Northern Ireland

HL Deb 06 May 2003 vol 647 cc1072-84

10.50 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr. Speaker, with permission. I should like to make a Statement about political developments in Northern Ireland. I reported to the House last Thursday on our assessment of the state of Northern Ireland political dialogue, and our regretful conclusion that the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, due on 29th May., must once again be postponed. We thought it right to announce that decision to the House as soon as possible, given that the election campaign was beginning. But the result was that many honourable Members from Northern Ireland or interested! in its affairs were unable to be present.

"I said, therefore, that I would return this week to say something more, giving those honourable Members who wished to participate in discussion a chance to come here. I am now also able to report on the discussions in Dublin today between the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and colleagues, including myself.

"In my earlier Statement, I recalled that, since the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland on 15th October last year, we had made a great deal of headway in discussions between the two governments and the parties there, aimed at completing the implementation of the Belfast agreement, including full restoration of the institutions. A comprehensive and detailed set of proposals had been drawn up by the governments, capable, we believed, of achieving broad support among the parties.

"We published those proposals last Thursday. They consisted of a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments setting out a vision of the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with detailed annexes on security normalisation, devolution of policing and justice and human rights, equality and identity.

"There was also an agreement between the two governments on how to monitor the parties' and the governments' honouring of commitments set out in the agreement and joint declaration, along with arrangements for remedying breaches of those commitments.

"Finally, we set out a scheme for the handling of the cases of those on the run for terrorist offences.

"But from the start, both governments had made it clear that, as the Prime Minister and Taoiseach put it on 14th October, 'it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion. "Unfortunately, a draft statement by the IRA and subsequent comments by Gerry Adams were neither clear nor unambiguous. And without clarity, there could be no trust between parties—and no early return for devolved government in Northern Ireland.

"The question that the Prime Minister—and the people of Northern Ireland—wanted the IRA to answer was a simple one. Will the IRA call a halt to all the activities listed in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration? Will it stop the so-called punishment beatings? Will it stop the targeting and the procurement of weapons? Will it stop inciting people to not on the streets of Northern Ireland? Those are simple questions, to which there should be a simple answer—yes or no.

"The IRA has tonight published its statement. As the two governments acknowledged at the time, it represented some progress. But Members of this House and the people of Northern Ireland can read it and judge for themselves whether it answers the fundamental question posed by my right honourable friend: does it mean the definitive end to all the paramilitary activity referred to in the joint declaration?

"The view of both governments is that it does not. It is not a clear and unambiguous statement. Without that clarity, there can be no trust and, therefore, with great regret, we concluded that elections should be further postponed. We shall introduce later this week, and propose to debate next week, a Bill to authorise this postponement. We hope that the election will be held in the autumn.

"I know the concern felt by many at this further delay and at the late stage at which it was announced. There is also a frustration on the part of many members of the political parties who had geared themselves up for a mighty effort, which is now abruptly halted.

I well understand these feelings.

"This was for us a very difficult decision. But, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and the unique form of government established by the agreement, we believed it was the only course to take. It is clear that, as the political dialogue stands at present, there would not have been the willingness to participate that is necessary to partnership government under the agreement.

"We are planning to bring forward a Bill that will allow us to hold an election as soon as it is clear that the necessary trust between the parties has been reestablished. We hope that that can be in the autumn.

"The Government's course for the future is clear. We will go on seeking to build trust between the communities and hence the foundations for political advance.

"We have had a great deal of success so far: what we are now experiencing, I believe, need be no more than a temporary setback. We are indeed in a position of great strength. Most of those foundations are already there. We have the agreement, and that must be the bedrock of any future progress. It is not something that is open to renegotiation. Indeed, a vast amount of progress has already been made in implementing it, especially in the vital areas of policing and criminal justice. However, it is a further strength that the joint declaration published last week represents a shared understanding between the governments and the pro-agreement parties of how we can proceed to the full and final implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

"That too has been the subject of discussion with all the pro-agreement parties and agreed by the governments. That also is not open to renegotiation.

"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated this evening in Dublin, we shall proceed to implement many elements of the joint declaration which are not conditional upon action by others, for example in the areas of policing, criminal justice, equality, human rights, and some aspects of normalisation. We will also introduce the legislation necessary to set up the Independent Monitoring Body, which will, among other things, report on paramilitary activity.

"But the joint declaration package also contains a number of measures which can only be implemented if there are acts of completion by the IRA. It is a strength of the present position, I believe, that there is such widespread recognition of the benefits that devolution has brought to Northern Ireland, and a wish on all sides to return to a local administration.

"In the coming weeks, the Government will be consulting with all the parties—whatever their position on the agreement—about the best way of bringing devolution back to Northern Ireland as soon as possible.

"Finally, I should remind the House that a key element in the progress that has been made is the close partnership between ourselves and the Irish Government. Without that relationship and the unstinting support of successive US administrations, the transformation that has already occurred in Northern Ireland would not have been possible. In fact, the reason for the late hour of this Statement is that I wanted to report to the House the results of this afternoon's meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, in Dublin. That was an important opportunity for the governments to reaffirm the centrality of their partnership to continuing political progress in Northern Ireland. There was agreement about the implementation of aspects of the joint declaration to which I have already referred.

"I shall continue to work closely with the Irish Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen, to ensure that the political parties in Northern Ireland are encouraged to engage with each other to resolve current difficulties and to re-establish trust.

"We have faced many challenges and setbacks in the five years since the agreement was reached and I will not pretend to the House that the current impasse is not serious. However, we are determined that this obstacle will be overcome—as others have been in the past. The critical issues of trust—over commitment to exclusively peaceful means, and about the stability of the institutions—can be addressed with clear statements of intent from all parties.

"Events in the past few weeks have been deeply disappointing for everyone concerned—but they should not obscure the great progress that has been made. The publication of the joint declaration represents a major step towards the complete implementation of the Belfast Agreement. That agreement remains the only sustainable basis for a fair and honourable accommodation between nationalists and Unionists. It remains the only possible basis for peace. In the coming weeks and months we will work openly and transparently to further fulfil our side of the bargain struck in 1998.

"We call upon the IRA to find the clarity—in words and deeds—to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are ready to fulfil theirs".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

10.59 p.m.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement, which I think is being made in parallel in another place. What a sad day. I think that this is a terrible time of the day to take a Statement. When I heard some time back that there was to be a Statement tonight, I was looking for something momentous—a real happening and exciting news. However, as we have just heard, there is virtually nothing that has not been in the public domain for some time. The fact that we have the Statement now is not, I accept, directly the fault of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. However, it is a rather sad Statement.

The Government have again got themselves in a mess with Northern Ireland. They are going to need some support from all of us, which I suspect that they may ultimately get at some stage. However, I have a few questions on the Statement, the first of which concerns the actual decision-making process and the communication of it. Why did the Northern Ireland public hear that their elections had been cancelled from an Irish Minister making a statement in Ireland? It was pretty clear to those of us on the outside that this was another prime ministerial decision. In the Corridors I have heard it said that even the Secretary of State himself was not aware that the decision was being taken until it had been, and indeed that he was not thinking on those lines himself. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us a little enlightenment on the Corridor-speak.

The Statement talks about elections in the "autumn", which is a very loose term. I suggest that the Government do not really know where they are in relation to elections. I do not blame them for that. They are waiting, quite rightly, for a response from the IRA. The Statement makes it quite clear that such a response is expected. Of course I strongly support the Prime Minister in his stance on that. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord to confirm that this will be the very last postponement of any future elections; that elections will not be called on the off-chance that the IRA might deliver something that is vaguely satisfactory; and indeed that they will not be called until such time as the pro-agreement parties are in a position of trust and understanding among themselves, which will allow the formation of a meaningful and workable Executive and government process. I suppose that it is always easy in hindsight. However, I do not think that it should have taken a lot of thinking and understanding of Northern Ireland affairs for that decision to have been taken some months back.

The Statement raises one other big issue: the mention of the joint declaration. I purposely do not wish to go into it tonight, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords will not expect us to. The joint declaration is a sizeable document which is now in the public domain. I do not feel that now is the time to debate it. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord to assure the House that the Government will continue to negotiate from strength and not drift back into giving away hits and pieces in the hope that they might get a titbit from the IRA's table in response. Noble Lords will understand that that will never happen. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on finally taking a serious stance, digging in his heels and saying to Sinn Fein/IRA, "Do it first". I ask the noble and learned Lord to ensure, and assure us, that that will continue to be the Government's policy.

My final topic concerns detail. Many human beings, civil servants, candidates who were members, Ministers, chauffeurs, drivers and secretaries are involved in this matter. Where do they stand in relation to salary, costs, future, insurance, pensions and so on? If there is to be some form ofcompensation, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us some idea of how that will be worked out and the cost that might be incurred.

11.5 p.m.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for making the Statement available earlier.

Last October I predicted a very long suspension of the Assembly. I regret that that has turned out to be the case. We reluctantly agreed to one month's extension before the calling of the election. We were assured time and again by the Government that elections would take place this month. Last week, without any consultation within Westminster, the Government peremptorily announced that there would be no elections until the autumn or even beyond.

There is another way one could look at this. The mandates of the Northern Ireland parties are now past their sell by date. Those mandates desperately need to be renewed. If the elections had been held as planned, the parties could have negotiated between themselves as to whether an executive could be formed. It is far preferable, and possibly more productive, for them to deal with one another directly. The two governments have used their best offices so far but have manifestly failed to bring about an agreement. Put the onus now on the Northern Ireland politicians to address the matter head on between themselves. Sinn Fein would have to demonstrate its commitment to the full processes of democracy and the rule of law, as it should have done unequivocally long before now.

I know that the English element of new Labour has little or no understanding of coalition or power sharing negotiations which are a commonplace in many European democracies and which, it should be stressed, are taking place at this very moment to form a new Scottish executive. It is not unknown within the United Kingdom. Westminster new Labour needs rapidly to improve its knowledge of the democratic dynamics of coalition building.

The Belfast agreement provided for a review of its own workings. I suggest that if the Assembly had been elected, it could have been given a month to see whether an executive could be formed. If it could not—that may well be the result—the Assembly should be charged with reviewing the Belfast agreement. The agreement provided for its own review. It stated that, the two governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation". Next December is the latest date for that review. Let it now be brought forward. To do it convincingly the parties must renew their mandates. The people should be invited to speak through the elections as planned.

For those reasons it will be difficult for these Benches to support the Bill that the Government will seek to rush through next week. As my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said in another place last Thursday, we shall wait and see the contents of the Bill, but I foresee no circumstances in which we would support it".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/5/03; col. 463.] That said, at the very minimum the Bill must fix a firm and final date. The policy of manana cannot carry on. Northern Ireland elections must not be given the euro referendum treatment—some time now, some time never. First, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to confirm that the Bill will contain a fixed and final date.

Secondly—I reiterate in part what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said—what financial compensation will the political parties be paid to reimburse the moneys already paid out in preparation for an expected May election? Thirdly, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that in future Her Majesty's Government will properly and fully consult with the parties in Westminster, with whom they share legislative responsibility at the moment for Northern Ireland, and not simply rule by diktat? Not only is that offensive but it is highly likely to be counter productive.

The Statement tonight says that the Government will continue discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland. I hope that they will extend the courtesy and discuss matters with the parties in Westminster. The longer the Assembly is suspended, the greater are the chances that it will not be restored.

11.10 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I take the feeling of disappointment. I do not disagree that this is a sad occasion, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said. All noble Lords who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs will know that I wrote to them as soon as I knew of the timetable today, as I always try to write to everyone with an interest. I explained that the Statement would be late but that it was preferable to try to deliver it today. I pointed out, I think accurately, that I normally do my very best to get prime time.

Because the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State did not return by aeroplane until well into this evening, it simply was not possible to have the Statement earlier. I came to the conclusion with the Secretary of State that it was better to inform Parliament as fully as we could of this disappointing news rather than put it off until tomorrow. I think that that was the right judgment.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the Government had got themselves into a mess. Nothing could be further from the truth. A particular section of political view, or paramilitary-connected view, in Northern Ireland has got itself into a mess, in my opinion. The question resolves itself to this: were the three questions that the Prime Minister put proper and legitimate questions to be put to Sinn Fein/IRA'? If any noble Lord disagrees with the proposition that they were, I should be extremely surprised.

That having been a conclusion, were the answers to those three questions sufficient to justify embarking on elections? Two questions were reasonably fully answered, and one was not. The Prime Minister pressed again for an answer to that third question, and the answer was not sufficient. It was insufficient not simply for a Westminster government, but to safeguard the legitimate interests of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister made his decision in full conjunction with the Secretary of State—they work very closely together, to my certain daily knowledge—and of course having consulted our colleagues in the Irish Republic's Government. He came to the conclusion that there was no prospect at all, if the elections took place, of an effective government being set up in Northern Ireland. I do not know of any commentator on Northern Ireland who would reasonably come to a different conclusion. That being so, the decision was plain. Do we have elections on the basis of delusion of the electorate that there is a sensible prospect of a workable executive, or do we not? The difficult decision was the one that was come to.

"Autumn", is a loose term. It is almost like "soon" or "shortly", and I cannot define it any better than that. I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Glentoran, whether I could say that this was positively the last postponement. After 600 years, however modest my reading of recent Irish history and politics, I do not think that anyone will invite me to say that. If they did, I would say, "No, not today, thank you".

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right: the joint declaration is a sizeable document. Today is not the occasion to discuss it. It explains perfectly plainly the thinking of the two governments and the enormous opportunities available. The word tragedy is over-used but it will be a tragedy, after all this compromise, which is necessary, and all the achievement since 1998, if the opportunity is allowed to slip away. It would be grossly irresponsible, and I use those words with as much care as I can.

Will the Government negotiate from strength? I believe that the Government do not simply negotiate from their own strength, but from the strength of what has been achieved since 1998. There have not been Provisional IRA bombing attacks on security personnel or police officers. That is nothing to boast about in what we hope to be a democracy, but that was not the history before 1998 that we all know too well. We need to be cautious when we are disappointed and saddened that we do not overlook the very significant achievements that have been made. They are not enough, but they are of great significance.

It is suggested that the announcement was made by my former colleague, as Attorney-General, in the Irish Republic, Mr. Michael McDowell, now the Minister for Justice. Alarmingly, I did take the trouble to read his words. He was not making an announcement; he was stating what was possible as an outcome. He said that this is a potential outcome.

The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, asked where the candidates stand, and developed the point further. There are people whose lives and livelihoods—both are important—depend on these decisions. Having attended substantial meetings in terms of length with the Secretary of State this morning, I can say that those decisions are being carefully looked at. It would be foolish to pretend to be able to come to those conclusions today. I can assure your Lordships that every care and consideration is being given to those matters—not simply in terms of those who are presently MLAs and who will be wanting to know where they stand. Not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, rightly said, people have expended substantial amounts of money on election campaigning, a matter that is foremost in the mind of the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, is right. The happiest phrase in the English language is: "I told you so". He did say that he feared, with reluctance, a long suspension, and he is quite right. I was more optimistic than he. He was right and I was wrong—at that time.

There was no prospect of an executive being formed. I think I have dealt with that point. I cannot say yes or no to a fixed and final date.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, urged consultation. I think I can reasonably say that the previous Secretary of State, Dr Reid, and the present Secretary of State have been as careful as they possibly could be in keeping all your Lordships fully informed. In the letter that I sent out today I reminded your Lordships that there would be a Peers-only meeting tomorrow, which the Secretary of State is determined, other matters being equal, to honour as a commitment.

It has not been a matter of diktat. One cannot work in Northern Ireland in that way and one ought not to try to. We consult as fully as we can. This is a disappointment; it is not a terminal conclusion and we should not allow ourselves to be overcome with gloom—even at seventeen minutes past eleven.

11.17 p.m.

Lord Laird

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. I thank him also for clearly putting the guilt for the dreadful situation that we are in at the steps of Sinn Fein-IRA. Rather than being here tonight, I had been looking forward with my colleagues to being on the hustings in Northern Ireland—an experience of which I have been deprived this spring, unlike other Members of this House, who have experienced elections over the past few weeks in other parts of the United Kingdom.

It is sad that this is where we have arrived today. It is sad that democracy has been turned on its head. I accept a great deal of the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal concerning the activities of the IRA. There has been a breakdown in trust. We in the Unionist Party feel that very strongly.

The future for the island of Ireland is about trust and understanding. It is on that basis that the major tenets of the Belfast agreement were set up, including the north-south implementation bodies—the whole business of "north-southery". It is only on that basis of mutual trust and understanding that they can be successful. The two peoples on the island of Ireland must be involved in all decision-making processes before the process itself is finished. That was the cornerstone, the bedrock, on which the Belfast agreement was not just put together but was endorsed by the electorate in Northern Ireland.

Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal agree that if, for whatever reasons, no elections take place in the autumn, the whole area of north-south machinery may have to be looked at, and that it cannot continue if there is no Assembly and no Executive. The two items are very much interwoven. It is a case of the Belfast agreement or nothing.

Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal give an undertaking that in all future decisions taken by both governments and the North-South Ministerial Council about the implementation bodies will be done through the fully correct and legal procedure? Will he also confirm that all decisions must include both administrations and unionists and nationalists?

On this sad day, there is not much I can say on behalf of my party except that we will look at the joint declaration very carefully—we have done so—and we will follow very closely developments in discussions in Dublin or elsewhere over the next few months. We will make our assessment of that and report back to this House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, with his usual courtesy, the noble Lord gave me some pre-knowledge of the ground he would cover. He dealt with what might happen in the autumn. I am reluctant to be led into speculation because our genuine, abiding hope and belief is that we shall have elections in the autumn. I must reflect on one or two of his questions and will write to him. I can confirm that decisions taken in relation to the implementation bodies under the agreement, which he mentioned, have been and will be taken in accordance with its provisions. I believe that the noble Lord used the phrase, "in accordance with correct and legal procedures". I am happy to reaffirm that.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

My Lords, I ask these questions as someone who presumed to write to the Prime Minister and my successor, Dr Mowlam, to congratulate them on the Good Friday agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord recall the words reported in today's Irish Times from Sinn Fein's chief negotiator, Martin McGuinness? He said that, the suspension of the Assembly elections was nothing but a betrayal of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process by the British Government at the behest of the Unionist leaders who find it difficult to come to terms with change". If those words, despite their outlandish character, are tested dispassionately against the published position of Her Majesty's Government, is it not plain that it is the IRA that is refusing to fulfil its part of the agreement and to come to terms with change by refusing to say unequivocally that republican beatings—and even crucifixions and exilings—will henceforward cease?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I have not read the text of what Mr McGuinness said but I have no reason to disagree with what the noble and learned Lord recited. I cannot see a betrayal by the British Government or the Irish Government of the Belfast Good Friday agreement. That was certainly not done at the behest of the Ulster Unionists, if it was the consequence of anyone's behaviour.

I return to my original question, on which I believe the noble and learned Lord and I will agree: were those three questions from Prime Minister Blair legitimate to be asked? Was there any ambiguity in their terms or purport? If the answer is that they were legitimate and plain, why—this is not a rhetorical question—are we not entitled, entirely consistent with the Belfast agreement, to request, on behalf (I repeat) of our fellow citizens of Northern Ireland and our citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, plain answers to those simple questions? We do not need any biblical scholarship any more. It is perfectly plain. If there was betrayal, that cap must be worn where it properly belongs.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord consider that the formula "peace with honour" could help paramilitary groups of all kinds to cease punishment attacks, intimidation and exiling? Does he agree that such things are far more obnoxious than the retention of unused weaponry? Would he further accept the need for some kind of transitional arrangement between the status quo in many ghetto areas and the extension of normal policing to all parts of Northern Ireland?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I do not regard any of those activities as consistent with honourable behaviour. I do not regard them as consistent with the Good Friday agreement. There are different aspects of the 1998 agreement and I do not believe that it is fruitful to say which is the most disagreeable of the activities that contravene it.

If one looks at the declaration and at what has already been achieved by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, one sees that despite great difficulties they have been working towards "normalisation". It seems to me that all the steps that have been taken are not partisan steps; they are for the benefit of the whole community. I repeat that the benefit of the Belfast agreement is undoubted in a civil society. Heaven knows, this Parliament has taken matters on trust. We have passed things with which we have not immediately been content and many noble Lords have worried and troubled themselves as to whether they were doing the right thing in every appropriate circumstance. It seems to me that the British and Irish governments and large sections of political opinion in Northern Ireland have behaved not only honourably, but also generously. What is rightly looked for now by Prime Minister Blair and Taoiseach Ahern is a decent reciprocity of response.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I want to pay the warmest tribute to the Government for the way in which they have handled this matter. It is absolutely right that they have stood up for the needs of the people and I believe that the people will recognise that. I very much respect the way in which further equivocation by the IRA has not been accepted. That is entirely reasonable and proper. I pay tribute to that.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. All noble Lords can usefully look at those three questions and at the answer. I shall not offer the answer to my next question: is that a mealy-mouthed answer or does it have the candour that we are reasonably entitled to seek?

Baroness O'Cathain

My Lords, two positive points have come out of tonight's events. It is a very sad night and I am sure that all noble Lords who have a concern for Northern Ireland feel that, but two positive things have emerged. The first one, paraphrasing what my noble friend Lady Park said, is that it is wonderful to see such complete solidarity between the two governments. Both governments have decided that they have not had the unambiguous and clear statement from Sinn Fein/IRA that would answer the questions. The fact that there is that solidarity is good.

Secondly, I was absolutely delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord refer to Sinn Fein/IRA rather than to the I RA. I now believe that at long last people believe that there is complete cohesion between Sinn Fein and the IRA and that there is nothing—not even a cigarette paper—between them. We have just arrived at those two points and we have to accept them. My question is whether we believe that we shall ever receive a clear and unambiguous response from Sinn Fein/IRA.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I hope so because that is what history, politics and morality require. However jaundiced one's view is, I believe that two of the three questions were answered in a satisfactory way, as Prime Minister Blair pointed out. The third question was there for the answering. It is not simply a matter of playing with words, as has been claimed; a commitment is required. When others have made a significant commitment we should not overlook the degree of anguished compromise to which some Unionists have had to put their hearts and minds. As I said earlier, we want a decent reciprocity of response. I am grateful to the noble Baroness because I looked at the responses of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister in Dublin this afternoon before our Prime Minister returned here and both governments said that not enough had been done.

We are tantalisingly close. It is a great shame sometimes that the obituaries of people such as Mr Sissulu in South Africa are not read with more care.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for both the Statement and his courtesy. It is impossible to tell from this Statement whether the IRA would have been forced or faced with the need for the clear and unambiguous statement now demanded from them prior to new Assembly elections if the Assembly had not, for causes we know, been suspended last October.

Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the two governments' expression of the need for this clear and unambiguous statement now is a good product from a bad business, and that the decision now to postpone the Assembly elections in current circumstances enjoys support among some in your Lordships' House, even at this mildly inconvenient hour after ten o'clock?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, I think the outcome is a required outcome which comes from disagreeable decisions made by others. Those decisions having been made by others—I ought to say, having failed to have been made by others—made the position of the Irish Government and the British Government quite inevitable if they wanted to discharge what they saw as their duty and to honour their commitments.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.