HL Deb 24 January 1996 vol 568 cc1070-82

5.18 p.m.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Northern Ireland and the report of the International Body on Arms Decommissioning made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"The key to progress in Northern Ireland is confidence—confidence to enable the parties to sit down together without threat of force. The retention of arms by the paramilitaries on both sides is the biggest single factor in holding back that confidence. It has so far prevented the holding of all-party talks.

"That is one of the reasons why we and the Irish Government established the international body to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue as one track of the twin tracks initiative John Bruton and I launched last November.

"The Body's remit was to identify and advise on acceptable methods of verifiable decommissioning, and to report on the commitment of the paramilitaries to work constructively to achieve that. We set the Body the challenging target of reporting by mid-January. I am extremely grateful to Senator Mitchell, and his colleagues, for the energy and determination with which they have completed their task.

"The Body's main conclusions are: that the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations has nearly universal support and must continue to be a principal objective; that to reach an agreed political settlement and take the gun out of politics, all parties should commit themselves to, and honour, six principles embodying the path of democracy and non-violence—those principles include the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations, the renunciation of force and the threat of force, agreement to abide peacefully by whatever agreement is finally reached, and an end to so-called punishment killings and beatings; that there is a clear commitment on the part of those in possession of illegal arms to work constructively to achieve full and verifiable decommissioning as part of the process of all-party negotiations. The Body makes a series of recommendations on the modalities of decommissioning of illegal arms. It emphatically declares that there is no equivalence between such arms and those held by the security forces. It rightly emphasises the need for independent verification; and that other confidence-building measures are needed, such as an end to targeting of potential victims by the paramilitaries, information on missing persons and the return of those previously intimidated out of their homes.

"The Body also records its conclusion, on the basis of its discussions, that the paramilitaries will not decommission any arms prior to all-party negotiations. The House will note that the Body did not conclude that they cannot decommission but that they will not. The House will draw its own conclusions. Although the Body makes no formal recommendation on this point, it suggests an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations.

"The Government welcome the Body's endorsement of the seriousness of the decommissioning issue. We welcome and fully endorse the six principles set out. We call on all parties to do the same.

"If all concerned were to accept those principles, and honour them, as the International Body also rightly emphasises, that would be a significant step forward. Even more significant would be if, in addition, all parties, particularly Sinn Fein, also joined the two Governments in supporting the wide principles of consent set out in the Downing Street declaration.

"The Government also welcome the Body's broad recommendations on the modalities of the decommissioning process. We are ready to implement them. It is now for those in possession of illegal arms to say whether they will accept and act on them. We look forward to an early and definitive response from the paramilitaries on both sides.

"We welcome, too, the emphasis on other confidence-building measures. If the paramilitaries give up their present practice of keeping themselves ready for a return to action, that will be a most welcome sign of real commitment to peaceful methods. Otherwise, gun-law continues to hang over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland.

"There is therefore much in the report that we can welcome and endorse. But the practical problem remains: how to bring all the parties together. Self-evidently the best way to generate the necessary confidence is for the paramilitaries to make a start to the decommissioning process. We see no reason why they should not.

"There can be no justification for the maintenance of private armies by those who claim to be committed to exclusively peaceful means. Opinion polls in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic have shown overwhelming public support in both communities for decommissioning before talks. We shall, therefore, keep up the pressure for an immediate start to that process.

"However, I am not prepared to accept that any one group should, through its intransigence, stand in the way of peace and a comprehensive settlement for the people of Northern Ireland. We will not be deflected from our aim. It is now apparent that there may well he another way forward, consistent with the basic principles that we have always adhered to.

"One of the confidence-building measures taken up by the International Body is the idea of an election. The Body made clear that a broadly acceptable elective process, with an appropriate mandate and within the three-strand structure, could contribute to the building of confidence.

"The Government believe that such an elective process offers a viable alternative direct route to the confidence necessary to bring about all-party negotiations. In that context, it is possible to imagine decommissioning and such negotiations being taken forward in parallel.

"The election proposal originated in Northern Ireland and, as recent opinion polls have shown, has widespread cross-community support there. A number of parties, including those led by the honourable Members for Upper Bann and North Antrim, as well as the Alliance Party, have put forward proposals for some form of elected body as a means of getting all parties talking together, even if the paramilitaries persist in their refusal to decommission prior to negotiation.

"It is true that other parties have registered their concerns. They will certainly need to be addressed. We will discuss urgently with all the parties how to overcome them. But in a democratic system like ours I cannot see how elections could be regarded by any of the parties as a side issue or as a block to progress.

"As the Mitchell report says: 'Elections held in accordance with democratic principles express and reflect the popular will'. So let me make it quite clear to the House that we are ready to introduce legislation, and to seek both Houses' urgent approval for it, in order to allow an elective process to go ahead as soon as may be practicable. I would hope that that will attract support right across the House.

"To sum up, we believe that, in the light of the Mitchell report, there are two ways in which all-party negotiations can now be taken forward. Both are fully consistent with the six principles set out in the report.

"The first is for the paramilitaries to make a start to decommissioning before all-party negotiations. They can—if they will. If not, the second is to secure a democratic mandate for all-party negotiations through elections specially for that purpose.

"There are two routes to all-party negotiations and to decommissioning. The choice between them is ultimately for the parties themselves. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have every right to expect that one or other of those routes will be taken and taken soon.

"For our part we, together with the Irish Government, will intensify our discussions with all the parties. I intend to meet the Taoiseach again in the middle of February to review progress.

"The people of Northern Ireland are enjoying today's peace. They want it to be permanent. They also want and deserve political progress. It is time to put old enmities aside and to allow the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives once again to have a normal say in their future and their affairs.

"The proposals that I have put forward today require all concerned to take risks for peace. We have done so before and will do so again, consistent with our principles. That is what is needed if we are to build on the achievements of the past two years.

"Let us never forget that we are dealing here with the lives of innocent men, women and children. We are dealing with their future and the future of Northern Ireland. In the end, our obligation as politicians is to the people we govern.

"I pledge that I will leave no stone unturned to deliver to the people of Northern Ireland on a permanent basis the precious privilege of peace that they have now enjoyed for 17 months."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place this afternoon. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will want to join me in welcoming the Mitchell Report. I start by paying tribute to the work undertaken by Senator Mitchell and the other members of the commission which has produced this valuable and helpful report. They did a great deal of work and they did it extremely quickly. The House and indeed the country should be grateful to them.

The publication of this report is indeed a significant contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process. I would hope that all parties recognise its value and vote together on the basis of the framework which it provides. I agree very much with what the noble Viscount said; namely, that the British and Irish Governments must continue to co-operate and to liaise closely on developing the peace process further. We on these Benches support strongly the six principles underpinning the report. They contain a great deal to recommend them. I hope that the different parties to the conflict will respond positively. I particularly endorse the need for a commitment to democratic and peaceful means of resolving political issues. One of the report's main proposals seeks to bring an end to the so-called "punishment" beatings and executions. I think that noble Lords on all sides of the House will welcome what the report has to say about that. These acts are totally unjustifiable and indeed in reality they are terrorism under another cloak.

The essential matter now—as the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal said—is to build the confidence necessary for all-party talks to take place. The importance of this report is that it points to alternative routes towards building that confidence. I share the view that prior decommissioning would perhaps be the better way but the report concludes not that it cannot be done but that it will not be done. The report therefore suggests an elective route as an acceptable alternative. I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can say a little more about how the Government see that. Is it intended that the assembly resulting from such elections should have any negotiating role, or is it to have merely an advisory role? As regards timing, Mr. Trimble said this afternoon in another place that he would hope that these elections could take place as early as April or May. I wonder whether that sort of timescale is the one that the Government envisage for this part of the process.

I wish to comment on the position of my party. We have consistently pursued a bipartisan approach in relation to the peace process in Northern Ireland. I should therefore make it perfectly clear now that we, for our part, would assist in the passage of any necessary legislation to enable this elective process to take place.

The report refers to verification of the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House say a little more about that? Can he perhaps explain a little further the Government's thinking on how to move forward in this verification area? Any of us who have taken part in any negotiations at international level will know that verification is as important, or almost as important, as the actual negotiation and agreement itself. We on these Benches welcome this report. It points to an important way forward but in the end, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, it will all depend upon the parties in Northern Ireland being prepared to accept that negotiations are preferable to continued conflict. The end result must also be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House confirm again the Government's commitment to a referendum on the final terms of any settlement that emerges? The search for peace in Northern Ireland is inevitably a long and difficult process. For our part, we offer it our full support.

5.35 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead

My Lords, the Statement is often opaque but as in my view it uses its opaqueness to end up more or less in the right place I am not disposed to complain too much about that. Her Majesty's Government have in my view had somewhat too rigid a position about arms decommissioning before talks. As a result their Northern Ireland policy—one of the few in which Mr. Major has shown much more courage than party tactics—has shown recent signs of running into the sands.

Ex-Senator Mitchell and his coadjutors—I prefer to call them that than the somewhat ominous collective term of "the Body", which runs as a heavy but I hope no longer appropriate refrain throughout the Statement—have not surprisingly endorsed that view. I think they have produced a good, sensible and speedy report which we welcome. Senator Mitchell has conspicuously not claimed too much for it. He has not proclaimed that he has a golden key and the guarantee to permanent peace in Northern Ireland, but I would certainly say that a rejection of the Mitchell Report by the British Government would have been a guarantee against such a permanent peace. The Prime Minister has not done that. Indeed, under his smokescreen he has done almost the reverse, and I welcome that.

The six principles offer much to the Unionist community and I believe that it may appreciate that. I certainly hope that will be the case. We, for our part, particularly welcome the opening up of the prospect of an electoral process. We lay more stress on our hopes for the future than on a too rigid but not very productive analysis of the understandable ambiguities of the Prime Minister's Statement.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for the most constructive, generous and, if I may say so, extremely helpful reactions that they have given to my right honourable friend's Statement today. Once again I wish to echo the tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has paid to Senator Mitchell and his coadjutors for what I agree is a significant contribution to the peace process.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, underlined most helpfully—if I may say so again—the importance of the continued co-operation between the two national governments. I was particularly pleased for the support that both noble Lords gave to the six principles. I wish to emphasise how important it is for all interested parties—the terrorist organisations on both sides of the divide—to take up the implicit challenge in the report of the six principles and not only to accept them in principle but also to take the advice proffered in the report that those principles should be—in the word that the Senator used—honoured.

I was also struck by the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that punishment beatings were not only unjustifiable but were also terrorism under another cloak. That must be right. I was also pleased that the noble Lord welcomed the proposition that we should look for alternative routes in order to keep the peace process going.

The noble Lord asked me a number of questions. We are not, of course, suggesting that any elected body should have a prescribed form as of now. It is important that the two tracks which the Governments on both 'sides of the Irish Sea adopted during the course of last year should be used fully in driving this peace process forward, and in particular that we should now use the political track to see what would be possible, and indeed what the modalities should be if we are to be able to explore constructively how the idea of an elected body could be taken forward. It is by no means clear that all parties would accept such an idea. However, I think it is at least cheering that so many of the interested parties have given a welcome in principle to this. It is now for the political track of the twin track approach to be used to see whether we can agree on the form the assembly should take, what its functions should be, what its numbers should be, how it should operate, the method of election and so on.

This is all to play for. I do not believe it is right that I should give any steer at this stage as to how that may happen. It is enough that there is an increasing interest in this regard. The fact that there is an interest underlines the importance that the communities in Northern Ireland attach to the peace process and that it should not he allowed to fail.

As far as the timescale is concerned, we will do our best to enter into the negotiations as swiftly as possible. If there is sufficient agreement to enable us to introduce the necessary legislation we will do so as soon as possible. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his undertaking to play a full and co-operative part in making sure that legislation is passed as speedily as possible.

It is worth emphasising that verification and methods of decommissioning are clearly set out in the report, both in terms of flavour and the possibilities that may be discussed. The Government have absolutely no difficulties with the possibilities envisaged in the report. We are entirely flexible, as long as we can be sure that adequate verification will be put in place. Noble Lords who have had a chance to read the report will know that one of the possibilities envisaged is that the terrorist organisations destroy their own weapons. We are happy to envisage such a possibility as long as adequate verification can be put in place. I believe that to be evidence of how constructive we wish to be.

I turn to the final question put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Government commitment to a referendum is still in place. From the very beginning of this process my right honourable friend gave an undertaking relating to what was known as the triple lock. Any final agreement would be subject to the approval of parties, people and Parliament. The "people" element will be evidenced by a referendum. If there is an agreement we will proceed as swiftly as we can to implement it, and a referendum will be part of it. The triple lock is still in place.

I always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, with the greatest of respect and, very often, amusement. I particularly listen to the noble Lord on matters Irish. One of the most interesting and gripping volumes that I have read—I confess that I have not quite finished it—is the noble Lord's biography of Gladstone. In that biography the mastery which he displayed in his study of Asquith is exceeded, if that is possible. Since Ireland plays so great a part in the latter section of that biography the temptation not to read today's papers but to concentrate on the noble Lord's book is not quite such a dereliction of duty as it might otherwise have been last night.

I am pleased that the noble Lord broadly welcomes what is proposed. If I have a small quibble, I believe that the noble Lord is a little unfair to suggest that the Government have adopted a rigid position, particularly when one considers that the latest opinion poll in the Province suggests that as high a proportion as 83 per cent. of the population believes that there should be some prior decommissioning before the terrorist organisations are admitted to all-party talks. I will not go back over that ground again. I merely express gratitude to the noble Lord for his intervention in our debates, with his considerable expertise on this subject, and the fact that he welcomes the electoral process as a way forward, particularly when I know that his party has been a keen supporter of it from the moment it was proposed.

5.43 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I would be grateful if my noble friend would comment on paragraph 34 of the report, which reads: The parties should consider an approach under which some decommissioning would take place during the process of all-party negotiations, rather than before or after as the parties now urge. Such an approach represents a compromise. That is a clear recommendation by Senator Mitchell and his body, to use their own phrase. I thought from the tone of my noble friend's Statement that the Government were disposed to accept it. However, since he has not been quite explicit on the point and it is obviously of very great importance, I would be most grateful if he would comment.

Viscount Cranborne

I am grateful to my noble friend. The compromise that the Mitchell body suggests in paragraph 34 et sequentia is a matter that can arise, for instance in the event of all parties signing up to the idea of an elected body. Whether the elected body delegates some of its number to enter into all-party talks, which is one possibility, or does so itself—whatever device emerges for agreement—one of the matters to which it will have to address itself at a very early stage, as Senator Mitchell's committee makes perfectly clear, is the basis on which decommissioning should happen. It is possible that all parties will find the basis set out in paragraph 34 and following, but that will be for discussion at the time. It is worth underlining in reply to my noble friend that at no point does Senator Mitchell suggest that decommissioning should occur after agreement. I am sure that my noble friend will welcome that point.

Lord Mason of Barnsley

My Lords, I, too, welcome the report. I appreciate the effort and endeavours of the Mitchell team. I believe that the report will prove to be a useful document in future.

There has been no breakthrough on the decommissioning of arms but, thank goodness, there is still peace, albeit an uneasy one. All of us must be seriously concerned that the Provisional IRA still recruit, train, carry out dummy bomb runs to keep the militant element busy and kill and beat up their own kinsfolk to control and dominate their territories. Yet not one gun or one pound of Semtex has been surrendered, which is the crux of the deadlock. Is the Minister aware that, because of the absence of an agreement on the Washington third principle and the Government's repeated stand that there must be a token decommissioning before all-party talks can begin, the Government must painstakingly carry on and that the Mitchell Report is the base on which to found political and constitutional compromises in the future?

I was delighted to hear of the positive step that in the Government's mind there is now a possibility of legislation in both Houses—I say that it will be supported by all the major parties—a possibility of democratic elections and a democratically elected assembly in the Province. That will receive the blessing of both Houses and will get a speedy passage.

Is the Provisional Sinn Fein prepared to tread the path of democracy? What are the real prospects of an all-party assembly? Some bilateral and trilateral party talks have taken place on these matters, and I believe that they could be expanded upon.

Finally, is the noble Viscount aware that there arc enough proposals in the report, especially the six principles, to encourage a continuation of talks—searching for the compromises, allied with confidence-building measures which we hope will create circumstances and conditions to encourage the eventual decommissioning of all terrorist arms.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord whose record in the Province is well known to all your Lordships. He will have observed, I am sure, that Senator Mitchell specifically mentions the point that he first made. Indeed, it is clearly set out in one of the six principles to which he referred. Principle F states: To urge that "punishment" killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions". Therefore it is perfectly clear that the senator and his two coadjutors would wholly agree with the noble Lord's remarks on that subject.

It might be worth reminding your Lordships of the Washington third principle: in order to test the practical arrangements and to demonstrate good faith, there should be the decommissioning of some arms as a tangible confidence-building measure and to signal the start of the process. It is worth bearing in mind that we are not talking about anything more than a clear signal of intent.

We stick to the Washington third principle unless there is an alternative available which satisfies the parties who are interested in this. I am pleased to hear that the Unionist parties have certainly in principle accepted that that is a possible alternative. Indeed my right honourable friend made it clear that the idea for an elected body originated in the Province itself.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for an elected body. I should point out that we should be wary about calling this body an "assembly". As at present envisaged, this is an elected body whose function is clearly to give electoral decency and authority to the negotiations. If it is an assembly, it rather implies that it might have something to do with legislation, or indeed administration, which at this stage it certainly would not.

The noble Lord finally asked the all important question: are the Provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA prepared to tread the path of democracy? That is the question that we must all continue to ask—and to ask insistently. Indeed, it is a question which Senator Mitchell and his two colleagues also asked through the means of the six principles that they have initiated. It is for all of us to continue to ask that question and to express the fervent hope that they will be able to give an answer which is strongly in the affirmative and indeed for them, in the words of the senator, to honour that acceptance.

Lord Elton

My Lords, my noble friend is well aware of the regard in which we hold Senator Mitchell, and the gratitude that we owe him for his intervention. I hope that he is also aware of the strong support and admiration which we have for his right honourable friend and the whole of the government team involved in conducting an extraordinarily difficult and delicate operation. We welcome the co-operation which they have had from other quarters.

At the beginning of the Statement, my noble friend pointed out that the principal obstacle on one track was the existence of weapons which were not being decommissioned. We welcome the existence of the other track to try to get round that. However, the weapons remain a matter of great concern. As it happens, we have had recently an extraordinarily successful amnesty for knives in this country. I wonder whether the principle of amnesty is present in what is now in mind. If so, is it to be extended to people'? If it is extended to people, can he reassure us that it will not be extended to those who are known as killers in the terrorist cause?

My noble friend is assured of the support of all people of goodwill on all sides of the House—not that I am entitled to speak for them—and elsewhere, to expedite the legislation necessary to bring into being the new body. We recognise the importance of not giving it a handle which suggests that it will have a legislative role. However, if that body can encourage people to talk and to use words instead of weapons it will be enormously useful. That is a classic way towards peace.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I think that I can give him the assurance that he needs. If there is going to be decommissioning of weapons, it seems at least logical that those who hand in those weapons, or who co-operate in the decommissioning, should enjoy an amnesty from the consequences normally visited on those who possess illegal weapons. But we should draw a very clear distinction between people who are taking part in activities which lead to decommissioning and those who have taken part in terrorist crimes during the course of the recent troubles. I hope that I shall carry the House with me when I say that Her Majesty's Government certainly have no intention, as my noble friend opined, of extending that amnesty, for instance to those who have committed terrorist murders in the past.

I am grateful to my noble friend for the rest of his remarks which will give great encouragement to those of us who support my right honourable friend in this very difficult task.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I shall attempt not to delay the business of the House. However, I am sure that the House would like to hear a Northern Ireland voice; and there are a few in the House at present.

The report has had a warm, helpful and constructive welcome in the House this evening. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount for the way in which he presented the report and his subsequent replies to a number of questions raised. I feel that they were constructive and helpful from the Northern Ireland point of view.

I also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for their contributions. The fact that a body of opinion here is solidly behind this very important report will he well received in Northern Ireland.

We have to recognise that the present impasse results from a tremendous amount of mistrust—mistrust by both sides of the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. The Unionists fear that talks without prior decommissioning would be at the point of a gun; and the Republicans fear that decommissioning in advance of talks would be seen as a total surrender.

We have to remind ourselves that this is an international body. The Mitchell Report offers an opportunity to break out of this apparent irresolvable dilemma. It suggests using the process of decommissioning to build the necessary confidence and to take it one step at a time during the negotiations. That is an important part of the report of which note will be taken. There will be no seeking to have matters accepted in one go. It will be a step-by-step process.

All concerned—there are sometimes many sides involved in some of the issues—should take the initial step. All in Northern Ireland should help to take the initial step in the progress towards decommissioning. It must be a step at a time.

I endorse the Mitchell principles in order to create the atmosphere needed for further steps in a progressive pattern of maintaining trust and confidence throughout the community. Trust and confidence throughout the community are very important in this respect. It must be recognised by all parties that the normalisation of policing must be at the core of the building of confidence. Policing has not been mentioned, but I see it as absolutely necessary. I feel sure from what I know of talks with the RUC that there is the utmost constructive co-operation by the RUC and, where necessary, the Garda Siochana. We all expect that there will be allegations by party spokesmen of political opportunism and shenanigans. However, I feel sure that the community will see through any of those shortsighted expressed views, and that the larger community in Northern Ireland will see the need for peace among the people in Northern Ireland, as the Leader of the House said.

I will close my remarks by saying that praise ought to be given for the generous tribute of the commission to the people of Northern Ireland. It described them as being warm and generous but between themselves they are fearful and antagonistic. My experience is not at the same level, but from what I know of trade union negotiations, employers' wars and disorders, we can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Through enshrining that principle, we may look forward to finding a constructive accommodation as regards the needs of people in Northern Ireland.

Again, I thank those who have already spoken as leaders in their own areas in this House, particularly the Leader of the House, for his positive and constructive answers to the points raised. We would like to see the commission going on to do the job for which it was set up in Northern Ireland.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. His voice and experience bring considerable authority to exchanges in your Lordships' House. The words he said about the importance of confidence are entirely echoed, not only by Senator Mitchell, but also by my right honourable friend.

As regards policing, we share his hope that policing in Northern Ireland can be normalised. It has already changed considerably because of the reduced threat, to which the noble Lord can testify. As he knows, we are engaged in the process of reform. Our aim is plainly to reach a position where the police can operate unarmed and where the make up of the force represents the community balance. I am grateful for what the noble Lord said.

Lord McConnell

My Lords, I join the welcome that has been given to the Statement made by the Leader of the House, in particular to his remarks about the possibility of legislation for elections in Northern Ireland. I strongly support that and I believe that he already knows that as Ulster Unionists we support that principle as well. It is much better if one can listen to people speaking because they were elected rather than because they have a few or perhaps many guns hidden away somewhere. Let us try to get down to democratic principles as soon as possible.

I was glad to hear that legislation might come fairly quickly. I should greatly welcome that. I was also glad to hear the Leader of the House say that there would be an amnesty for people in the process of handing in arms. That is right, just as one noble Lord drew the parallel with the handing in of knives in this part of the country. I was also glad to hear that the amnesty would not extend to people who had used arms in a criminal way in the past. That is important.

I find it hard to accept paragraph 34 of the report which suggests that decommissioning could be carried out piecemeal during the course of negotiations. That is even worse than saying, "If we get all we want, we'll hand in our arms". If they are able to say, day by day, "If we get what we want today, you can have a few Semtex bombs and Armalite rifles. If we do better next week, we'll hand in a few more". That is not a democratic way of negotiating and we should not enter into that kind of arrangement.

Paragraph 20.d of the recommendations of the International Body states: To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations". If we accept that paragraph I do not see how anyone can subscribe to that principle if they keep arms.

I believe that everyone in Northern Ireland looks forward to a permanent peace. We must be careful that we recognise the word "permanent" and do not rush into something that will only last for a short time. We must think the matter out properly and listen to everyone who is concerned. As an Ulster Unionist I say that the Government will receive our full support in any sensible measures to bring about permanent peace.

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that the 20 minute period is up, but if it were left to this House we could reach an accommodation quite quickly. I am grateful for what the noble Lord said and note his reservations about paragraph 34. However, the constructive way in which he and the leader of his party have responded is an extremely good omen for the future.