---

Northern Ireland

My Lords, I welcome this first opportunity since the general election to discuss and take stock of the current situation in Northern Ireland. I am very indebted to my noble friend Lady Park for initiating this debate and for making her case—our case—in her typically forensic way. She always speaks with great authority and insight on Northern Ireland and has been a great supporter to me and the Northern Ireland Front Bench on this side of the House ever since I have been involved, and I am most grateful. I have already, on a previous occasion, welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to his new post as Minister of State for Northern Ireland in your Lordships’ House, but it gives me pleasure to welcome him again at our first debate. I also wish to   associate myself with all the compliments that have   been paid to the past Secretary of State, Paul   Murphy, who was a great friend of all of us here. I particularly associate myself with the words of my noble friend Lord Tebbit—it was a tragedy that Paul Murphy left. My noble friend Lord Steinberg made the strong point that contrary to practice in the Conservative days, when Secretaries of State stayed many years, nowadays they seem to fly in and fly out. I am afraid that that is probably because of the heavy-handed interference from Downing Street. It is with no disrespect to the current Leader of this House or her predecessor that I say that having a full-time member of the Northern Ireland Office in your Lordships’ House is greatly appreciated. I believe that it will make a very sound contribution to our affairs in the next few years. Our party supports the Government in their efforts to secure a comprehensive and lasting political settlement, based on the central principles of the Belfast agreement that will lead to the restoration of devolved government. However, we have no intention of giving the Government a blank cheque. When we disagree with their approach or actions, we will not hesitate to say so. This has been our approach over the past two Parliaments and we have remained friends and co-operatives throughout. I hope that this will continue. In that context, I must say that Her Majesty’s Government have to bear a great deal of responsibility for the current impasse in Northern Ireland, in particular for the demise of the brave and courageous advocate for the centre, David Trimble, who was a good friend to many of us and still is. I am the first to acknowledge that the Belfast agreement was a great achievement, not least for the Prime Minister. Yet since 1998, so many of the Government’s actions have virtually guaranteed that it would never be fulfilled or properly implemented. We have seen too many side deals and flawed negotiations, all of which have given the impression that the Belfast agreement was simply a vehicle for endless concessions to Irish republicanism. Instead of taking action against republicans, for example, through the introduction of effective sanctions into the process, Mr Blair indulged them. In the words of one leading commentator in Belfast this week:"““Instead of dealing with them, Tony toadied to them””." That was said in the Belfast Telegraph by Lindy McDowell on 8 June 2005—pretty recent. The result is as clear as it was predictable. Sinn Fein has prospered as a result of its intransigence. Meanwhile the wider Unionist community has lost confidence first in the agreement and now, it seems, in the political process itself. Unionism very narrowly bought the agreement in the referendum in 1998, largely on the basis of two speeches and handwritten pledges that the Prime Minister had made in Northern Ireland. The basic deal he set out was that in return for including republicans in government, there would be an effective end to the IRA. Weapons would be given up, under the agreement, by May 2000, and all aspects of paramilitary activity—the shootings, the beatings, the extortion and the organised mafia-style crime—would cease. They have not. In the words of the agreement, Sinn Fein would make the transition,"““to exclusively democratic and peaceful means””." As the events of the past few months have made clear, reinforced by the most recent reports of the Independent Monitoring Commission, this has simply not happened. Despite three acts of decommissioning in seven years, the IRA remains, in the words of the IMC—chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in your Lordships’ House—in its report of 25 May,"““determined to maintain its effectiveness, both in terms of organised crime, control in republican areas, and the potential for terrorism. We have no present evidence that it intends to resume a campaign of violence despite the collapse of the political talks in December 2004, but its capacity remains should that become the intention””." Those points have been made by other noble Lords. Put bluntly, the report painted a picture of an organisation that is simply up to its neck in a whole range of criminal activities. Added to this was the Chief Constable’s statement at the end of April that the IRA was still engaged in targeting and recruiting. The latest IMC report and the words of the Chief Constable show just how far Sinn Fein has to go before it can be regarded as a normal political party, playing by the same democratic rules as everyone else. Sinn Fein and the IRA remain inextricably linked as two sides of the same republican coin. We agree with the Defence Minister in the Irish Republic when he said in the Sunday Independent on 20 February 2005:"““We are no longer prepared to accept the farce that Sinn Fein and the IRA are separate. They are indivisible””." The Justice Minister, who speaks with commendable frankness and clarity on these matters, is in no doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are, in his words, ““directed by the same leadership””. When asked whom he meant, he said:"““We’re talking about Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams, Martin Ferris and others””." That was quoted in the Irish Times on 21 February 2005. I sincerely hope in future that Ministers in our own Government will speak with equal clarity when it comes to dealing with the republican movement. We are looking to none other than the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to lead his Government in that direction. The speech that Gerry Adams made in Belfast at the beginning of the general election campaign has been widely interpreted as a challenge to the IRA to accept the alternative to so-called armed struggle and embrace exclusively democratic politics. While his speech can be interpreted as encouraging, in our view trust can be built only on actions, not just words. We are told that the IRA is still considering its response, but let me be clear about what we shall require on this side of the House before we can consider supporting re-establishment of an executive in Northern Ireland that includes Sinn Fein Ministers. The IRA’s response needs to be decisive and clearly understood. Incidentally, I believe that our thoughts are very much in line with Unionists, but particularly with the DUP, which is regrettably not yet represented in your Lordships’ House. The response must herald the effective end of the IRA as a paramilitary force, and an end to all forms of criminal behaviour. It must commit the IRA transparently and rapidly to complete the decommissioning of all illegal weapons and must signal that republicans move quickly to a position in which they support the police and the criminal justice system. In the light of Sinn Fein/IRA’s behaviour, it now appears that the suspension of the Stormont government may be prolonged. The time has come to ask whether we can any longer go on governing a significant part of our kingdom by unamendable statutory instrument. I submit that we cannot—certainly in the case of any significant change in the law or proposed legislation that is controversial or opposed by a number of elected representatives in Northern Ireland. For example, I believe it utterly wrong to introduce tuition fees in Northern Ireland, or to abolish any of our outstanding schools by statutory instrument. The arrangements put in place by the late Lord   Williams of Mostyn, which allowed for debate in Grand Committee prior to a decision on the Floor, were a helpful and appreciated short-term expedient. But we are no longer in the short term. It must surely be the case that if the people of Northern Ireland are denied devolved institutions because the Government effectively give Sinn Fein/IRA a veto on the existence of those institutions, they must be entitled to the same protection of the full scrutiny of proposed legislation by their national parliament, as any person in England would expect. We cannot treat Northern Ireland as a second-class state, to be ruled by ministerial decree. So we must warn the Government that we shall expect significant changes in the law of Northern Ireland to be made by primary legislation until such time as Stormont is revived, and we shall reserve the right to vote against far-reaching statutory instruments whose content is opposed by a large number of people in Northern Ireland. In the absence of full devolution, we suggest that there should be an interim assembly that can question direct rule Ministers, scrutinise draft legislation, publish reports and give the people a greater say in what is going on. We currently have a situation in which the Government are intent on destroying our education system in Northern Ireland by abolishing selection. There are other issues that ought not to wait for a restoration of devolved government. For example, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, intended to be the central instrument of democratic accountability, currently reflects the party balance after the 1998 Assembly elections rather than the one that exists today. When does the Minister expect the board to be reconstituted to take account of that, and to begin appointing the new district policing partnerships, now that the local government elections are out of the way for another four years? We also believe that the reorganisation of public administration in Northern Ireland and the reduction in the number of local authorities ought to be moved forward as a high priority. I end by wishing the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, good luck, good fortune and success.