway to peace has genuinely been cleared? Many people did not believe that to be possible.

On loyalist weapons, is the Secretary of State aware that the Ulster Defence Association said last night: Decommissioning is not on the cards"? The Progressive Unionist party has said that the IRA statement is seriously significant. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any recent meetings between the Decommissioning Commission and those paramilitary groups, in particular the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Fighters? Is there any indication that they will follow the IRA's example and live up to their responsibilities in terms of the Good Friday agreement? If not, what practical measures does he foresee the House employing to put pressure on them to do so?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will take a strategic approach to demilitarisation, which his statement so rightly laid out, to ensure that those, especially in nationalist communities, who have been cynical about the Government's commitment to it realise that there is a long-term and well thought out plan to maintain the impetus towards normalisation? Will he also give his view of the time scale for moving forward to implement Patten to a fuller extent than has been achieved so far?

I, too, pay tribute to the many individuals in Northern Irish politics and in the House who have shown courage and great stature in getting us this far. Does the Secretary of State agree that many of us consistently supported the Good Friday agreement from the start and that that consistency has been vindicated? Perhaps most important of all, there is now a compelling argument for those who have not seen fit to regard the Good Friday agreement as the way forward to peace to change their view.

Dr. Reid

Yes, I entirely agree that we have come a long way, despite predictions that we would not be able to achieve any of these things. When I say "we", I mean all of us who are committed to making the agreement work. When we are overawed by the challenges of what remains to be done, we can do no better than look back to see how many times it was predicted that we could not do something, and how many times we have. Eventually, managed to do it.

I have no evidence that the UVF has been in contact. More important I suppose, one of its spokesmen, David Ervine, said that he has no evidence that it intends to decommission. However, I have said today that I wish people would reflect on what they could do, even if they feel at this stage that they cannot make such an historic move, and that circumstances are different. They should come in and contribute to the process, because there are many good loyalists who want that. They may have a degree of scepticism, a degree of worry or a degree of trepidation, but they are better contributing to the process than sitting outside it.

On the impetus towards a normal society, yes, I hope that we can keep up that dynamic, but it is not entirely in our hands. Of course we have the major responsibility, but we all have to work together to create the circumstances where that becomes possible. Yesterday's step was a major move in that direction. I hope that the immediate measures that we have announced today show that we are willing to respond and willing to think creatively, and politically to work with others to ensure that we return to what we would call a more normal society there.

The hon. Gentleman asked about Patten. The implementation plan has been published. The first meeting of the new board, which is cross-party, is next week. We shall proceed from there.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

This is a fine statement on a fine development. Despite the Secretary of State being modest, we should congratulate him on the role that he has played in connection with it. He knows that the art of the impossible is hard work, and that goes for his predecessors, back to Peter Brooke who found a form of words that set the whole process going.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will try to do something else that is impossible—that is, get the IRA to operate its own amnesty for people who have been placed in internal or external exile. Nothing would be better in order to bring in the support of doubters on some Opposition Benches. There is an exceptionally good report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the matter.

Dr. Reid

I hear what my hon. Friend says, certainly on the last point. We must all make an effort to resolve past conflicts and painful memories of the past. What my hon. Friend says has a degree of resonance—and, as tributes have been flying round, I think he should be thanked for the consistent contribution that he has made over the years, despite the ebbs and flows of the process. It has been tremendously valuable.

David Burnside (South Antrim)

It appears that some Englishmen ask quite long questions as well.

There appeared to be two serious and important omissions from the statement. One related to the proposed amnesty that the Secretary of State announced at Weston Park. If we are looking ahead with some hope, surely the Secretary of State should have made a statement to the House saying that no legal proceedings would be brought against those who have served in the security forces and the Regular Army, including the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Reserve, relating to any incident over the past 30 years.

I entirely agree that we need loyalist decommissioning—the Unionist parties are at one on that—but has not the unfair treatment of loyalists over the parades issue helped, to an extent, to alienate the loyalist community in many parts of the Province? The Secretary of State omitted any reference to what he said at Weston Park about a review of the remit of the Parades Commission, which we consider very necessary.

Dr. Reid

I hope I have helped to correct the idea that we are talking about a single category of people on the run for whom there will be an amnesty. I have explained the complications, and I will not stretch your indulgence by doing so again, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on his second point. I know that it was sincere and that he thought he was making it on behalf of those who have been involved in the Army, but I am not sure that the leadership and rank and file of the armed forces want to be thought of as the equivalent of terrorists.

As it happens, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's view of the Parades Commission, although I know that there have been many contentious decisions. Indeed, every decision is contentious, since whether the commission decides that a parade should go ahead, or should be stopped or should be rerouted, one side or the other will claim that it is biased. I am eternally grateful that it has shown the endurance to continue to do that, but we are prepared to review its workings. That was encompassed in the statement at Weston Park, and I am pleased to confirm that it is still the case.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most prominent name on the list that he gave was the last, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)? Over the years, he showed that the democratic way was the correct way, and also showed tremendous courage, for which he was bitterly criticised in the House, in entering into talks with Gerry Adams. The Hume-Adams talks led to a great furore, and to the work done by the former Taoiseach Mr. Reynolds and the former Prime Minister Mr. Major.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us when we can expect to see the legislation that is likely to be forthcoming on the police and other matters? Will he also include in his accolade members of the Republican movement who, by means of tremendous courage, persuaded the movement to accept the necessity of the democratic process? They had to face up to people with desperate memories of pogroms against them in west Belfast and other areas when they had no arms to protect themselves from an unreformed RUC and militant mobs.

Dr. Reid

As I think my hon. Friend will have heard, among those whom I thanked were the leadership of the republican movement. He will forgive me, however, if—although I have the utmost admiration for my friend and colleague of many years the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—I do not produce a hierarchy of tributes. In that spirit, we should remember that while the optimism derived from yesterday's events can be a great driving force for the future, euphoria is often the mother and father of disillusionment later. We should keep our feet on the ground.

It is true that the hon. Member for Foyle made an outstanding contribution, as did many others. It takes two to tango; with a complicated dance such as Northern Ireland, it takes a lot more than two to get through it. While we have had the satisfaction of saying that what happened yesterday was historic, we should have not a sense of euphoria but as a sense of dynamism and optimism to tackle what are realistically some very hard challenges ahead.

Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire)

Does the Secretary of State recall the promise that the Prime Minister made to the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum campaign that he would personally ensure that there was parallel movement on all aspects of the Good Friday agreement? While in no way wanting to belittle what happened yesterday, is it not a fact that this is the first move that the IRA has made, and that it has taken nearly two and a half years to make it? Has the right hon. Gentleman had any assurances either from General de Chastelain or from any of the people to whom he has been talking who represent the republican movement that this is not a one-off gesture, but part of a continuing process of decommissioning? If he has not had that assurance and he has given the quid pro quo today in his various announcements, we will shortly be back in exactly the muddle that has held us up for so many months.

Dr. Reid

The hon. Gentleman, or the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Not yet? That is one of the many aspects of the process that are long overdue. The hon. Gentleman, who has tremendous expertise in these matters, will know that all of us would have wanted such a step to be taken earlier. I do not think that that should allow us to diminish it. All aspects of the Belfast agreement have now been started. Very few of them have been completed; all of them are in the process of organic development. We should allow ourselves a degree of satisfaction that we can now genuinely say that the insurmountable hurdle that was envisaged has begun to be overcome.

It is fair to say that, although to the House it may not have been a huge deal, to the republican movement it was a huge deal to go on a prolonged ceasefire. We should recognise that. We each carry our own history. The opening of the dumps was a hugely significant move in the republican movement's terms, too. Now that the actual decommissioning has begun, it has added a new dynamic.

On the specific question, the first part of General de Chastelain's report states: On 6th August 2001 the Commission reported that agreement had been reached with the IRA on a method to put … arms completely and verifiably beyond use. It takes that as its starting point. If the hon. Gentleman checks the statement of 6 August, he will see that it referred to that as an act that would initiate a process.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East)

I, too, urge my right hon. Friend not to be too modest. The House will know that the painstaking work that he, his ministerial colleagues and officials have put in over the past few months in bringing about the developments of the past few days have been highly significant and are much appreciated in the House and elsewhere.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider supporting the call of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and of Sir Reg Empey this morning in an interview that I saw him giving, for the Democratic Unionist party—I hope that it takes this in the friendly spirit in which it is intended—to review its one-foot-in, one-foot-out approach to the institutions? Not only would it bring considerable political weight to the process, but, as its Ministers have already demonstrated, it would bring to the Executive particular talents which are widely admired and would be much appreciated.

Dr. Reid

My hon. Friend's contribution carries particular credibility as he was involved in many of the prolonged discussions and made a valuable contribution as a Minister. He is right to mention the officials at the Northern Ireland Office. They are not everyone's cup of tea; indeed, in Northern Ireland they are not anyone's cup of tea because everyone is suspicious that they are on the other side. However, I can truly say—even with the fierce competition of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was proudly acclaiming her officials earlier—that I would put mine up against anyone. They are second to none. They are deeply committed to the people of Northern Ireland in trying to ensure that they have a decent, civilised, modern democratic society there.

I wish that the DUP were fully in the process. I think that it represents a very important electorate in Northern Ireland and very important strands of thinking. I think that Democratic Unionist Members make a contribution, certainly when they meet me. Although it is not always a contribution that entirely accords with my own view, it is one that I think we cannot forget. I wish that, like everyone else, they were part of this agreement. I believe that the more pillars of Northern Ireland we build this on, the better it will be. I have no hesitation in saying that, in terms of the individual contributions they can make, they are every bit as able as every other party. There are also some outstanding characters among them, one of whom I believe may be trying to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.

Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim)

The statement refers to what happened yesterday, but what did happen yesterday? Something happened in secret. The Secretary of State does not know what happened yesterday. He cannot tell the House the number of guns that were dealt with, the pounds of explosive that were dealt with, if they were, or the number of other weapons that were dealt with. The last time we met him, the general told us that the Prime Minister would not know that information and that no inventory of destroyed arms would be given to the Government.

Today, however, the Secretary of State has produced a paper that is absolutely transparent—there are no hidey-holes in this statement. We are told that there will be new legislation, even before the new Police Board has even had the decency of being allowed to have a meeting. The right hon. Gentleman has announced that there will be new legislation in the House, although a former Secretary of State told us that the legislation would not be changed because it reflected Patten, and that that was the way that it was going to remain.

The statement also referred to outstanding prosecutions. I do not believe that any Unionist wants any member of the Army to be dealt with as a terrorist but I believe that they deserve to be taken into full consideration when those matters are under consideration. I stand up for the rights of the RUC men and those who are concerned in that matter.

There is another matter: all this dismantling of security. Work is starting today on Sturgan mountain and Camlough mountain, in South Armagh. Work will start tomorrow in Newtownhamilton. Work will be starting to demolish the Magherafelt Army base. All that is transparent; we can see everything that is being done. We cannot, however, see anything that has been done by the IRA, and we are not going to see it. We therefore have a right to be sceptical about it.

On what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, there is no coalition between the DUP and IRA-Sinn Fein. There never will be such a coalition, and he very well knows that. For him to come to the House and try to tell people that the DUP is in coalition with IRA-Sinn Fein is utter, absolute rubbish.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman some elbow room, but he must put questions to the Secretary of State.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I shall put one very important question. Will the Secretary of State explain to me and my European constituents why they have been visited by the security forces in the areas where all that dismantling will take place, when they have been warned that there is a threat from the Real IRA? What assurance can he give them, as he pulls down their security, on how they will be protected? They did not say that that threat exists; the security forces told them that it does.

Will the Secretary of State please list the other events that have occurred in north Belfast, such as that involving the man who was shot by the IRA on Sunday afternoon? Why is that not mentioned? Why is the young person who was driven over and killed not mentioned? Is it because they were Protestants that they were not mentioned in the Minister's statement?

Dr. Reid

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman's last comment, other than to say that any death in Northern Ireland—whether of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim—is taken with equal seriousness because all those lives have equal worth. That is the view of the whole House.

As regards the commission, it is not entirely true that there is no information about the decommissioning. In fact, the report, although brief, tells us a good deal. Members of the commission witnessed the event; they are relying not on others' words but on their own eyes. They regard it as a significant event, and these are people who have served in the military. They are not armchair generals, but people who have had an active role in the military. They confirmed that the materiel in question included arms, ammunition and explosives; in other words, not one or two rusty rifles.

The commission said that the arms were put completely beyond use and dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme under the legislation approved by Parliament. That means that, under paragraph 11 of the decommissioning scheme of August 2001, the commission has taken a record of the arms decommissioned and has verified the information in that record. In other words, although it is the commission's judgment that such information should remain confidential, the commission has been able to record the details of the arms decommissioned.

Finally, the commission says We will continue our contact with the IRA … in the pursuit of our mandate". That means, as the participants in the Good Friday agreement agreed, the total decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. It would be better for the whole House to pay tribute to John de Chastelain for the work that he has done, rather than to cast aspersions on the manner in which he has conducted it.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a perfectly legitimate question, which he put with passion. Of course advisers advise and politicians and Ministers decide, but, as I have said, before I take any decision regarding matters of normalisation, I consult with and take advice from the GOC Northern Ireland—a man with a not undistinguished military record of fighting for his country and no known proclivities towards appeasement or republicanism—and the Chief Constable of the RUC. Both of those individuals were consulted on the announcements that I made today. If it is good enough for them, it should probably be good enough for most Members of this House

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

I welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and the progress made in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that we must not forget the victims of terrorist violence, be they victims of the IRA or of the loyalist murder gangs? Does he further agree that, speaking bluntly, one of the greatest blessings that Northern Ireland could now have would be if the leader of the Democratic Unionist party spent the rest of his political life trying to make the Good Friday agreement work, and thus help to undermine and destroy the forces of violence in which he has never been involved? It would undermine those forces if he took a positive and useful role in making the Good Friday agreement work and in making sure that politics instead of the gun dominates that part of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Reid

Yes of course we remember the victims, on all sides and from all backgrounds, of this terrible period in Northern Ireland's history. It is precisely to try to avoid another generation of victims that we are engaged in this project, which involves so many challenges and difficult decisions. This process is about trying to avoid another 3,500 people dying, as has happened during the troubles.

Sometimes we in this House underestimate what that number of deaths means to Northern Ireland. To reveal the extent of the suffering caused, if the equivalent number of deaths had occurred in the rest of the United Kingdom, the total recorded number of deaths in Northern Ireland has to be multiplied by 40. That gives a total of between 120,000 and 140,000 people. If the same number of deaths had occurred in the US, it would be equivalent to 480,000 people.

We should not forget. As I said at the start of the statement, that should be the spark that causes us to make sure that a conflict that has lasted between 30 and 800 years should not continue to affect the next generation of people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. I agree that I wish that the leader of the Democratic Unionist party would throw his considerable political weight behind the process.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell)

Although I welcome what is clearly good news, will the Secretary of State accept that some of us will be very cautiously optimistic? We have been let down before, and promises have been broken before. To take the process a little further forward and encourage the Provisional IRA to decommission more weapons, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he needs to take an even tougher stance against those who have failed to decommission? They include the dissident republican groups and the so-called loyalists, both of which should be taken on once and for all.

Dr. Reid

I think that I agree on both points. Being cautious does not stop us being radical: it means merely that we have to have a degree of surety about the risk involved in being radical. There is a sense in which being cautious should not require political timidity.

One old philosopher said that the best way to approach such historically important occasions was with pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will. That would be a good platform for most of us. I see that Tory Front-Bench Members are nodding in agreement: I shall not tell them who the author of that remark was, lest I embarrass them.

We must be prepared to pursue robustly those who remain on the other side of the democratic line, who will not cross that bridge in pursuit of the peace process. Many of them masquerade under the guise of a glorified cause, but are in fact up to their eyes in racketeering, drugs, murder and mafia activities. We should not give them the salutation that they are involved in some great political cause.

Mrs. Betty Williams (Conwy)

May I offer my personal congratulations to my right hon. Friend, his colleagues and his predecessors? I hope and pray that matters will progress satisfactorily and smoothly, and with a higher degree of tolerance on all sides. Does my right hon. Friebd believe that the wider world can draw lessons from events in Northern Ireland?

Dr. Reid

The message is simple. It is that jaw-jaw is almost always better than war-war. A vacuum is created when we stop talking and attempting to reach solutions to problems through dialogue, and that allows men of violence in.

I therefore thank my hon. Friend for her question, her thanks and her hope. I thank her most of all for her offer of prayers.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West)

What is the Secretary of State's understanding of the word "significant" as used by the commission? Does it apply to the magnitude of the political step taken, or does it imply a significant reduction in the capacity to undertake terrorist activity?

Dr. Reid

I hate to be tautological, but my understanding is that the word is used to mean "other than insignificant". I do not know whether the word is used to refer to the quantity of arms, or the length of time that such arms could have been used to conduct an armed struggle or terrorism.

However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read General de Chastelain's report, in which the general gives an indication of why he does not want to go into specific quantities. In our attempts to manage a peace process towards a horizon, we have discovered how difficult it is to move from A to B. General de Chastelain has discovered that too, and his opinion, as expressed in the report, is that to issue further details would not assist—in fact would inhibit—progress towards the goal of a continual process of decommissioning.

I admire General de Chastelain and his work, and I shall not try to second-guess or psychoanalyse his use of semantics. However, the fact that he has bothered to use the word "significant" should be significant for us.

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his knowledge of Gramsci, the Marxist. I hold out the hope that he will one day return to dialectical materialism.

The cross-border bodies are a critical part of the Good Friday agreement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now no obstacle to republicans serving on those cross-border bodies and that they should be allowed to get on with their work?

Dr. Reid

I hope that that will be the case. One reason why the Belfast agreement encompassed a solution to many problems is not just that the two communities in Northern Ireland were able to come together, although that was important, but that the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Executive and along with our partners in the Irish Government, were able to give an all-Ireland dimension to tackling some of the practical problems without instilling the fear that that somehow imposed a constitutional arrangement. I hope that those involved will be able to do what my hon. Friend suggests in the near future.

I know that my hon. Friend will understand when I say that dialectical materialism was a product not of Karl Marx but of Joseph Stalin, and that therefore I have never adhered to that particular creed.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East)

Will the Secretary of State tell those in Northern Ireland who, like me, he might categorise as a tad sceptical, why, when considering whether the republican movement is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, they should put more weight on an unspecified event where an unspecified number of weapons were allegedly decommissioned or put out of use in an unspecified way than on the very real record of the 107 shootings carried out by the Provisional IRA during its ceasefire, the 270 so-called punishment beatings, the dozen murders that it has carried out, its gun-running in Florida, its exploits in Colombia, its racketeering and its street violence? Why should we put more weight on the unspecified as opposed to the detail? Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that those on the DUP Bench apply no different criteria to a requirement for total, verifiable and visible decommissioning from loyalist paramilitary organisations than they do from republicans?

Dr. Reid

I not only take it from the hon. Gentleman, I believe it I take it, therefore, not as an allegation or an assertion but as something that I am willing to accept. From the use of the word "allegedly", it is obvious that he is not willing to accept the word of General de Chastelain. He and I part company on that. I accept the word of General John de Chastelain and I think that the majority of people in the House accept it.

Andy King (Rugby and Kenilworth)

I, too, join the rest of the House in welcoming the very good news about this first momentous step in the peace process. At last we have broken through, and now our prayers must join with those of everyone in Ireland and throughout the country about the continuation of the peace process.

My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the loyalist paramilitaries. What are his views on what steps they should be taking with regard to the next stage in the peace process?

Dr. Reid

I think that the entire House is clear about what step all the paramilitaries should be taking to move forward—they should put their arms beyond use. What I said earlier in response to the comments of a spokesman for some of the loyalist groups is that if they do not feel able to do that, we would welcome them telling us what they could do. Certainly, they should desist immediately from widespread, sectarian, indiscriminate attacks, attacks on small children and attempts to mutilate and ultimately murder people. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone thinks that that will assist their cause. Although we should not be euphoric about what happened yesterday and we should keep our feet on the ground, I hope that the other paramilitaries will consider carefully nevertheless and see how they can build on the events that took place yesterday.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

Does the Secretary of State accept that perhaps one reason for scepticism and, indeed, cynicism in Northern Ireland is that people are genuinely concerned about the level of control that the paramilitaries seem to have over the streets? Given that fact, does he accept that while verification of weapons being put beyond use is extremely important, an assessment—his assessment—of the weapons that are kept by paramilitaries on both sides, and not only by the mainstream organisations, is equally important?

Dr. Reid

Yes. It is not just the weapons that are kept, although that is significant, but the activity for which they are used. None of the ceasefires is perfect. I specified the UDA and the Loyalist Defence Force because the level, scale and nature of the violence in which they were engaged was distinguishable, not by politicians alone but by others whose advice I seek in these matters, from the activities of some of the paramilitary groups—the UVF and the IRA—who, in the round, remain on ceasefire. Our ultimate aim is simple. It is to create a Northern Ireland where people's problems, grievances and political objectives are sorted out and achieved by democratic means. Given the problems that we have had and the length of time for which we have had them on the island of Ireland, while impatience is understandable, the fact that we have managed to achieve in less than a decade things that some people thought would never happen in 100 years should be a spur to us.

I will end with a brief anecdote. On Saturday night, I was in Wexford. I have to confess, although it will destroy my credentials, that I went to the opera. It occurred to me when I was there that it was May 1169 when Robert FitzStephen first landed on the island of Ireland with 600 soldiers. There I was, 832 years later, trying to play some small role in overcoming some of the problems that have persisted ever since. When we understand the nature and magnitude of what we are dealing with and add to that the past 30 years—with the deaths, misery and pain and the burden of history that is on everyone—what we have achieved so far is, thankfully, some recompense to the people of Northern Ireland for having supported this peace process. What we achieved yesterday was another major milestone in that journey.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry)

The Secretary of State outlined a series of events beginning today—his term was "security normalisation processes". This process has been going on for many months—in fact, several years. Just as these events are continuous, obvious and transparent, what steps can he take to assure the House that the decommissioning process, if it indeed has begun, will be continuous, obvious and transparent?

Dr. Reid

I cannot guarantee success in any area. We are all putting our efforts into it, but I will not pretend to the House that the peace process is irrevocable or inevitable. Commentators write about that, but my view is that with human beings things only succeed if we continue to apply all our efforts to ensure that they do so. As a general proposition, I do not think that anyone in the House who guaranteed that the process would be a success would be believed or believable. However, if I am asked what can give us the best guarantee of success in dealing with this difficult issue—putting arms beyond use in the midst of a transition from conflict to peace—I have no doubt that it is the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning led by General John de Chastelain.

If the hon. Gentleman has a better idea of how to put arms beyond use and how to achieve that, I am always willing to listen; but if he comes up with the same solution that has been tried for the past 800 years, on the evidence, I should be somewhat sceptical about it.