HL Deb 03 April 2001 vol 624 cc726-41

3.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, since the House last considered this issue on 16th May 2000, when it approved the existing amnesty period extension order, we have achieved significant political progress in Northern Ireland. Devolution has been operating successfully for 10 months. This period has seen the publication of the first Budget by a local Northern Ireland politician for over 30 years and agreement by the Executive on a programme for government, endorsed by the Assembly as a whole. Local politicians have demonstrated that it is possible for individuals from different sides of the political divide to work together for the common good.

Progress has continued to be made on the implementation of every aspect of the Belfast agreement. New arrangements are being put in place to enhance the protection of individual rights and opportunities. The Government have moved ahead with policing reforms and remain committed to creating a police service for Northern Ireland that has the trust and respect of everyone in the community. The Government expect to publish draft legislation shortly which will implement many of the recommendations made by the Criminal Justice Review.

The British and Irish governments and all of the pro-agreement parties have remained in regular and close contact and have continued to demonstrate their commitment to the agreement. The Prime Minister has made two visits to Northern Ireland this year, first in January and again in March, during which he held useful and constructive discussions. From these it clearly emerged that all participants wanted to see substantial progress made on all of the outstanding aspects of the Belfast agreement by June of this year.

With decommissioning, progress has continued to be slower than any of us would have wished. Even so, there has been some movement. Following the IRA statement of 6th May, there have been two separate inspections of a number of IRA weapons dumps. On each occasion, the independent inspectors, Martti Ahtisaari and Cyril Ramaphosa, reported that they had seen a significant number of weapons and that the IRA was serious in its pursuit of peace. After the second inspection they were also able to report that the arms dumps had not been tampered with in the intervening period.

Two weeks ago, the IRA re-engaged with the de Chastelain commission. In their recent report on 22nd March, the commissioners stated that this re-engagement was "in good faith" and that they believed that progress could soon be made.

None of this is to deny that the process is still beset with difficulties and uncertainties. We have yet to secure what we all wish to see: the start to actual decommissioning; and the removal of the bomb and the bullet from Northern Ireland politics for good. That is why it remains important for us to keep in place all of the mechanisms which will make decommissioning possible. The amnesty period extension order is one such mechanism.

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 the 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. The initial period had to end before 27th February 1998, but the Act gave the Secretary of State power by order to extend the scheme by a maximum of 12 months at any one time. Four such orders have been made to date. Under the order made in May last year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 19th May this year.

The day appointed in any order must not be more than five years after the passing of the 1997 Act, and this five-year period will end at midnight on 26th February 2002. The order currently before the House appoints 27th February 2002 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. This is the maximum extent permitted under that Act.

The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach said at Hillsborough Castle on 5th May last year that, the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Agreement can be achieved by June 2001". This remains the Government's position. However, as the legislation currently stands, all decommissioning—including decommissioning by loyalist groups—would have to be completed by 19th May, which is when the current amnesty period will expire. This is clearly unrealistic. That is why the Government are bringing this order before the House today.

In preparing this order, we obviously had to consider what was the optimum date for extending the amnesty period. One possibility was to set a June date. However, the Government concluded that inviting the House to agree an extension of only a few weeks was not sensible.

The reality is that decommissioning is a voluntary act, and it is not only the IRA which must decommission. Some of the loyalist groups which are committed to the agreement have made it clear that they will only consider decommissioning after the IRA has made tangible progress itself. So, while we want to see decommissioning take place by June, it would be unhelpful to treat that as a deadline after which the scheme would cease to be available. We want the decommissioning commission to be able to deal effectively with all groups which still have illegally held weapons. In our judgment, it would be counterproductive not to have some flexibility over timing.

To come back to the House in June for an extension for a further period would not, we believe, have been helpful. We believe that it is far better to extend the present arrangements for the full nine-month period permitted by the legislation, which is, of course, a shorter period than the House has endorsed on a number of previous occasions.

The Government share the frustration of many noble Lords over the intractability of the decommissioning issue. However, in our view, there is no sensible alternative but to keep working away at it. This order creates the framework in which we can continue to do that. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

3.15 p.m.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for moving the order. With certain reservations, which I shall speak to, we support the need for the order.

As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, at the time of the Good Friday agreement, full implementation was expected by May 2000. That date is long gone and a lot of history has past since then. Last year, the governments in Dublin and London set a new date of June 2001. That date has not yet arrived, but the noble and learned Lord is moving the order in the anticipation that nothing will happen before June this year. Although I understand where the noble and learned Lord is coming from, I am sorry about that in many respects.

I believe that the Government are making a serious mistake in deciding to extend the period to 27th February 2002 because it sends a number of wrong messages. First, it is quite clear that an enormous amount of continuous pressure is required on the republicans—and, indeed, on the loyalists—to get them to move at all. This order will lift the pedal—it will lift the pressure off them—and they will assume that nothing is expected of them until somewhere around January/February 2002.

Secondly, February 2002 is the wire; it is the end; it is the deadline for the Act as it stands. That could well give the next government—I hope that they will be of my party—considerable problems. We have heard and seen how incredibly difficult it is to get the decommissioning that we all want, and I feel that a deadline of 27th February 2002 risks backing the government of the day into a tight corner.

I believe that Sinn Fein/IRA can deliver if it chooses to do so arid if there is sufficient pressure. The organisation is run by its army council. As Peter Robinson MP did in another place yesterday, I shall name that army council. He said: What is the highest level of the Provisional IRA? It is its army council. Who is on the army council of the Provisional IRA? The chief of staff is Thomas 'Slab' Murphy. The assistant chief is Brian Keenan. The other members are Martin McGuinness, the Minister of Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly: Gerard Adams, leader of Sinn Fein; Martin Ferris, another Sinn Fein member; Patrick Doherty, another Sinn Fein member; and Brian Gillen. They are the seven members of the army council of the Provisional IRA, a majority of whom are members of Sinn Fein".—[official Report. Commons, 2/4/01; col. 144.] They are members of the political party that calls itself Sinn Fein and which takes part in our devolved government in Stormont. The point I am making is that they control the Provisional IRA. I am not suggesting that they control the Real IRA or the other dissident groups, but if there is sufficient pressure, and if they think it is right, they can set the scene for decommissioning.

The republican movement is a master of the two strategies described by the acronym "TUAS": "Totally Unarmed Struggle" and "Tactical Use of the Armed Struggle". These two strategies are run side by side, and we have watched their success for years. It is now time for Sinn Fein/IRA to end the ambiguity and deliver on decommissioning. If it does, as the noble and learned Lord indicated in opening, we believe that the loyalists are prepared and ready to follow.

However, the republicans still believe that there is more to be gained by continuing with the TUAS strategies. This can perhaps be demonstrated by the fact that, even now, they are informing their West Belfast constituents in a leaflet that they have succeeded in ridding them of the RUC and that the police reservists will be off the streets by next year. I am fearful that such a situation may come to pass. I understand from the press that the Chief Constable and most of the top echelon of the RUC will be gone by the summer of 2002. The comments of Mr Pat Armstrong, the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, when presenting the policing plan for 2001–02, lead me to believe that he has serious doubt that there will be sufficient resources available to police the Province for the next year while implementing the new structures required by Patten and the Northern Ireland Police Act.

I make these points because the situation is still very serious. I know that we have had no bullets in public and no big bombs for a few years, but they have not gone away. We still have the growing threat of the Real IRA and Continuity IRA. We believe that there are leakages of arms and technology from the Provisionals to the dissident groups—although, as I said, we do not necessarily believe that Adams, McGuinness and company in the army council have much control over them. Added to that, we have a serious escalation of organised crime, as has been recently recognised by the RUC and the establishment of a new special task force to tackle it.

Whatever happens over the election period—regrettably for Northern Ireland this will be a prolonged and extended period—the Government must not take their eyes off the escalating problems in Northern Ireland. However, an extension to the amnesty period is clearly necessary and, with those reservations, I support the order.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, on these Benches we shall support the extension of the decommissioning period for a further nine months. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship it must be asked how long the Government envisage the situation continuing. It is questionable how far the peace process is served by such regular extensions, which are becoming all too predictable. Certainly, it hardly enhances the standing of Parliament to be associated with what is becoming something of a charade.

It is equally true that too much has been invested politically in the act of decommissioning per se, which, as almost everyone acknowledges, would be almost wholly symbolic. The reality is that Provisional IRA weapons are not, and have not been, in use for some time—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, there may have been some seepage to other Republican paramilitary bodies. The fact of non-usage has to be acknowledged, as does the increased activity of the loyalist paramilitaries, which again does not assist in progressing the Belfast agreement. Both points need to be factored in to the equation that comprises contemporary politics in Northern Ireland.

Let us hope that after the general election a more normal politics can be established so that people can get on with building a democratic society. I know that that is asking a lot in the context of Northern Ireland, but it means a reduction in symbolism arid its associated rhetoric. That would be a real act of decommissioning.

Can the Government estimate when substantive moves in decommissioning are likely? What position will the Government take if nothing positive has occurred by 27th February next year? I regret to say that in the light of experience that is not a hypothetical question.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, as has been said, the introduction of the extension order merely confirms the well-founded suspicion that the parent Act of 1997 was always intended to be a moveable feast. It is for that very reason that the government of the day—and they are not the only guilty ones—found it necessary to come back and literally humiliate Parliament by inviting Members to engage in something that was clearly unworkable and could not be sustained. It is a further insult to law-abiding citizens that terrorists are to be granted still further amnesty, despite the fact that not one ounce of Semtex and not one bullet has been surrendered after all these years.

Against the advice of those of us who had first-hand experience in these matters over many years, both Houses of Parliament—I suppose with the best of intentions and a degree of optimism—gave unconditional approval to the Belfast agreement, which insisted that all weapons must be handed over by 22nd May 2000. Sadly, that date came and went and every single undertaking was dishonoured. All that happened was that when both governments sounded tough we had the appearance—but only the appearance—of movement on the part of the terrorists, both republican and loyalist. That appearance usually took the form of a mere telephone call to the de Chastelain commission, which was always welcomed and labelled by the commission as "encouraging developments"—that was the summary of a mere telephone call. A telephone call was "sold" by government Ministers and others who should have known better as "a breakthrough".

On a lighter note, I suppose that we can safely assume that as the next deadline approaches in June, one Mr P O'Neill—who I understand from the list is not a paid-up member of the army council but lends his pen name to all communiqués of any significance—will have collected sufficient coins to telephone de Chastelain and the telephone call will pass as another "encouraging development". Should the supply of coins be sufficient to finance a lengthy discussion, I believe that the de Chastelain commission would feel bound to proclaim "a breakthrough".

The noble and learned Lord echoed yesterday's Statement at the Dispatch Box in another place by the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for security, Mr Adam Ingram, who quoted the joint statement on 5th May last year by the British and Irish Prime Ministers that, the remaining steps necessary to secure full implementation of the Agreement can be achieved by June 2001". Mr Ingram added: That remains the Government's position. We are absolutely clear that we want to see substantial progress on decommissioning by June [this year]".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/01; col. 134.] The significance of these undertakings will not be lost on the Northern Ireland electorate in the month of June. If the two governments indulge this time in any form of fudge or slippage, they will expose to electoral annihilation those Ulster politicians who have been forced repeatedly to make concessions, only to be abandoned and betrayed. Unfortunately, that will be the view of the electorate.

The electorate needs to know, not in June but now, exactly what will happen, not if but when the latest deadline produces no result whatever. Will Her Majesty's Government calmly accept the collapse of the Belfast agreement, the Assembly and the Executive, complete with its two IRA army council members? If there are no plans for a workable alternative, I have to ask the Minister—I understand that there may be limits on what he can say now—whether the Government have prepared a contingency plan, as all governments do in all circumstances, for continuing sound administration in Northern Ireland, appropriately protected from the mushrooming paramilitary bodies and gangs? In that context, I want to emphasise that one of the most dangerous groups of gangs are those of the drug barons on the so-called loyalist side, particularly in North Belfast. There are Members of this House who have more detailed knowledge of the threat posed by those bodies in that part of the city.

The Government will find such a plan for the future good governance of Northern Ireland set out in the Conservative Party manifesto for 1979. It recognised the unworkability of full-blooded legislative devolution and proposed instead a modest administrative structure not far removed from the present, seemingly workable, structure that operates in Wales. I have quoted a political party, but the idea was endorsed by more than just members of that party. Section 22 of the 1979 Conservative manifesto was endorsed by 14½ million electors in the United Kingdom in general.

My suggestion might appear to ignore the continuing menace of political armies, but fortunately—and encouragingly—in the past few weeks we have seen a very convincing remedy to terrorism. The limited incidence of foot and mouth in the area on the Irish frontier caused the immediate sealing of the frontier by a massive array of security forces based in the Irish Republic. So effective has been that operation, mainly on the Irish side of the frontier, that the repeated question has, quite understandably, been asked: why was this not done years ago to prevent the terrorist murders of over 3,000 British citizens? Given that terrorists operate in the main from the Irish Republic, where de Chastelain and company confirmed that all of the arms dumps are situated, surely the continued sealing of the frontier by Irish security forces, both Garda and army, would be the logical consequence of the utter collapse of the decommissioning fiasco?

Finally, I have to say that there would be full cooperation from the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland in any course upon which Her Majesty's Government decided to embark, both as far as concerns real security and the work of stable government in Northern Ireland. It is no excuse to say, as has been said by a Member of this House who is presently absent from the Chamber, that those plans made in 1979 were not enough. Of course, they were not enough to fulfil the ambitions of people on all sides of the argument. But had they been implemented, they would have started on firm foundations and literally thereafter there would have been no limit to what could have been achieved.

3.30 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I believe that everyone present agrees about the disgust we feel for the lack of decommissioning of terrorist weapons. This extension order shows how government policy has failed in this respect. I do not say that in an effort to try to get at the Government: it is a fact that that has failed. I should like to add one point. This decommissioning is only the tip of the iceberg of terrorist infrastructure, which includes such issues as intimidation, fraud and smuggling.

Let us take the latter as an example. I trust that noble Lords will at least believe what I am about to say, and that they will definitely share some affinity with it. I have in mind foot and mouth disease. The smuggling that is endemic in South Armagh is the cause of Ireland's problems with foot and mouth today in its totality. As I understand it, what happened is that lambs were bought in Longtown market. They were then transported to Northern Ireland to be slaughtered. According to the driver of the transporter, who appeared on television, he arrived too late to go to the abattoir. He took the lambs to South Armagh so that, so far as he was concerned, they could be put in a field for the night.

At that point, or sometime shortly afterwards, the tags were removed from those animals and they were sent on to the Republic of Ireland. It would appear that the farmer, or someone close to the field where the lambs were placed for the night, decided to keep about 35 of them—perhaps because they were nice ewe lambs, or whatever. It was one of those animals that subsequently developed foot and mouth disease. The remainder of the lambs are untraceable at the moment because the tags were taken out of their ears. In all probability, they went on—some of them definitely did—to an abattoir in Roscommon where they were slaughtered. However, there is no record of them because their tags were removed. A large hunt was subsequently launched for the lambs purely because there is no record of their being killed. That sort of activity has been going on for years in—dare one say it?—terrorist-controlled South Armagh.

When lambs are slaughtered in the Republic of Ireland, the belief is that they are then sold as "Irish lamb" to the French, or whoever. Not surprisingly, that has an added value because the French prefer Irish lamb. However, they are being conned: they are not Irish lambs. It is smuggled meat. This is the cause of our foot and mouth outbreak in Ireland. As I said, arms decommissioning is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Minister mentioned the benefits that we have received in Northern Ireland. I agree with the noble and learned Lord in that respect. For example, we have the Assembly and we are able to manage our own budget. But what many people do not understand is the fact that the people of the North and South of Ireland are still being held to ransom by every other activity that these evil men lay on us. It is perhaps the unseen side of the story that people do not realise is still going on. I believe that we have not had one single weapon handed over. We shall not get anywhere until we have achieved that objective.

The decommissioning of weapons is vital. This Government must push for it. They must insist upon it. Although I support the extension order, we cannot continue extending it. Food health and hygiene—whether it is a matter of BSE, foot and mouth, or illegally-imported meat—is so important at the borders of this country with the rest of Europe, or outside it. If we do not sort out the problem now, it will happen again.

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux said, not one single ounce of Semtex—or, indeed, one bullet—has been surrendered? Further, can he confirm that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, not one weapon has been handed over? In all conscience, if that has been the position since 1997, the amnesty order having been extended to June 2001 and now to be extended to 27th February 2002, cannot we just say that this is a charade?

I am not so sure that it is such a bad thing, as everyone is saying. I guess that there has been some sort of reduction in the ghastly killings in Northern Ireland that have taken place since 1969. Perhaps we must have this fig-leaf going on indefinitely, in perpetuity. Is it not a bit of a charade to say that we shall extend it now until 27th February 2002? Could we not just extend it indefinitely?

Lord Dubs

My Lords, it seems to me that every day that devolved government goes on working is a day that contributes to peace. The longer we have devolution working successfully alongside a peace process, albeit with flaws, the better the chance of winning through in the end. Further, based on my experiences in Northern Ireland, it is my firm belief that both sides—that is, both the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Fein—have very little margin for political manoeuvre. The difficulties of the Ulster Unionist Party are open and transparent; indeed, we can all understand them because they are the subject of public debate. However, the difficulties that Sinn Fein faces in terms of its own organisation and its relationship with the IRA are not quite so obvious because it keeps them secret. I believe that Sinn Fein's difficulties are every bit as great as those of David Trimble as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.

It would be a disastrous outcome for the peace process if there were to be a bigger split in the IRA than we have already seen through the hiving off of the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA. If Gerry Adams were to lose control of a larger proportion of the IRA membership, that would spell doom to the peace process. We should be more understanding of the difficulties that he faces within his organisation than is perhaps obvious in public utterances. Although I have no evidence, I suspect that some of the difficulties about achieving decommissioning are that the leadership of Sinn Fein, who, I believe, do want peace, feel that they have very little margin for manoeuvre. That is why the decommissioning process is taking such a long time. I believe that there has been a small amount of decommissioning by the LVF, but clearly there has not been the substantial element of decommissioning that we would all have wished.

I do not believe that the process is a charade. I believe that it is an important process. Enormous progress has been made in Northern Ireland since devolution but it is not reflected in the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. For the majority of people in Northern Ireland there is peace and more prosperity, and the economy is doing well. We should not so readily dismiss the gains that have been made because not everything has yet been achieved. Decommissioning is important and, of course, it is right that the Government should pursue it.

The two greatest threats to the agreement are the paramilitaries on both sides who are not on ceasefire—we know who they are—and if we were to lose belief in the peace process. The order is important because it is a sign that decommissioning must take place. However, we must not lose faith in the peace process. That is what we are offering the people of Northern Ireland. It is important that they understand that we realise their difficulties but we also understand the enormous progress that has been made.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he implied that some of us spoke in a totally depressing manner and did not appreciate that any good had come out of the agreement. I think that I speak for all of us who come from Northern Ireland. We all appreciate very much what has come out of it, perhaps more than is realised. However, what we cannot do—dare I say it?—is waste people's time going over that kind of ground when we are talking about decommissioning and the problems brought about by it.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I understand what the noble Viscount says. My point is simply that in this and other debates on Northern Ireland not much is said about the progress that has been made and the improvement in the quality of life that has been achieved for the bulk of the people in Northern Ireland, even if, understandably, the debates concentrate on the progress that has so far not been achieved.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, this order is a facilitating measure that provides a legal climate in which decommissioning could take place.

By suspending the normal criminal law, and providing an amnesty for those who become involved in the process of decommissioning, we remove an important legal barrier and facilitate that process. In this sense I endorse the order, but my support is qualified and I shall return to my reservation shortly.

We are all aware of the importance of decommissioning, of its importance in the political process and of its status as a central plank of the Belfast agreement. Many government Ministers, both in this House and in another place, have on numerous occasions confirmed that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same organisation with an interchangeable membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated earlier. Indeed, according to some of last Sunday's press, it has an interchangeable leadership also.

All the signatories to the agreement—that includes Sinn Fein/IRA—in paragraph three of the decommissioning chapter, accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms". In order fully to implement the agreement it is necessary that actual decommissioning takes place. The process of decommissioning was to take place within two years of the signing of the Belfast agreement and be completed by May of last year. This aspect of the agreement precipitated the second and third incarnation of this order, with the third such order merely extending the amnesty from February to May of last year in accordance with the agreement.

This short extension of the order to bring the legal deadline in line with the political one seemed to have been a factor in republicans beginning to recognise their commitments under the agreement and in their giving an undertaking to put weapons completely and verifiably beyond use.

With expectations of definite progress at that point, in May last year, the fourth incarnation of this order was approved. It is the expiry of the extension provided by the fourth order that necessitates the extension provided by this order before us today.

Regrettably, the potential provided by last May was not realised and Sinn Fein/IRA did not engage with the independent international commission to discuss the methods and procedural aspects of decommissioning with a view to putting their weapons beyond use.

Another year on we see a belated gesture by Sinn Fein/IRA of an undertaking for further contact with the decommissioning body. This further contact, just shy of the June deadline, has created renewed expectation for closure of the decommissioning issue.

I have a reservation with respect to the extension period of the amnesty in this order to February of next year. I feel that it has the effect of to an extent distracting attention from the clear June deadline. I am aware of the argument that if republicans meet the June political deadline the legal period for an amnesty will need to be such as to permit loyalist paramilitaries to follow. Indeed, hopes of loyalist decommissioning have been increased by the de Chastelain report of last month. That report, referring to recent contact between de Chastelain and the UVF and UFF noted the progress on modalities, on which there was general agreement, and in the renewed commitment of those organisations to the principle of decommissioning.

Such references were unfortunately conspicuous by their absence in the general's report on recent contact with Sinn Fein/IRA—only a basis for further discussion was evident.

An end of the legal amnesty and facilitation period in June would have gone some way to concentrating the minds of those who have the ability to bring closure on the issue of decommissioning. References to the June target date should not be misconstrued. June is both the target and deadline for product on this issue. Without that necessary progress June will signify the expiry of de Chastelain's mandate without renewal.

This order has a simple effect prolonging the amnesty period to the maximum provided for under the 1997 Act, but it must not be forgotten that this extension will not be necessary without progress in terms of product by June. I am hopeful that the Minister can reassure me that he too shares my focus and emphasis on the June deadline and the necessity for further progress by this date.

Although slow progress on this issue has been made so far, I share, with the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the hope that by June we shall be in a position where full implementation of the Belfast agreement is a reality and there is closure on the issue of decommissioning.

Lord Renton

My Lords, your Lordships may be surprised at my taking part in a debate on Northern Ireland at all for it is nearly 40 years since I had a ministerial responsibility before there was a Northern Ireland Office and when the Home Office was the link between the Stormont government and the United Kingdom government. For three and a half years of that time I played a part in forming that link. Since then I have been to Northern Ireland a number of times and I have taken a close interest in Northern Ireland affairs. I should like to say first of all that I naturally support all the efforts that the Government are making.

I have only two points to raise, but they are fundamental. First, I remain of the opinion I formed when I had that responsibility many years ago that the main reason for the IRA's effectiveness is the financial help it has received, mainly from the United States. I know that British Prime Ministers from both parties have made representations to Presidents of the United States about this important and delicate matter. I do not ask the Government for a specific reply today on the issue; I merely say that they should continue to concentrate on it if they wish to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.

The Government may not be in a strong position to answer my second point. We are discussing an order that specifies that decommissioning must take place by February 2002. If there has been no decommissioning by then, what sanction is there to enforce it?

Baroness Blood

My Lords, I shall not rehearse what my noble friends from Northern Ireland have said. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland is awash with guns, but we are also awash with words. I do not oppose the order. We have talked about its effect. In Northern Ireland it will be viewed in two ways. One side will say, "We have pushed the deadline back almost another year", and the other side will say, "There you see, they are winning again".

We have to be careful about what we say because in Northern Ireland words can be every bit as dangerous as guns. Less than a fortnight ago, the Secretary of State assured the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning was on track for June. People took that on board. Now, although the process is still on track for June, there is a provision to push the date back. We have to be careful about how our words will be interpreted.

Throughout Northern Ireland we are fed a daily diet of what she said, what he said, and what it means. Will the Minister assure me that the Secretary of State will go out of his way to explain exactly what the order means to the people in Northern Ireland who are interested?

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that debates on Northern Ireland are always doom and gloom. My response is simple: why should I be ecstatic about having a normal life? I am a United Kingdom citizen, just like everybody else here. I expect to have a normal life. I do not expect to have to say that I am glad that this happened or that happened. We do not have normal life in Northern Ireland. We have gangsters, thugs and drugs and the place is awash with guns. We must do something about that. Pushing the deadline back year after year will not solve the problem. We have a saying back in Northern Ireland that nothing concentrates the mind like a hanging. We need to get to that.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for supporting the extension order, subject to his point about the date, and I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Smith, Lord Dubs and Lord Rogan, for supporting the order. I shall certainly take the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, to be very careful about what I say in my reply.

A number of noble Lords have asked why the extension should be until February next year. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked why we did not extend it indefinitely and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others asked why we did not opt for a shorter period. The primary Act gives the Government power only to extend until February 2002. We have not abandoned June as our target date for decommissioning. But it is a target, not a deadline. That is why we need the extension order. If decommissioning is to happen, the order is essential to ensure that the necessary immunities remain in place after 19th May, when they would otherwise expire.

We are still committed to making substantial progress on decommissioning by the end of June. However, it is a voluntary process that involves loyalist paramilitaries as well as the IRA. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported on 22nd March, just a few days ago, that the loyalists will not decommission before the IRA. We need to provide a context in which all paramilitary organisations are able to give up their weaponry. That is what the order is designed to do. We could not effectively achieve that if June was the deadline, given that the loyalists will decommission only after the IRA. In those circumstances, looking at the issue in the round, the sensible course appeared to be to extend it until February. However, I must make it clear that we are still committed to making substantial progress on decommissioning by the end of June.

Anyone who wants to know what will be achieved by the end of June should ask the commission. It is very important that credible progress is made at the earliest possible moment.

General de Chastelain has always said that he would tell us if he and his colleagues concluded that decommissioning was not going to happen. They have not yet so told us, so we think that it is worth going on.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the pressures on the RUC and the loss of experienced officers. He is right to refer to that, but it is worth seeking some encouragement from the nearly 8,000 applications that have now been received in response to the first recruiting campaign for 240 vacancies in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, asked us to estimate when substantive decommissioning would begin. As I said, that is a matter for General de Chastelain and his commission. However, we are clear that a creditable start to decommissioning must be made soon.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, and others asked what we would do if decommissioning was not completed by next February. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, the present legislation runs out in February. It would be for Parliament to consider nearer the time what provision, if any, should apply for decommissioning thereafter. It is too soon to speculate today on what we would do.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, invited me to speculate about certain contingencies and asked what plans the Government have made. He also asked me to take inspiration from the 1979 Conservative Party manifesto. With regret, I fear that I must decline that tempting invitation.

The noble Lord also referred to the sealing of the border in certain circumstances. I assure him that the Government have no intention of taking any risks with security and do not in any way underestimate the continuing threat. That is why we still have 13,500 troops in Northern Ireland. That is considerably more than the 8,000 that we would require for a normal peacetime garrison.

Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the difficulty of sealing the border for any length of time or the disruption that would be caused to normal social and economic life. It would be an admission of defeat if such a measure became a routine part of life in Northern Ireland.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister at this late stage in his speech. I thought that I had made it clear that the Irish army and police had sealed the frontier efficiently. I simply said that what they can do on one occasion, surely they can do with equal efficiency on another.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I entirely understood that point. My response was that it would be a great disruption of normal life for Northern Ireland if sealing the border in those circumstances became the norm.

The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, talked about smuggling and the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, referred to organised crime. Since September 2000, my right honourable friend Adam Ingram, the Minister of State, has been chairing a task force to counter the threat of organised crime in Northern Ireland. The work of that task force is already well under way.

Last week a number of important developments took place. On 23rd March, my right honourable friend in another place launched the first threat assessment of organised crime and announced the strategy that is being adopted to confront that threat. On 19th March he announced a small business payment assistance scheme and introduced the Northern Ireland launch of a nationwide initiative, "Bank Note Watch". A private sector consultation exercise was also initiated.

The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked whether it was true that no weapons had been destroyed in the course of the decommissioning process. It is not quite true. In December 1998, the Loyalist Volunteer Force destroyed some weapons under the supervision of the commission. The commission described it as, a small but significant quantity". Nevertheless, the fundamental point that the noble Baroness made is that progress has been very disappointing. That obviously remains true.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made the point that the non-renewal of the amnesty will mean the end of the de Chastelain mandate. That is not so. The mandate of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning flows from the international agreement—Treaty 54 of 1997—between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and this series of amnesty orders have no direct bearing on the establishment of the de Chastelain commission. I hope that I have answered all the main points raised during the course of this short debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.