Clause
23Arms
decommissioning: extension of amnesty
period 4.30
pm
Lady
Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 23, page
16, line 5, leave out ‘2010’ and insert
‘2008’. In
this most miscellaneous of miscellaneous Bills, we are now moving on to
something completely different. This clause takes us away from
donations to political parties, away from the Chief Electoral Officer,
and into part 6 of the Bill, which is headed
“Miscellaneous”. The first of the miscellaneous items
that appears under clause 23 is arms decommissioning. I say with some
sadness that once again we are being asked to extend an amnesty
period. I wish to
bring to the Committee’s attention the words of a Secretary of
State for Northern Ireland:
“In the face of IRA
decommissioning, I cannot see what possible reason loyalists now have
for retaining their weapons. They certainly need not do so for the
protection of their communities, which is the rightful preserve of the
police and the security forces. They used to argue that they would
decommission if the IRA made the first move. Well, the first move has
been made: the crucial act has been carried out. It is now up to
loyalist paramilitary organisations to demonstrate their support of
peaceful and democratic ideals.”—[Official Report,
17 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 45-46.]
I am sure that every single person in this
room would say, “Hear, hear,” to that. Was that the
current Secretary of State? No. Was it his immediate predecessor? No.
Those words are in fact five years old. They were delivered by the
current Secretary of State for Defence over five years ago. On that
occasion, the House was being asked to consider, yet
again,the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment)
Bill to extend the original decommissioning period for five
years. Five years
ago, the then Secretary of State made it quite clear that in a
democracy politics and violence do not mix. He insisted that if the IRA
had moved on decommissioning—and it had at that
stage—then loyalists had no excuse for not doing likewise. I am
exceedingly concerned and disappointed that the Government now choose,
under clause 23, to send completely mixed messages to
loyalists. The
Government, the Northern Ireland Office and the current Secretary of
State all love to quote from the Independent Monitoring Commission
report when it suits them; if I might, I shall refer to the
IMC’s eighth report, published on 1 February 2006. I know that
there is another current IMC report involving both Governments, but it
has not been published and made available to the wider world in time
for our
consideration. Let me
just remind Members about the activities of loyalist paramilitaries.
Where do I start? There are so many—the Ulster Volunteer Force,
the Red Hand Commando, the Loyalist Volunteer Force. They were
responsible for the feuding that led to the deaths of four individuals.
East Belfast members of the Ulster Defence Association were
responsible, in the view of the IMC, for the murder on 4 October of
their fellow member, Jim Gray, who was on bail following his arrest.
Unfortunately, the litany of carnage caused by loyalist paramilitaries
continues, according to the IMC, and the statistics are well
known. The current
Secretary of State challenged loyalist paramilitaries on 21 September
2005, when he said:
“The choice for loyalist
paramilitaries is clear: play the political role that you claim as your
motive, or face the rigour of the law as the mafia organisations into
which you seem to be degenerated. You will not be allowed to terrorise
your own community”. If
that is what the Northern Ireland Office really expects of loyalist
paramilitaries, why in heaven’s name is it at the same time
sending out the contradictory message to them and others—the
Continuity IRA, the Real IRA—that a deadline for arms
decommissioning is not really a deadline and that there will continue
to be an amnesty not just for five years, and then another five years,
but right up to 2010? I am sure that, at that stage, the Secretary of
State, whoever it is, will bring more legislation before the House to
extend the
amnesty. For once,
could the Government just mean what they say? Pledges were given to the
people of Northern Ireland not so long ago that the amnesty period had
a cut-off time of 2007. Instead of now extending it to 2010, let us
just delete the reference. I know that my amendment substitutes the
date 2008, which tries to find a middle way, but I just want a clear
message to be sent, particularly to loyalist paramilitaries:
“Enough is enough; get on with the
decommissioning.”
Dr.
McDonnell: I admitted earlier that I was pleased to serve
in the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr.
Atkinson. We in the
Social Democratic and Labour party share the frustration of the hon.
Member for North Down that decommissioning has been such a long
drawn-out process. We are outraged that many of the groups have not
decommissioned at all. Dissident republican factions justify their
refusal to end violence and destroy their weapons, based on a fairly
warped understanding of Irish history which Irish people do not
generally share. They claim that in making their bombs, as they did
last week in Lurgan, they are somehow upholding the will of the Irish
people. The people of
Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist, want and deserve a peaceful
future. If dissident republicans care anything, or have any respect for
what they claim to be the will of the people, they have no option but
to destroy their weapons now and go away.
As for loyalist paramilitary
groups, as tomorrow’s IMC report will doubtless make clear, they
remain active and, to my mind, dangerous. They are dangerous to
themselves and each other, but far more importantly, to the general
public. The UDA and the UVF have yet to decommission a single bullet.
Their spokesmen openly say that that is not even on their agenda. It is
disgraceful that the Democratic Unionist parties and the Government
have, at best, not put them under any serious pressure to get rid of
their arms and ammunition. In some cases, they have offered ready-made
excuses for them. I
shall give an example. Last February, after a meeting with the
international decommissioning body, the DUP leader predicted that the
IRA had held on to some guns and said that loyalist people should be
forearmed to meet what was going to happen. In other words, he
predicted that there would be a further outbreak of IRA violence.
Whatever was meant by that, those who carry guns and call themselves
loyalists will have only one interpretation of it: “Hold on to
your guns, guys, because you’re going to need them.” Such
inflammatory remarks have shown a serious lack of leadership on the
part of the leader of the DUP and a reckless disregard for the safety
of the public. There
is only one message that needs to be given to the loyalist paramilitary
groups, and I appeal to hon. Members on the other side of the Committee
to give it. It is the same as the one that we are giving and have given
loud and clear to republicans and to dissident republicans. We loudly,
clearly and unambiguously say: “Wind up all your activity.
Destroy your guns now, and leave people in the island of Ireland, both
nationalists and Unionists, to the peaceful and democratic future that
they all deserve.”
I have a lot of sympathy with
the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Down. 2010 is a
long time for the amnesty to continue, but as I understand it, just
because the option is there to allow an amnesty until then does not
mean that it will be allowed to go on until then. Is the Minister
prepared to give some sort undertaking that, even though there is an
option to keep the amnesty until 2010, it will not necessarily be left
until that very backstop position? Such an assurance from the Minister
would go a long way. I would find it difficult not to support the
Government. But 2010 is a long way off and we need a strong reassurance
that that is the final backstop position and that there will be no
further extensions and excuses and that no further allowances will be
made. Lembit
Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a vain request. My
whole frustration on the previous amendment was that the Government do
not really take the red line sufficiently seriously. We know already
that whatever deadline they impose will be extended, such that the
Minister passionately argued for the Secretary of State’s right
to do so in our previous substantial discussion on clause 17 and again
on clause 18. I have one question for the Minister. Given that once
again we are discussing something that sets a deadline, why should we
even bother to pretend that that deadline will be taken seriously? Is
there anything that the Minister can say that would make the deadline
any more plausible than all the other deadlines that have been
breached, including this one in
2002? Mr.
Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): I want to respond to
the atrocious comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. It
is appalling that any hon. Member of this House would deliberately
attempt, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for North
Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), to recast the words that he used on that
occasion and to put some military or violent connotation on
them. Not only was
the position abundantly clear in the context in which my right hon.
Friend made his remarks, but because the hon. Gentleman and his party
at that time made similar comments to those that he makes today, it was
explained over the airwaves so that everybody could hear what the clear
intention of his remarks was. The history of decommissioning has been a
very long and tiring one for the Unionist community in Northern
Ireland. All the people of the Province have suffered in one way or
another from the existence of illegal weaponry. We have lost thousands
of our fellow citizens. Tens of thousands of them have been maimed and
mutilated by those weapons.
We are not talking about some
academic issue here. We are talking about the equipment that killed and
injured many thousands of people in Northern Ireland to the extent that
barely a family was untouched by the impact of those weapons. There is
an urgency about the matter. It is important that those weapons are
taken away from those who hold them and are destroyed. As far as the
IRA is concerned, my party and I regretted the cavalier fashion in
which the SDLP regarded the IRA’s weaponry. It regarded it as
being all right for the IRA to hold on to its weapons and still to have
its representatives in government. That is not a position that my party
holds or will ever hold.
Our view was consistently that
the IRA should not allowed into government until there was complete
decommissioning. Regrettably, the SDLP and others took representatives
from the IRA into government while it still held on to its weaponry and
took away the urgency that was required for decommissioning to take
place. That urgency still eludes the Minister, as he wants to stretch
out into the far distant future the limits on when it might be possible
to have decommissioning.
4.45
pm My party and I
see no moral distinction between the IRA holding on to weapons and a
loyalist organisation holding on to weapons. There is no distinction
whatever: all those weapons should be handed over. All of them should
be destroyed at the earliest moment. I do not take the view, which some
hold, that we no longer need to look over our shoulders at the
stockpiles of the Provisional IRA.
I immediately indicated that I
considered the decommissioning act that took place recently to be
substantial decommissioning. There is no doubt that the IRA
substantially decommissioned on that day. Two witnesses saw the event
and, in very vague terms, reported the fact. General de Chastelain saw
it and, in imprecise terms, reported the fact, but it is at least clear
from what those witnesses said that a large quantity of weaponry was
destroyed. However, General de Chastelain and the two Church witnesses
immediately embarked on a spinning operation, telling the community
that the IRA had completed decommissioning and destroyed all its
weapons. When asked to produce some evidence that all the IRA’s
weaponry was involved, they relied on the fact that the IRA had told
them that. General de
Chastelain and the two Church witnesses might satisfy themselves with
the word of the IRA but my party leader quite rightly did not, and nor
did the IMC, which, on obtaining evidence that the IRA still held on to
some weaponry, reported it in its eighth report. The IMC indicated
that, although the Independent International Commission on
Decommissioning had been prepared to turn a blind eye to the IRA
holding on to its weaponry, it was not. The IMC noted the fact that
weaponry had been retained and also gave some descriptive terms,
indicating that the IRA had held on to a range of
weaponry. I cannot
predict what the IMC report might say when it is published tomorrow,
but as always the two Governments have been attempting to get their
retaliations in first and spinning the report as best they can in the
hours leading up to its publication. One of the leaks of the report
seems to indicate that the IMC will hold to its position that the IRA
still has illegal weaponry. If the report is accurate, it will indicate
that the IRA leadership did not sanction the holding of that
weaponry—I am sure that that will bring some comfort to people
who will face the barrel of one of the guns—and that it was held
by local cells, organisations, quartermasters or whatever grand title
they give themselves.
That being the case, the book
is not closed on Provisional IRA decommissioning. More has to be done.
If some cells or units have held on to weaponry and that was not
sanctioned by the IRA, the IRA has to deal with that issue. It is
responsible for decommissioning all its
weapons.
Dr.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): If the IMC, either tomorrow
or at some future date, said that it believed that the process had been
concluded, would the hon. Gentleman regard it as
credible?
| 
