Mr.
Robinson: I do regard the IMC as a credible body. I have
the highest respect for it, in spite of the
fact that although there is a republican on it there is no Unionist, nor
anybody with whom the Unionist community in Northern Ireland would
readily identify. I have met the IMC, and it has issued reports that I
am sure the Government did not like and which they would have preferred
to be put in a different way. I understand that they will indicate that
there has been some measure of progress. No one would be happier than
my colleagues and I if there were progress in the reduction of
paramilitary and criminal activity in Northern Ireland. That is what we
want, but it has been painfully slow. However, the body that is charged
with the decommissioning of weaponry is not the IMC, but the IICD and
it is regrettable that, rather than admitting that it was wrong when it
indicated that all weapons had been destroyed, it still wants to cover
up the fact that some weapons are still being
held. I turn to
loyalist paramilitary organisations. Apart from a very small
decommissioning exercise on the part of the LVF, which was the first
decommissioning of guns that had had their best days, there has been
nothing on the part of loyalist paramilitaries, nor has there been any
indication of intent by the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission
their weapons. It is unfortunate for loyalist paramilitary
organisations—I point this out to the hon. Member for Belfast,
South—that whereas pressure can be put on the Provisional IRA to
decommission in that the party that represents it is of a size that
merits positions in government under the d’Hondt system and the
existing structures, there is no such enticement for loyalist
paramilitaries. Concessions were given hand over fist to the
Provisional IRA to hand over its weapons, but nothing of the sort has
happened for loyalist paramilitary organisations, nor do I ask the
Government for that. I do not believe that they should have bought guns
from the Provisional IRA, nor do I believe that they should buy guns
from the loyalist paramilitary
organisations. I want
to put it clearly on the record that all loyalist paramilitary
organisations must hand over their weapons and that those weapons must
be destroyed. Our community does not need illegal weaponry and it is in
everyone’s interest to destroy weapons. I must tell the hon.
Member for Belfast, South that, by and large, the trend in the future
will be that any weapons held by republican organisations are more
likely to be used against those who live in nationalist areas than
against those who live in Unionist areas. Equally, loyalist
paramilitary weapons are more likely to be used against those in
Unionist areas for territorial control. It is in all our interests to
see all illegal weaponry out of
existence. That brings
me to the heart of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North
Down. I presume that its sole purpose is to try to introduce some pace
and urgency into the process and to persuade the Government to apply
themselves tothe earliest possible date. At the moment, the
Government’s attitude is that if they do not come up with the
weapons they will just add on a few more years. We will never get to
the end of the road with that attitude in the Government. We must apply
some urgency to the matter and the hon. Lady’s amendment
deserves support if it does nothing other than to persuade the Minister
to roll up his sleeves and get down to work.
The Minister is pointing to the
Under-Secretary who has already taken off his jacket. I hope that some
urgency will be introduced into the process and that we can tackle the
matter once and for all and close the chapter, knowing that the guns
have gone and that the prospects for peace are
heightened.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Shaun
Woodward): I join other hon. Members in welcoming you to
the Chair,Mr. Atkinson. This afternoon’s debate
reveals that your expert chairmanship is needed as we steer through
these difficult waters and
decommissioning. The
amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down rightly raises the
debate and we welcome that. The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning
Act 1997 contains order-making powers for the Secretary of State to
extend the amnesty period during which paramilitary arms may be
decommissioned. The amendment seeks to reduce the proposed extension of
the order-making power so that the latest permitted date of the amnesty
would be February 2008. We believe that retaining the option to use the
order-making power for a further three years until February 2010 is a
better way forward. I
am not suggesting, despite what other hon. Members have said, that we
should anticipate that loyalist groups will take a further three years
to decommission their weapons. If the order-making power is not needed,
it will not be used. Despite the apparent differences between the hon.
Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Belfast, South, they
are to an extent both right. Of course the matter is urgent. In giving
ourselves the power to extend the time to 2010 we still recognise that.
However, we are approaching the matter realistically and avoiding the
need to return for primary legislation in the event that things cannot
be achieved as quickly as we should
like.
Lady
Hermon: Have any discreet private overtures been made by
officials in the Northern Ireland Office to members of the UVF or the
UDA to try to encourage them to begin the
process?
Mr.
Woodward: Huge progress is being made. I remind the hon.
Lady that many people would, obviously, have wanted decommissioning to
have happened many years ago. The fact is that it has taken a long time
to get to the point that we have reached, but that does not mean that
we should not have gone on trying. It is precisely such powers as we
are discussing that have contributed to our making the progress we have
made. We can raise all sorts of questions and judgments about the
nature of the IICD, although the Government absolutely
respect—and adhere firmly to—its judgments, but huge
progress was made last year.
The decommissioning by the IRA
was historic. It took longer than everyone would have liked—that
is self-evident—but it was achieved. Yes, we should like others
to make the same progress, and it may take longer than we should like,
but that does not change what we want to do or our confidence that it
can be done. The reason for our extending the order for three years is
not that we want the process to take three
years. We do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for
Montgomeryshire on the matter; we are optimistic. I thought that the hon.
Gentleman was slightly mournful in his view of the prospects for
achievement. Perhaps he was up a little late last night reviewing the
papers for “Sky News”, but the fact is that we believe we
can make progress. We are being responsible. I know that the Liberal
Democrats like to keep all their options open, but we are keeping open
one option, which may take slightly longer than we should like. The
hon. Gentleman is desperate to
intervene.
Lembit
Öpik: I thank the Minister for staying up long
enough to watch me on Sky, but he misinterprets what I have been saying
when he perceives it as a sign of pessimism. I am saying that the
Government’s obsession with building in insurance policies in
case of failure turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it gives
those people who are sceptical and resistant to the process the
assurance of knowing that the Government themselves entertain the
prospect that things may not work out.
The Minister must surely accept
that on several occasions paramilitaries and other organisations have
called the Government’s bluff about whether they have a plan B
and said, “We don’t believe you”—and the
Government have given in. Does the Minister accept that my argument is
that by giving themselves wriggle room all the time they end up giving
the same wriggle room to everyone
else?
Mr.
Woodward: I do not accept that at all. The extraordinary
and historic decommissioning last year is evidence of why the power is
absolutely necessary and that it works. Our recognition that although
we should like to move even more quickly, things may take slightly
longer, is simply prudent contingency planning. By fixing a three-year
sunset, rather than the customary five years, we are sending a signal
that we expect decommissioning to be dealt with sooner rather than
later. The past years have brought about massive progress towards
lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, following the full
decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. The Government are determined
to build on that progress by doing all that we can to secure the
decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons, and encouraging loyalist
paramilitary groups to make the transition from conflict to
peace. 5
pm
Lady
Hermon: Will the Minister deal with the point about the
NIO appearing to give conflicting signals, particularly to loyalist
paramilitaries? In September, as I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of
State indicated that the full rigour of the law would be thrown at
loyalist paramilitaries if they did not move to begin decommissioning
and co-operation. That was in September 2005. Has the full rigour of
the law been thrown at loyalist paramilitaries, and if not, why not?
Will it be done before
2010?
Mr.
Woodward: I say first to the hon. Lady that despite her
observations, we believe that there are no
conflicting signals whatever. Those who retain weapons should not do so.
That is the reason for the decommissioning order. Our objective is
absolutely clear. I
am at one with the hon. Member for Belfast, East. He is right: there is
no moral distinction to be made between republicans and loyalists who
retain weapons. It is immoral and they should not do it, and we want
them to hand in those weapons. The way forward is simple. Getting there
will not necessarily be easy, but our objective is clear. All
paramilitary groups, republican and loyalist, must commit to the peace
process. That involves not holding on to illegal weapons.
The Government’s view on
the matter is pragmatic, but we retain a crystal clear objective. We
believe that it can be realised. For that purpose, we are extending the
provision. If we do not have to use it, we will not return to
Parliament every year to seek its renewal, but none the less we are
making a prudent contingency plan in case we need it, based on what has
happened so far and the time that it has taken. We recognise the
urgency, and for that reason I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to
withdraw her
amendment.
Lady
Hermon: I have listened patiently to the Minister’s
response and I say calmly to him that he will have heard the remarks of
the hon. Member for Belfast, East. The Minister should also have noted
some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South on the
Democratic Unionist party. I must say that I was most disconcerted by
those remarks. However, other remarks that he made were
valuable. The
Minister should listen carefully to the representatives of Northern
Ireland constituencies. We are saying loudly and clearly to him that
the people of Northern Ireland cannot be expected to tolerate the
continuing existence of private armies, whether republican or loyalist,
that are armed to the hilt and engage in serious criminal activities.
In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to
intimidation and extortion, as did the hon. Member for East Antrim
(Sammy Wilson). A catalogue of illegal activities are undertaken by
both loyalist and republican paramilitaries. The people of Northern
Ireland are sick, sore and very weary of it. They want paramilitaries
from all sides off their backs.
This Government—our
Government—should send a clear message to the people of Northern
Ireland, who are part of the United Kingdom. I will therefore be
pushing amendment No. 30 to a Division, because I wish a clear message
to come from at least the Members representing Northern Ireland
constituencies. I assume that Tory and Liberal Democrat hon. Members
will also support the amendment.
The people of Northern Ireland
need and deserve an end through the full rigour of the law to the
Northern Ireland Office’s attitude of tolerance toward
paramilitary organisations. That is what the Secretary of State pledged
in September. With respect to the Minister, who is the security
Minister, we have not seen much of that. We would like to see more of
it.
Question put, That the
amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes
13.
Division
No.
5] Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 23 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill. Clause 24
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
