---

Northern Ireland

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for achieving this debate. Those in Northern Ireland are grateful to her for much more than that. She has had a continuing, informed and energetic interest in the affairs of our beloved Province, which all of us appreciate very much indeed. In Northern Ireland we are all very well aware how difficult it is for people to sustain a long-term interest in Northern Ireland because events there are not necessarily particularly encouraging, but she has done that and we deeply appreciate it. We are also very appreciative of the efforts of the previous Secretary of State, indeed of all previous Secretaries of State. This debate is graced by a number of them. Those who are here will recall that, after a decent period of time, it is almost traditional in Northern Ireland for there to be a call for the Secretary of State to go: calls of, ““Brooke must go””, ““Mayhew must go””, followed a long line of distinguished Secretaries of State and others. Those calls never had anything to do with the quality of the Secretary of State or the sterling work being achieved. As I say, that was almost a tradition, but it is notable that in the case of Mr Paul Murphy, that never applied. In some peculiar, perhaps Welsh, way he found a capacity to do his work with diligence, but he also maintained relationships with an exceedingly diverse and frequently disagreeable political populous. I want to commend him, vicariously, through his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I also welcome his successor Mr Peter Hain and the other new members of the Northern Ireland Office. Mention has also been made of the particular qualities of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as he comes to the Northern Ireland Office. Not only do I welcome him, but I also emphasise what my noble friend Lord   Shutt of Greetland has said: I believe that his forthright, no- nonsense approach is an important one. As we are considering the situation in Northern Ireland today, at times there may be a temptation to believe that the situation there never changes—one is reminded of Churchill’s aphorism after the end of the First World War—but in truth some things have changed and very markedly. I suppose there are two elements to the process in Northern Ireland. There is a peace process and a political process. On the political process, things have changed quite dramatically. For a long time there was a notion that it would be possible to build up a broad centre of politics that could come together, act as a magnet and to some extent marginalise those who took a more extreme position. One of the dilemmas that faced all of us who were trying to negotiate the Belfast agreement was that if it were intended to incorporate everyone, even those on the extremes, inevitably the partisans would have a veto, as they would not sign up to anything over which they did not have a veto. But there was no sunset clause to that veto and, furthermore, there were institutions that embedded it. It was clear, at least to some of us, that if one insisted that within the Assembly and in much beyond it people had to identify themselves as Unionists or nationalists, and if votes and the whole approach were based on the notion of majorities within Unionism and majorities within nationalism, the inevitable dynamic would be towards polarisation. That is what has happened. It is no great surprise to those of us who have observed the situation. It was almost inevitably one of the potential downsides to the Belfast agreement. Our agreement was not alone in that; it has been the same in other places. Therefore, it has changed the situation because it would be much more difficult to persuade any observer now of the short-term possibilities of building up a strong centre ground which could marginalise more extreme views. Currently, that is not a short-term possibility. Therefore, as the noble Lord and his colleagues approach the prospects for the political process, that matter needs to be taken into consideration. There is no short, easy answer. Although I have little doubt that a preference on the part of those within Unionism and those within nationalism and republicanism would be for an agreed, devolved power-sharing government, one should not now underestimate the difficulties of achieving that. That grieves me greatly, given that I have given so much of my own time and energy to achieving that. The political situation has changed and, like other wider European political situations, perhaps a little reflection is merited in the present climate. There is also the peace process, which is a separate matter. While one may currently feel a little down about the early prospects for devolution, there is evidence that there has been an improvement in the security situation on the ground. It is clear that there is very little likelihood of a return to the ongoing terrorist campaigns that we experienced through the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Of course, it is clear that CIRA, PIRA and others would like to be able to return to something of the kind, but there is also considerable evidence that the security forces have been blessed with considerable success. On the Provisional IRA, while it is clear that they retain the capacity to return to that kind of campaign, there is no evidence that they intend to return to it. To a considerable extent, while the capability remains, the intention, certainly in the short-term, does not seem to be present. What has changed is that there has been a diversification into organised crime. That is a very serious matter. It leads one to ask, what is the political intent in the republican movement? If the political intent is what is claimed by the republican movement, we surely have a problem. I have   heard no refuting of the traditional republican position that the Provisional IRA represents the lawful government and representation of the people of Ireland north and south. I have never heard that set to the side. I must therefore assume that it is still the position. Does the party seek power in Ireland, north and south? Manifestly it does. Does it seek to gain it only by democratic political means or with political means backed up by some element of paramilitary muscle? I do not see that denied either. That is a serious question not only for those of us who live in Northern Ireland but for those who live in Ireland as a whole. Does the republican movement ultimately intend to participate fully in democratic politics and observe all the standards that requires, but to maintain that position for the time being with some slimmed down but not disappeared military capability? Is the republican movement ready for the IRA to end all forms of illegal activity and engage wholeheartedly in democratic politics and in policing, which of course is part of governance? That is what we want to see. But let us recognise that we are not asking for anything more than we expect of any ordinary citizen. We are not asking for anything strange or unusual, we are simply asking for people to behave as we expect ordinary law-abiding citizens to behave. Is that really unreasonable? That is why I welcome the straight-speaking approach of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. For years we have known that it has been necessary and, I believe, appropriate to have a degree of breadth to our language, to be prepared to accept that some things that are said could have more than one interpretation on different parts of the community. I do not think that that is unreasonable. As a preacher’s son I have heard many a preacher do it. But there comes a point when a degree of honesty and clarity is necessary. If the IRA’s terrorist campaign is over, what is the political justification for the criminal activity of the IRA? On the loyalist side—and we must not forget this—there is now absolutely no political justification for the continuing criminal activity. The UVF, the UDA and other such organisations are now bereft of any political justification whatever, and none of them thinks in those terms any more. I hope, but I am yet to be convinced, that the UDA can make the kind of transition it publicly proclaimed it intends to make, with a degree of backing from the Government. I do not see the UVF as even having got that far. So that element of criminality is profoundly dug into parts of our community. Is it now any different on the republican side? I should be grateful if the clear-speaking noble Lord, Lord Rooker, can—and I understand that he is newly into his position—over time bring that skill, which it is, and courage, which it is, to a Northern Ireland community which on all sides wants that clarity, not only from him but from the republican movement and also from all those who have engaged in illegal criminal activity on the basis of a political platform in the past.