HL Deb 16 February 1999 vol 597 cc619-27

7.42 p.m.

Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on his appointment to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I had excellent co-operation with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and I trust that there will be a similar level of co-operation with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, even though I expect that his comments on government policy will at times be robust and forthright.

The order appoints 24th February 2000 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end.

The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.

Section 2 of the 1997 Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period and that it must end before 27th February 1998 (the first anniversary of the Act's passing) unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made such an order last year and, under that order, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 26th February this year.

The day appointed in any order must not be more than a year after the making of the order or more than five years after the passing of the 1997 Act. The day appointed by the present order is 24th February 2000.

Since last year's order was made, a great deal has happened in Northern Ireland. More political progress has been achieved than many people would have thought possible a year ago. This culminated in the Belfast agreement which was reached by the Northern Ireland parties on 10th April last year. All the parties to that agreement reaffirmed their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirmed their intention to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, and to use any influence they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years of the agreement being endorsed, that is by May 2000.

In the agreement, the two governments undertook to take all necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process, including bringing the relevant schemes into force by the end of June last year, which we duly did. If we are to fulfil our commitment under the agreement it is essential that we extend, by this order, the period during which the scheme may declare an amnesty.

In December 1998, the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) became the first paramilitary group to make use of the scheme, decommissioning what the independent commission described as a "small but significant" quantity of weapons. The Government welcomed this positive gesture: it represented another step towards a peaceful long-term future for Northern Ireland. The bulk of the weapons, however, remain in the hands of the paramilitaries. This is clearly unacceptable.

The Government have made clear to Sinn Fein and to the Loyalist parties that decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement and that it must happen. It is time for violence and the threat of violence to be taken out of politics for ever and for all sides to demonstrate that they are totally committed to peaceful and democratic means. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for; that is what the people long for.

We are now entering a crucial phase in the political process leading up to the transfer of powers to locally elected politicians in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Decommissioning, more than any other single step, would help to build the confidence necessary for these new institutions to operate. The way to achieve that objective, of course, is for the agreement to be implemented in full and for all the parties to live up to their obligations.

That is what the Government have been doing since last May. In that time, we have accomplished much: the assembly has been established; the reviews of policing and criminal justice have begun; the Northern Ireland Act has been passed; the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission are being set up; the accelerated release of paramilitary prisoners is being taken forward and there has been a steady but prudent normalisation of security measures.

Taken together, this represents a tremendous amount of progress, demonstrating beyond doubt the two governments' commitment to implement all aspects of the agreement. It is now essential that all parties move quickly to fulfil their commitments. That will mean a start to decommissioning; it will mean the executive committee being set up; it will mean early meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. None of this is going to be easy. Difficult decisions will have to be made, but I have no doubt that the will of the people is for these difficulties to be tackled and tackled now.

As I said, the Government remain totally committed to the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. As part of that commitment, it is essential that we continue to provide the means by which terrorist weapons can be taken out of circulation. This amnesty period order is central to those arrangements. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

My Lords, everyone who wishes to see the destruction of illegally held arms under the scheme provided by the Act to which the Minister has referred must surely wish to agree to this order, because unless the order is approved the scheme will lapse and there can be no means by which decommissioning—that is to say, the destruction and the taking out of use of these weapons—can take place. To that extent there is, of course, no contest.

However, for my part, I do not think that this occasion should be a pure formality. I suggest to your Lordships that there are two matters at any rate that ought to be referred to. The first, of course, has already been mentioned by the Minister, and that is that with one exception—welcome, but small, in the case of the LVF—no decommissioning has taken place at all. As we all know, this is undermining confidence. It is immensely serious. It cannot be claimed that the terms of the scheme are other than very generous and very comprehensive. The safeguards which the scheme provides go further than could reasonably be expected by anybody who had signed up to the agreement in good faith.

The retention of these arms is in conflict with the dominating theme of the Good Friday agreement, which appears on the very first page on the declaration of support. The theme is that all participants commit themselves, totally and absolutely, to peaceful means of resolving issues of political import. That is the dominating theme. It ran through all the discussions and is really the core of the agreement. You cannot claim that you are subscribing to that and fulfilling that commitment if you are, at the same time, retaining arsenals of weapons to fortify yourself.

I appreciate that the agreement is silent upon any specific date by which decommissioning has to begin. But, 10 months later, what prospect do the Government see of securing further decommissioning—in other words, what answer do the Government foresee to their repeated question of not whether, but when? Is it not a fundamental principle of the agreement that decommissioning shall take place? What is the remedy if it does not take place? Alternatively, put another way, what is the sanction if it does not take place? I have good reason to realise how difficult these judgments are and tonight does not give scope to the noble Lord to provide comprehensive answers. But the need for answers is burgeoning and cannot much longer be postponed if confidence is to be saved.

One other matter should be mentioned. It is surely right to salute this evening the dedicated, impartial and resolute efforts of General John de Chastelain, the chairman of the international independent commission set up under this scheme for the purpose of decommissioning. He has spared no effort over all this time in meeting the sensitivities of all those who hold these weapons and in getting decommissioning started. It is no fault of his that his efforts have been almost entirely spurned. I suggest that he deserves the greatest credit and admiration—just as those who fortify their arguments with arsenals of illegal weapons deserve the most forthright condemnation.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the need for and the background to the order. The 1997 enabling Act was taken through this House by my noble friend Lady Denton of Wakefield during the time of the previous government. Because of the nature of the legislation--it is effectively an amnesty and severely limits the ability of the authorities to collect forensic and other information--there are strict time limits on the life of the order and on the Act itself, as explained by the Minister. Next week we will have the opportunity to debate the implementation of the Belfast peace agreement in detail. I therefore do not propose to say too much at this stage, but I welcome the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew.

I have no doubt that the order needs to be renewed without delay in order to keep alive the hope of an early start to decommissioning by all paramilitaries. I say "all" because it is not just the Republican groups which are failing to take advantage of the provisions of the decommissioning order. The so-called Loyalists have just as much to answer for. Indeed, if they all started to decommission as the Loyalist Volunteer Force did last year—a point mentioned by the Minister and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew—the position of the IRA would become rather more stark. On the other hand, it might mean that the IRA would also find it easier to start decommissioning.

I would like to restate one of the principles from the report of the international body chaired by Senator George Mitchell. It was that the decommissioning process should suggest neither victory nor defeat; and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew touched on the sensitivities of decommissioning. The report went on to explain: The ceasefire and the peace process [that we arc now enjoying] are the products not of surrender but rather of a willingness to address differences through political means. This essential fact should be reflected clearly in the modalities of the decommissioning process, which should not require that any party should be seen to surrender". In the event of effective decommissioning we would see a commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues.

We on these Benches welcome the Taioseach's helpful clarification of his position with regard to decommissioning. This afternoon in the Dail he said that there has to be decommissioning. We will not get an executive until that reality is faced.

In conclusion, we fully support the order and look forward to it bearing fruit and leading to a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Lord Redesdale

My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his kind words. I hope that I carry the House in paying tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham, who spoke from these Benches for the past nine years, a period in which the situation in Northern Ireland has been transformed.

The order extends for another year the amnesty period for handing in weapons owned by former paramilitaries. The original Act of 1997 went to great lengths to ensure that there was no possibility of forensic evidence being taken from any weapons which were handed in. We on these Benches accepted that as a necessity in 1997, and we accept it now. Stopping these weapons being used in the future is of overriding importance in these matters.

The Good Friday agreement took this matter forward and led to the establishment of the international body on decommissioning headed by General de Chastelain. As we all know, the agreement called for complete decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons within two years. So, although it is acceptable to extend this legislation for another 12 months, when we come to renew the amnesty next February we do not envisage that it will be necessary to extend it for a further 12 months after that. We believe that the amnesty should be extended only as far as the deadline for decommissioning, as set out in the agreement.

In December, a very public decommissioning of weapons by the LVF led to the legislation being put into practice for the first time. I understand that it was a close run thing. For various reasons, the handover was delayed and the licence to transport the weapons was due to expire only a few hours before the weapons were handed in. Nevertheless, weapons were handed in; they were decommissioned and no forensic evidence was taken. The paramilitary LVF, when it gave up its weapons, went from being the pariah of Loyalist terrorist groups for having been so slow to call their ceasefire, to being one of the most respected groups. The whole operation gave the process in Northern Ireland a very welcome boost of confidence. Decommissioning can work, and it is working.

I mention the circumstances of the LVF handover in December for two reasons. First, to show that this legislation does work; all the mechanics of the decommissioning process were successful. For this we owe a considerable weight of thanks to General de Chastelain, who has done some very important, low profile work on the practicalities of the matter, as was pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.

My other reason for recounting the circumstances of the LVF handover is to explain that the process worked politically. The LVF was not laughed at or mocked for surrendering its weapons. In London and Belfast newspapers that day the word "surrender" did not appear at all. The LVF was not criticised or blamed. Instead, it was the object of much acclaim. Its actions were regarded as honourable and were very widely respected. It is a terror group that did not call a ceasefire until after the Good Friday Agreement. It is now viewed with esteem, which was unimaginable a few months before.

Decommissioning is not an easy business, practically or politically, for the manner in which the LVF decommissioned showed how both these matters have been resolved to the satisfaction of the terror groups. That is the message for Sinn Fein. It has everything to gain by decommissioning and everything to lose if it does not. It should start to decommission sooner rather than later. Already every party in Westminster and every party in the Republic, except Sinn Fein itself, has called on the republicans to make a start on decommissioning. Even the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who has done so much to bring Sinn Fein back into the process, has called for a start to decommissioning.

If Sinn Fein is unsure about the best time to decommission, it should consider it in this way. If it decommissions just a few weapons before 10th March, it will take up its place in the executive amid a torrent of goodwill. If it delays a start to decommissioning until the deadline in the agreement for completing it, the process is sure to be in a much worse state than it is now. If it does not decommission and abandons the agreement that it made last year, the whole business could return to the dark days and the republicans would lose as much as everyone else. So it is in the republicans' own interests to start decommissioning sooner rather than later. I hope that they take heed of this debate and realise that at this point progress is in their gift and, I believe, in their gift alone.

Before I conclude, it is appropriate to mention loyalist decommissioning, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The absence of progress from the UVF and the UFF is as disturbing as the absence of progress from the Provisional IRA. They are out of the spotlight only because their political associates are not destined for a place in the executive. But we expect prompt action from them, too. If the IRA decommissions some weapons, loyalists should be aware that the clamour for them to decommission will be even stronger than the clamour for republicans to do so now.

Lord Rathcavan

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, there is little ground for not agreeing to the order as it is essential to the continuation of the peace process. As I shall not be able to attend the forthcoming debate on Northern Ireland, perhaps I may be excused for making some brief comments on the decommissioning issue.

Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that the huge majority of both communities in Northern Ireland want peace, prosperity and a normal life and are fed up with the posturing and the semantics of decommissioning. I ask the Minister this question. Is it not time that the Prime Minister took a cue from the interview in the Sunday Times with the Taoiseach in which Mr. Ahern, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, clearly indicated that the new power-sharing executive should not proceed without substantial decommissioning? In a further interview in the Irish Times today, he dissented from only one word in that interview. He certainly did not depart from the essential point that was clearly reported. Should not the Prime Minister now join the Taoiseach in confirming that real decommissioning, as defined by the Minister at Question Time today, is the only way forward in fulfilling the wishes and aspirations of that vast majority of people in all parts of Ireland?

The principal physical parties are now so entrenched in putting their parties before the peace process that one of them thinks that decommissioning is surrender and the other one thinks that decommissioning is the road to democracy, power-sharing, devolved government and non-violence. In real life, everyone knows that decommissioning is neither of those, as modern technology in terrorist armouries and other easy access to weaponry offer many routes back to violence, if that is really what the tiny minority want to inflict on the majority in Northern Ireland and indeed on the people of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. It is time to end this charade and escape from the decommissioning cul-de-sac.

For the sake of future generations, the moment has now arrived, after months of prevarication, to appeal to all to compromise, to dig deeper for a solution and to seize this unique opportunity for genuine peace. The decision on decommissioning cannot be postponed much longer without disastrous consequences.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I am entirely happy with the order as it stands. Nevertheless, it occurred to me during Question Time earlier today that it was perhaps just possible that this House was treading into slightly dangerous areas and was perhaps not quite exercising its usual prudence.

We need to bear two points clearly in mind. First, the Belfast agreement provides for a two-year period during which decommissioning can take place. That two-year period is a considerable way from being completed. Secondly, I think it would be unwise to try to establish unnecessary linkages between one set of circumstances and one process and another.

It does not quite become us to try to be the interpreters of remarks made by a neighbouring and friendly Prime Minister. What is important is that the two governments, in this country and in the Republic of Ireland, should continue, as they have now been doing for some time, to stand shoulder to shoulder and to see this process through to a successful conclusion.

Lord Nunburnholme

My Lords, can noble Lords count on their fingers and toes how many bullets and how many weapons have been handed in by the IRA since the Good Friday Agreement?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Perhaps I may deal with the specific points that were mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about the prospects for more decommissioning taking place. We know of no immediate intention on the part of any paramilitary group to decommission. But to prove their commitment to peace, they must do so. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is not a question of whether they will do so; it is a question of when. All the parties are committed to decommissioning because they subscribe to the Good Friday Agreement. It is up to them to prove that commitment in deeds, by decommissioning, and to do so soon.

The noble and learned Lord went on to ask what sanctions the Government have if there is not proper progress towards decommissioning. It was clear under the agreement that all the parties to it were committing themselves to decommissioning of arms, to be completed in two years. If any aspect of the agreement is not working, there are provisions for a review of the agreement. But the Government are clear that this is not the time for such a review. It would not be appropriate to carry out a review at the present time. It is clearly something for which there is scope within the agreement if it was felt that that was the best way forward.

I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, in relation to the work and commitment of General Chastelain. He has shown a commitment in difficult circumstances. He has dealt with the people appointed by the various parties and groups as their link and I very much hope that he will soon have some successes to demonstrate. He certainly deserves our thanks for his commitment and dedication in what he is seeking to do.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in relation to paramilitaries. Of course, it is not only one paramilitary group that must decommission; they must all do so. That is the commitment into which they entered and that is the demand we have the right to make upon them.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned that the LVF had already decommissioned and it is gratifying that it did so. But we want it to decommission the rest of its arms and all the other paramilitary groups to do likewise.

The noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, urged that there should be real decommissioning and that the Prime Minister should take his cue from the Taoiseach in making statements. The Prime Minister has committed himself publicly on many occasions about the need for decommissioning. He has shown a commitment to achieving peace in Northern Ireland unprecedented in a Prime Minister of this country. That commitment remains and I know that he is ready to throw himself into this matter in any way that will help. It is not necessary for him simply to repeat anything that is said by the Taoiseach. His position is very well known and will continue to be stated clearly.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. for reminding us of some of the key aspects of the agreement and indeed it is proper that we should not seek to create linkages where none exist. That would not be the right thing to do, given that we have subscribed completely to the agreement. But that is not to say that we should not press the paramilitaries to decommission and to start doing so now.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, we have not had any decommissioning; there has not been a single bullet decommissioned by the IRA. It is a demand of them and the other paramilitaries that they should do so. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, this order makes it possible for decommissioning to happen. It is a precondition for further decommissioning for the next year and therefore it is necessary to have it so that people can hand in their guns and explosives. I hope very much that they will do so as soon as possible. I commend the order to the House.

On Question. Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.42 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The sitting was suspended from 8.13 to 8.42 p. m.]