---

Northern Ireland Bill

My Lords, I begin by offering the Minister and the whole House my deep apologies. I do not know how I came to be late and I am very sorry. I must further apologise for the fact that I shall not be very brief. I have four concerns. One is that of education. Martin McGuinness’s last act as Minister was to announce the intended abolition of selection in Northern Ireland schools and the replacement of the grammar schools by comprehensives. That was never discussed by the Assembly, because it was then dissolved, but it appears that under devolved government, that policy is to be implemented by HMG under direct rule. Ministers are not waiting for the people to decide through their elected representatives, although the Armagh statement recognises that the Assembly could prepare for government by considering such issues and Ministers:"““would naturally take account of views which command cross community support within the Assembly””." How do the Government justify pushing through a measure that was never discussed in the Assembly and which, whatever view they take, is of the deepest concern to all citizens of Northern Ireland? In six months at the latest, we shall know whether the Assembly is going to work and devolved government begin. Why cannot HMG let the education issue, like many others, wait for those few months, rather than imposing an expensive and divisive policy on which the public have had no voice? Schools in Northern Ireland have been especially successful, both in academic terms—and the country needs research brains for the future—and socially, because they successfully mix all creeds in otherwise divided areas. I understand from the very useful briefings we have received that the Assembly, once it is working again, can change decisions made under direct rule, including decisions that affect local government and education. It seems, therefore, both confusing and unnecessary to begin a process of change that the Assembly could well not confirm. In his statement on 6 April, the Prime Minister said:"““In Northern Ireland crucial decisions will be taken on the economy, health, schools and local government. Is it not more sensible that they be taken by the directly elected representatives of the people those decisions will affect, not by Direct Rule?””." I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will stand by that approach, which of course puts the onus on the parties to agree to make the Assembly work, which is much to be desired. The second issue is the deals which the two governments are likely to make with the various parties to persuade them, for perfectly respectable reasons, to abandon entrenched positions and to work together to make the Assembly viable. There must be no more deals like the infamous agreement made with Sinn Fein/IRA on on-the-runs, which was rightly summarily rejected by Parliament. It was particularly shaming, I thought, that the official reason was that it was being withdrawn at the request of Sinn Fein/IRA, which had presumably belatedly realised the effect it was having in the United States. I am deeply concerned that more concessions will be   made in the field of justice. We know from both the      Independent Monitoring Commission—that admirable institution—and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that the Diplock courts currently remain the only way in which the threat to juries and witnesses can be prevented from denying justice. The intimidators have not gone away. Only last year, Gerry Adams reiterated Sinn Fein’s refusal to recognise British courts and the UK’s criminal justice system. The McCartney case has still not come to court, and Sinn Fein/IRA’s solution to that was to offer to kill—no doubt they said execute—the IRA men who killed him. Gerry Adams told the people of Omagh that, although PIRA was not responsible for that bomb, it would not allow witnesses to testify in court because Sinn Fein/IRA did not recognise British justice. He reiterated that statement in my presence last year, describing British justice as an oxymoron—he has become very grand in his language. Sinn Fein/IRA have, however, a new mantra, which must not be allowed to pass for a change of heart. Martin McGuiness is quoted in the 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission as undeservedly condemning a robbery of a consignment of spirits in March. He said:"““Anyone involved in activity of this nature, no matter what political party they support, needs to be arrested, charged and brought to court before a jury of their peers””." That does not mean that Sinn Fein/IRA recognise British courts. A ““jury of their peers”” is a splendid phrase which either means a Sinn Fein/IRA-constituted and approved body—I have a feeling that jury selection would be on a very special basis—or is designed simply to end the Diplock courts, which sit without a jury for reasons we all know. Sinn Fein/IRA’s attitude to British justice must be measured by their sabotage of the McCartney trial and the Omagh process, and by their shooting of one of the first young Catholic graduates entering the police as a result of the Patten reforms. Asked then what the attitude of Sinn Fein/IRA would be to the new PSNI intake, Gerry Adams replied that it would be unchanged. I cannot emphasise too strongly what a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland it would be if we allowed Sinn Fein/IRA to join the police board and have access to and influence over police operations in the forlorn hope that they would not use that to pervert the course of justice. It is endemic in the thinking of Sinn Fein/IRA to wish to achieve absolute control of the organs of power. There must be no deals that weaken and undermine the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach would never agree to similar concessions and the ceding of power in the Irish justice system, and I suggest that the Irish are not yet ready to abandon their parallel court. We well know that, from ballot-rigging to organised crime, Sinn Fein/IRA have a damning record of operating outside the law to achieve their political ends. It is worth remembering, however, that the Independent Monitoring Commission continues to report on and express concern about so-called dissident groups. Continuity IRA is still active; it is still recruiting, still training and targeting the police and the military, still intimidating and still committed to terrorism. The same is true of INLA and RIRA. The Army Council of the IRA would never tolerate a truly independent dissident organisation. It would be a sign of weakness, and members of the PIRA are nothing if not control freaks. These so-called dissidents were a familiar feature of underground communist movements in Europe—easily disavowed, but both tolerated and directed. CIRA, RIRA, INLA and the rest have certainly benefited from PIRA resources in terms of money and lucrative criminal activity, and they remain a terrorist threat. On the mainland, they would be so regarded if they were, for instance, splinter groups of militant Islamic bodies. Terrorism has not gone away from Northern Ireland yet; it is merely that, for the present, PIRA can, through the use of large sums of money, vote-rigging, organised crime and intimidation, continue to manipulate the republican community fairly extensively, while leaving the business of recruiting and paramilitary training to the so-called dissident groups. The murder of Dennis Donaldson could safely be left to them by PIRA. Violence remains a part of the culture of republicanism. My fear is that almost any concession in the field of criminal justice may be made too soon to secure devolution. The people of Northern Ireland are British, and they have a right to live under the same criminal justice system as all other citizens. My final concern is exiles, which the Monitoring Commission’s 10th report puts high on the agenda, as they should always have been. The paramilitaries exercise control through fear and the threat of exiling. This has continued this year, and it is not just the innocent exiles whose lives are ruined. As the commission says, others live their lives in fear, and the paramilitaries continue to usurp the role of the police and the courts in exercising their version of community discipline, which is sometimes, as the commission says, quite wrongly called an unofficial justice system. Unless Sinn Fein/IRA, and all paramilitaries of all persuasions, can be made to bring this practice to a complete end, their control over those paramilitaries, whose activities in funding them are no doubt valuable to them, must be in question. The commission states:"““Only when a group has both ended this practice of exiling and has allowed those it had previously exiled freely to return can it be said to have given up illegal activity in this regard””." The present position is that the McCartney family have been driven from their homes and there is no freedom for exiles to return. When Martin McGuinness was asked about exiles two years ago, he replied that they could never come back as it was not in the interests of the community. These people had committed no crime in the eyes of the law. Until that position changes, there can be no question of regarding Sinn Fein/IRA as a party which obeys the law and respects human rights. I hope that we will give full credit to the police, and their manifest, growing success in gaining the trust of formerly alienated communities. That must not be jeopardised by letting the wolf into the fold. It is salutary to compare the £28 million committed as of 2005 to working with victims and survivors with more than £155 million which has been spent so far on the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I hope that the Government have established the post of a victims and survivors commissioner, as they told the Northern Ireland Committee that they intended to, and that his or her remit will cover the shocking absence of all help for those exiled by the paramilitaries. I am sure that good things will come of this Bill, but we must continue to be extremely wary. We must remember that we need to support the forces of law and order for the sake of all the people.