Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

House of Commons, 8 February 2000.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I have to acquaint the House that I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. This is a Bill that I had hoped very much not to have to introduce. I still hope that it will prove unnecessary to implement it, but that depends on changes and developments which have not yet taken place but which would need to take place speedily, and certainly over the next two or three days, to prove it unnecessary. Last Thursday I made a statement to the House in response to the latest report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. I think that I said enough about that report last Thursday for the entire House to understand that what was significant about de Chastelain's report was more what it did not say had happened than what it was able to describe had happened since the previous occasion in December when General de Chastelain had reported. In summary, General de Chastelain and his colleagues reported that, as far as the IRA is concerned, to date they had received no information from the IRA as to when decommissioning will start.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I should like to make some progress. I said then that if further information came to light which rendered my statement out of date, I would of course inform the House. Intensive discussions continue, and there remains the possibility of a further report by General de Chastelain and his colleagues on the international body.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

In a moment. At present, I have no further substantive progress to report. It is therefore necessary to put this legislation in place, so that if it remains necessary because cross-community confidence has been undermined, we can create a pause in the operation of Northern Ireland's devolved political institutions from the end of this week.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. In dealing with the report, will he address a point that has been put from the Opposition Benches? Have the Irish Government expressed the opinion that the report should not be made public or available to the House?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

Both Governments have agreed that for the time being, no further useful purpose is served by publishing the report because it does not contain additional information, other than that which I have already given the House, that would inform the House. We have, however, said that in the event of a further report being delivered to the two Governments by General de Chastelain, we shall publish both so that they can be seen alongside each other.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

No, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. There is no doubt in my mind that the necessary cross-community consensus which has existed, which supported the establishment of the Executive and of the institutions in Northern Ireland and north and south across the island of Ireland, and which is essential in creating those institutions and sustaining their existence, has been severely dented by the absence of credible progress on decommissioning—indeed, the absence of an unequivocal commitment to decommission, or a specific time frame in which decommissioning will occur.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarkable article in today's edition of The Irish Times by my hon, Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in which he pleads with the IRA to start decommissioning and explains why that is so essential? Can my right hon. Friend give the House a guarantee that, whatever the circumstances, he will continue to do his utmost to work closely with the Irish Government on decommissioning and other aspects of the Good Friday agreement?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I have read the article by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in The Irish Times today, and I heard his statements at the end of last week. I shall refer to what he has said later in my speech, but, for now, suffice it to say that I have absolutely no doubt that his remarks speak for the overwhelming mass of nationalist opinion in both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

If right hon. and hon. Members do not mind, I should like to make a little progress. One reason why the hon. Member for Foyle has expressed his views and his impatience on decommissioning is that, like the rest of us, he has derived enormous satisfaction from the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. On every other front, the agreement has brought a better way of life for the population as a whole than Northern Ireland has ever known before. It has brought an inclusive Executive, responsible to a locally elected Assembly. There are no longer any outsiders—no more second-class citizens—in the administration of Northern Ireland. The agreement places the principle of consent at the heart of the Northern Ireland constitution, and the Irish constitution has been amended to reflect that fact. The agreement has enabled serious, practical north-south co-operation, which has benefited all parts of the island. It has strengthened ties within the United Kingdom and has built a new and vigorous relationship with the rest of the island of Ireland. The devolved institutions are functioning effectively, proving that it is best to apply local minds to local problems. The agreement has brought Ministers together from different parties of hitherto highly conflicting views. Indeed, those views still conflict strongly in many respects, yet the new Ministers are working together, irrespective of the traditions from which they come, in good faith and in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. The new Ministers are working co-operatively with their counterparts in Dublin, London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. The vigour that they have applied to their new responsibilities proves conclusively that self-rule is far and away the best form of government for Northern Ireland. In addition, there are all the new institutions, and we must spare no effort to ensure their long-term survival. However, the Good Friday agreement was a finely judged deal. Every detail and every word was included in it for a reason and contributes to its overall balance. That is why every other part of the agreement has been implemented, is in the process of being implemented or has a plan in existence for its implementation in the near future. We must acknowledge the importance of having all parts of the agreement go forward together. Each part is interdependent. To maintain confidence in the agreement as a whole, it is necessary that each part moves forward. Alongside the new Executive, north-south ministerial and implementation bodies have been set up. Human rights and equality commissions have been established. Reform of policing and of criminal justice are moving forward. Prisoner releases continue—causing, I must say, understandable anguish among many victims' families, but going ahead none the less. Normalisation of security arrangements grows as the security threat subsides. All those things are happening, and much else besides. All of it is necessary if we are to build confidence in the peace process. However, confidence building is not a one-way street.

Malcolm Savidge (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Good Friday agreement commits all parties to work in good faith for the fulfilment of all parts of the agreement, including decommissioning?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I can confirm that. As recently as the Mitchell review and its outcome, Sinn Fein again recorded its view that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process. That is most important, because members of both traditions need to feel that their commitment is reciprocated, but, at present, that confidence has slumped.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I will in a moment. Actual, verifiable decommissioning is vital if we are to retain the faith of all parties in the Good Friday agreement—not just decommissioning by the IRA, but by all the paramilitary organisations. Each of them has an obligation; we must see decommissioning being undertaken by all of them, if the agreement as a whole is to be properly and effectively implemented.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I give way to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt).

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Was it not implicit throughout all the negotiations for the Good Friday agreement that Adams and McGuinness spoke for the IRA? Indeed, it was reported in The Sunday Times that McGuinness made explicit the fact that he spoke for the IRA. That is why we are in our present pass. Will the Secretary of State confirm that? Will he tell us whether the Irish Government support the legal process that we are about to put in train?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not get drawn into the intricacies of the relationships between different parts of the republican movement—I am not an expert on that subject. I only note that it was significant that, at the conclusion of the Mitchell review, the IRA issued a statement in which it pointed out, among other things, that it acknowledged the leadership of Sinn Fein in those matters. Implicit in that was an acceptance of the strategy, the policies and, indeed, the expressed positions that had been taken by Sinn Fein. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's question about the Irish Government in a moment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am going to save up the hon. Gentleman's interventions. It would be an enormous shame if I were to take them all in a rush at the outset of my remarks, because I should have nothing to look forward to later. It is important to note what George Mitchell—

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I am not going away.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I know that. In December last year, when George Mitchell celebrated the success of his review of the agreement, he said: I believe that the basis now exists for devolution to occur, for the institutions to be established, and for decommissioning to take place as soon as possible. He concluded that there is no other way forward". He was absolutely right. Against that background, Ulster Unionists always made it clear that, if there was no progress on decommissioning by the end of January, it would be very difficult for them to remain in the Executive. No commitments or guarantees were made on the other side. I have always made that clear; I have never claimed that anyone guaranteed that anything would happen by any particular date. Indeed, Sinn Fein made it clear that premature public deadlines made its task—of persuading the IRA to move—all the more difficult. Nor do I think, in that connection, that it helps matters for anyone to accuse anyone else of acting in bad faith. Nobody has a monopoly of good intentions in this situation. None the less, it was made clear to all those involved in the Mitchell review that substantive, tangible progress in decommissioning would be needed to sustain Unionist commitment to the Executive beyond the end of January.

Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour, Workington)

I recognise that the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning has ruled out the possibility of the purchase of decommissioned equipment. Will that proposal still be on the agenda in the difficult months that now face us?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am not conscious of that proposal ever having been placed prominently on the agenda. However, in so far as it was being considered, it may still be considered in its proper place and by the appropriate people—the international decommissioning body and its three commissioners headed by General John de Chastelain. Whatever the virtue of that proposal, it is not simply the continued absence of actual decommissioning that is causing the current difficulty. It is the uncertainty about whether decommissioning will ever happen and, if so, when and on what terms it will take place. When I say, "on what terms," I do not mean British terms and I do not mean Unionist terms, either. It is not for the British Government, the Ulster Unionist party or any other group to impose on any other organisation the terms on which it voluntarily carries out actions of arms' decommissioning. It is, however, a matter for those organisations to engage properly with the de Chastelain commission and to agree with it—within the terms of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997—how decommissioning will take place and within what acceptable time frame. All that remains, I am afraid, unclear, despite the availability of the de Chastelain commission to take matters forward. Of course, I applaud the fact that the Provisional IRA's guns are silent. Everyone in Northern Ireland is enormously relieved that those guns are silent. Its ceasefire during the past two and a half years has been an indispensable condition for politics to work in Northern Ireland. I welcome its expressed desire for a permanent peace. The absence of the word "permanent", as some hon. Members and certain right hon. Members are aware, was once an insuperable obstacle to progress. Now it has been said and the obstacle has been surmounted. If the war is over, we have to ask the Provisional IRA why arms still need to be retained. If violence is a thing of the past, why cannot weapons of violence be put permanently beyond use, as they should be, and as the Good Friday agreement lays down that they should be? I know of absolutely no section of nationalist opinion anywhere that disagrees with that sentiment. Of course—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows of a section of nationalist opinion that disagrees with that sentiment.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. He has said some extraordinary things. Does he not think that, possibly, Sinn Fein might be a section of that opinion that does not wish to give up weapons because Sinn Fein and the IRA, as his own Prime Minister has said, are inextricably linked? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman therefore realises that, if the IRA does not want to give up weapons, Sinn Fein does not want to give up weapons, either.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

As the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, I was referring not to republican opinion but to nationalist opinion, and the key point stands. Anything that smacks of surrender is unjustified; nobody is seeking to humiliate anyone in these circumstances. I cannot think of anything that would be more destructive. Any cause or sentiment that unites the Irish Government, the American Government, editorial writers in Dublin, Cork, Boston, Washington and New York, the leadership and rank and file of the SDLP and public opinion in the north and south of Ireland surely cannot be wrong. All that coalition—that breadth and wealth of opinion—has stated unambiguously that the time for decommissioning is now, and that a start must be made by the Provisional IRA. Yet, as matters stand, a way forward continues to elude us.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Is the Secretary of State aware that after the atrocities at Enniskillen, Omagh and Canary Wharf, world opinion expressed much the same sentiment as is now being expressed, but inevitably gravitated back towards support for Sinn Fein and their aims?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

Public opinion was right then and it remains right—decommissioning needs to start. I was disappointed and slightly taken aback that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle the other day supported an early token act of decommissioning, his intervention was dismissed as inappropriate by the chairman of Sinn Fein. That is a lordly and arrogant rebuff to someone who has committed much to the peace process and who has been rewarded with a Nobel peace prize for his efforts. As I said in my statement last week, the circumstances mean that the cross-community support necessary for the institutions to operate successfully is, I am afraid, fast ebbing away. I hope that the circumstances will yet change, but that requires clarity about whether decommissioning will happen, how it will happen and when it will begin. Without such clarity, the current loss of cross-community confidence is so serious that the Executive would simply fall apart. Where that is clearly foreseeable, we must ensure that good government for all the people of Northern Ireland continues.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

rose>—

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I give way first to my right hon. Friend.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

Given what my right hon. Friend has said, and the broad measure of world support for decommissioning and the process, why is he terminating the north-south links and the intergovernmental links, when nobody could possibly blame the Irish Government for having played any part whatever in delaying decommissioning and when, indeed, they have been entirely positive in their contribution to the agreement?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I shall come to that in a moment. It is enormously regrettable that we have to suspend the north-south institutions and the implementation bodies, not least because already in their short time they are making a valuable contribution to life in the island of Ireland. However, all those institutions are interdependent; they are all interlocked in terms of the Good Friday agreement, to which we have all been signatories. I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) before resuming my speech.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My patience is rewarded, and I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is much good will towards him in the Chamber today, but I hope that he will not risk sapping that good will by continuing to try to imitate Kafka in the opaqueness of his statements. Will he state categorically to the House how he believes that confidence, about which he rightly talked, is increased by non-publication of the de Chastelain report?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

If the hon. Gentleman lived in Northern Ireland and had lived through the enormous encouragement and excitement that people in Northern Ireland have experienced with the establishment of those institutions, as well as through the disappointment and demoralisation that they feel now that those institutions are threatened, he would be focusing on something else, and something frankly more significant than a single report by General de Chastelain. The hon. Gentleman says that his patience has paid dividends. I must express my disappointment in him. Unless he comes up with rather more substantive interventions, I may not be tempted to give way again.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

The Secretary of State should give way. It was emphasised in the House last week that we were discussing the Belfast agreement. In the light of the Secretary of State's answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), may I point out that the only link with Good Friday is that the innocent are suffering with the guilty, whereas it should be the guilty who suffer?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

The House has heard the hon. Gentleman's point and will evaluate it. Some people have said to me—indeed, some of my hon. Friends have remarked—that we should not be taking an axe to the institutions, that we should sustain them and keep them going, and that the last thing that anyone in Northern Ireland needs is for the very successful Executive and institutions to be suspended, as may well be the case at the end of the week, unless circumstances change. However, those people are posing a false choice. The choice before us is not between institutions being suspended and institutions which, if they were left alone, would continue to perform successfully in the future, as they have done to date. We are not faced with the choice between suspension and imperfect continuation of the Executive. We are faced with a very different choice. It is a choice between suspending the institutions, or seeing them progressively and quite rapidly collapse because confidence in them has plummeted. In other words, it is not a choice between suspension and carrying on as we are. It is a choice between pause or bust in the institutions.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

rose—

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I have already given way to him. It is in no one's interest for those fragile institutions to be allowed to shatter irreversibly, simply because it is too hard or too painful to take the necessary action to forestall that now. Delay in acting will not buy us time in the present circumstances. If we delay, it will only make the landing harder, unless between now and the end of the week a substantial turnround of events occurs and we have answers to the essential decommissioning questions—whether it will take place and when. A pause in the operation of the institutions, far from allowing them to collapse, will preserve them, save them for the future and enable them to be revived at a future date. It will allow all our efforts to focus on finding a way forward, through a review that would ensue following a suspension—a way, I hope quickly, to restore the institutions and make progress on decommissioning and all the other aspects of the agreement.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Last Thursday I urged him to ensure that if suspension must take place, the period of suspension will be as short as possible. Will he confirm that the review will be treated as a matter of urgency? Who is to conduct the review? Is it likely to be jointly chaired by my right hon. Friend and Mr. Cowen of the Irish Government?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

Those are important details, which I need to consider with the Irish Government under the terms of paragraph 7 of the Good Friday agreement. We will do that speedily. It is important that every hon. Member understands the imperative for and urgency of our actions. If we do not put the operation of the institutions on hold, subsequent events would so severely compromise and shatter their operation, that they would rapidly and irreversibly unravel. No hon. Member should doubt—I do not believe that any hon. Member will doubt—that the First Minister and his colleagues would resign their positions in view of the loss of confidence in the Executive and the institutions. We must be clear about what would ensue if we lost the First Minister from his position. First, the Deputy First Minister would automatically cease to hold office at the same time. I cannot choose, or wave a magic wand, to change that. As sure as night follows day, consequences would follow. No other credible candidates would secure a majority of Unionists and a majority of nationalists in the Assembly. An alternative First Minister and Deputy First Minister would have to do that if they were to stand any chance of election. The cross-community majority would not exist for another ticket. In such circumstances, I would be obliged within six weeks to call fresh Assembly elections. At best, those elections would cement the existing stalemate. At worst, they would further polarise the divisions that have emerged, and make conducting a successful review almost impossible—let alone reverting to the existing Executive and institutions. The last thing to emerge from those circumstances would be another consensual, cross-party Government in Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland would simply cease to operate. I will not let that Government simply collapse into a black hole. That would happen if we allowed events to unfold—as they certainly would—without taking the necessary action before reaching that point at the end of week.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If the Secretary of State intends to comment on the point that I am about to make later in his speech, I am happy to wait until then. What is the ingredient that is required for reinstating devolution? For the Secretary of State, is it simply a statement from the Provisional IRA that it intends to decommission and that it has a timetable, or will he ask for product up front?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

It is not me who has to be satisfied. First, General de Chastelain and his commission have to be satisfied that all the paramilitary organisations are properly and effectively engaging not only with the principle of decommissioning, but with the modalities of how it will be achieved. More important than satisfying General de Chastelain and his colleagues, the community and public opinion in Northern Ireland must be satisfied. That means that both traditions in Northern Ireland must be satisfied that decommissioning is taking place on an acceptable, effective basis. Unless both traditions are equally satisfied, and confidence in the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement is properly rebuilt, the Executive and institutions will not be able to resume their current operation. That is the bottom line.

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

Is it not the case that not only the IRA, but the loyalists are not decommissioning? How does my right hon. Friend address Sinn Fein's point that the British Government are responding to an artificial deadline imposed by the Ulster Unionists? The real deadline is a couple of months down the road, in May.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I am sure that my hon. Friend was present at the beginning of my speech when I addressed that point by saying that the problem we face is indecision or reluctance to decommission not only on the part of the Provisional IRA but on the part of all the paramilitary organisations. De Chastelain has obtained from certain of the loyalist paramilitaries an undertaking that they would follow if the Provisional IRA were to decommission. That is progress—something we can tuck under our belt—but we have to be absolutely realistic, as I am sure my hon. Friend will be. The biggest such stumbling block is the Provisional IRA's inability even to address the need to give a clear and unequivocal indication of its intention to decommission, let alone when and how it will do so. Without any sense of recrimination, threat, anger or anything else, I say that that is what we need to make progress, and for confidence in the institutions to be rebuilt.

Maria Fyfe (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As that is such a massive problem, what does my right hon. Friend think of a national day of reconciliation on which all relevant bodies might act together to provide reassurance to the others?

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

That is a creative and imaginative suggestion. I have always said—without in any way conceding an equivalence between legally and illegally held weapons—that normalisation of the security profile and elimination of the threat should go hand in hand. I am very willing to give further thought to those general ideas. Let me quickly run through the contents of the Bill. It enables what I hope—if it proves necessary—will be the temporary return to Northern Ireland of direct rule. Under clause 1, while the institutions, including the Executive, are on hold, neither the Assembly nor its Committees will meet. All Northern Ireland Ministers and the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Statutory Committees will cease to hold office, although under clause 3 all Ministers and other office holders who lost office but are still eligible are automatically reappointed to their previous office when the institutions are restored. Clause 2 allows the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a restoration order to end the suspension, taking into account the outcome of the review. The schedule sets out that executive responsibility will return to the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Departments acting under the direction of the Secretary of State. Legislation that would normally be made by the Assembly will be made by Order in Council approved by Parliament. A restoration order and its revocation must, under clause 7, be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to return the functions of the implementation bodies to the relevant Northern Ireland Departments, in line with arrangements agreed with the Irish Government. That reflects the underlying principle of the agreement that all these institutions are interlocking and interdependent. Those are serious steps, but in the absence of any progress they will, I believe, preserve the institutions from collapse and enable us to revive them at the earliest possible date. May I say this to the House in conclusion? The bomb attack in Fermanagh on Sunday reminds us that, tragically, there are still people in Northern Ireland who prefer violence and chaos to peace and stability. My sympathy goes out to all those in Irvinestown whose property has been destroyed and whose peace has been shattered. These futile, cowardly assaults on the overwhelming will of the people are what the Good Friday Agreement sought to end. I believe it is the duty of the British Government, and, indeed, of the Irish Government, and of all the political parties, to deliver the people's will and put this process back on track. There will never be a better agreement than this. The Good Friday Agreement is a replete and robust agreement. It is a near perfect settlement, and I believe that if we were to scrap it and start negotiating it from scratch what we then ended up with would be very, very similar indeed to what we have at present. I really do not think there will be a better agreement than this. With this Bill the Government are moving to guard its integrity and the confidence of all sides in it. I hope that all hon. Members will feel able to give us and the Bill their support, so that we can preserve and save what we have, in order to revive it another day, if it should prove necessary, as I hope it will not, to put on pause the operation of the institutions at the end of this week.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I should like immediately to associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State's remarks about the people of Irvinestown. It was a devastating blow to that small and peaceful community when, at 7.20 on Sunday evening, a bomb exploded in the town and caused such damage. Can we as a House send one absolutely clear message to the men of violence, wherever they happen to come from? They will never succeed in their objectives by such dastardly actions, which are always, without exception, completely counter-productive. We strongly support the Bill and shall vote for it if need be. We support it for a very simple reason: ever since it became clear that it was most unlikely that any substantial decommissioning would take place, we have believed that the only way forward was for the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive, the Assembly and the other relevant institutions. Clearly, for that to be done we must put direct rule back in place. That, basically, is what this legislation is all about. Before I go into detail on the Bill, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I return for a final time to what I think has been a dreadful mistake by the Secretary of State. I believe that the House was owed an explanation as to why the de Chastelain report has not been published. The House has been put in an unenviable position, having to take decisions tonight on direct rule without knowing what the general said in that report. I repeat again to the Secretary of State that I fully accept that there might be sensitive, particularly security-sensitive, items in that report. By all means exclude those, but we need to see the conclusions. Even at this late hour, I hope he will reconsider and, before we vote on Second Reading or on any of the amendments, will place the report, or at least its conclusions, in the Library or the Vote Office.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

The right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. He has already told us twice today that he welcomes the Bill. He has been calling for this suspension for weeks. Whether he sees the report has no bearing on his judgment; he has made it absolutely clear where he stands. Surely there is no point in pursuing this.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The House must have the maximum information available before reaching a decision: that is how it works. The Secretary of State rightly referred to the report both today and in his statement on Thursday, and, as right hon. and hon. Members have said—not just Conservatives, but Liberal Democrats and Unionists—if a report has been referred to, it is only proper for the information to be placed before the House so that all Members can reach a decision. I willingly acknowledge that—as the Secretary of State has heard me say a number of times, from the Dispatch Box and elsewhere—I believe suspension to be right. I am not convinced that all Members share my views at this stage, but they might if they saw what was in the report. I believe that the report should be published, but I will not dwell on the issue. I leave the Secretary of State to reflect on it further as the debate proceeds. This is an extremely sad day for the people of Northern Ireland. They, naturally, yearn for a lasting peace, and they have hoped and prayed for decommissioning. They have been dreadfully let down. Over the past few weeks, they have enjoyed having their own Executive and elected Assembly. The democratic deficit that I consider to have been so damaging to the body politic in Northern Ireland had been eradicated, and we saw Northern Ireland's elected politicians taking responsibility for much that happened in the Province. That was healthy, right and proper. As the Secretary of State willingly acknowledged, it is the first and best option for the present and future governance of Northern Ireland. It was working, and I believe that it would have continued to work. A number of distinguished past office holders are present—Members who have served in the Northern Ireland Office as Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State. I know they would agree that the alternative, direct rule, is very much second best. Although it will now be necessary, it is a great pity that it had to happen at all. It is worth reflecting on why the Secretary of State has introduced this Bill, and why it is gaining support on the Opposition Benches. I believe that, towards the end of last year, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was courageous in agreeing to serve on the Executive along with his Unionist colleagues, although there had been no decommissioning by the Provisional IRA, and to serve with Sinn Fein Ministers. It was a brave decision, but it was also the right decision—a decision that I have consistently and strongly supported. That decision was made, however, because there was an understanding that, once the Executive had been set up, decommissioning would commence in a matter of weeks. The Secretary of State confirmed that to me at the Dispatch Box on Thursday. I do not wish to apportion blame unduly, but I think that we must be clear about this. The simple truth is that the First Minister, the Secretary of State and I, along with the whole House, have been let down by Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA. They have failed to deliver the decommissioning that it was understood would happen once the Executive was in place. It must be said that with the paramilitaries, whether republican or so-called loyalist, it has been all take and, to date, absolutely no give. As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, every other aspect of the Belfast agreement has been implemented, or is being implemented. In other words, the two Governments, British and Irish, and the constitutional parties, Unionist and nationalist, have fulfilled all their obligations. The only people who have not fulfilled their obligations under the Belfast agreement are the paramilitaries, republican and loyalist: they have failed to decommission any of their illegally held arms and explosives. I want to address the arguments presented by Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and some of the so-called loyalist paramilitary leaders. They say, "All that the Belfast agreement stated was that over a two-year period, concluding on 22 May, all illegally held arms and explosives must be decommissioned; so why the rush? We do not have to do it yet." Looking at the situation and knowing that all illegally held arms and explosives have to be decommissioned over a two-year period by 22 May, any reasonable person would conclude that, 21 months on, the fact that not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in by any of the parties that signed up to the agreement shows that they are not fulfilling their obligations. That is why it is absolutely essential that decommissioning commences before the Executive and the Assembly can be reinstated. As the Secretary of State confirmed, prisoner releases are a sensitive issue. If we go back to the summer of 1998, when the House passed the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, initially, we understood why the Government released terrorist prisoners early back on to the streets of Belfast. It was right—in fact, it was essential—that the Government showed their good will to the paramilitaries and moved first. However, by the autumn of 1998, it was clear that a large number of prisoners, republican and loyalist, had been released early, yet there had been no decommissioning whatever. It was at that point that we said clearly that we believed that no further prisoners should be released until there had been genuine progress on decommissioning. We have repeated that again and again in the House. We have the reprehensible situation today that more than 300 terrorist prisoners have been released early, but still not one gun, or ounce of Semtex, has been decommissioned. I want to say in the gentlest way possible to the relatively new Secretary of State that we sincerely and deeply believe that, had we been listened to in the autumn of 1998 and thereafter, when we said, "Stop prisoner releases until there is some decommissioning," we would not be in the position today of finding no decommissioning and of having to suspend both the Executive and the Assembly. That is regrettable. I will not dwell further on the matter, but it is important that the point be made.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

rose—

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

rose—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I give way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a different view? The reason why the republicans, and certainly the IRA, are so isolated today is because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement. If we had not, if prisoner releases had been stopped and the rest of it, they would have had an excuse. They would have said, "Look. The British have not done what they claimed they would do." It is precisely because we have honoured the Good Friday agreement and the IRA has not even issued a statement on decommissioning that it is isolated, not us. That is recognised internationally.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman because I sincerely and deeply believe that, had we stopped prisoner releases earlier, decommissioning would have started. The reason why the paramilitaries are isolated today is because of the courage of the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and of his colleagues in going into that Executive and testing whether they were prepared to decommission and be of their word. Sadly, we have found that that is not the case. It is deeply regrettable. As to the future, I have some observations and some questions for the Secretary of State, which I hope he will find helpful and to which I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will respond at the end of the debate. If pressure is brought to bear on the paramilitaries, it will be essential—I agree with the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—that both loyalist and republican paramilitaries decommission. The reason why we emphasise the role of the Provisional IRA is simply because, as the Prime Minister has rightly told us, it is inextricably linked to Sinn Fein and it is Sinn Fein that holds ministerial office in the Executive. However, to achieve lasting progress, we shall have to have decommissioning in full, quickly, by all the paramilitaries—from both the republican and the loyalist wings—who signed up to the agreement. If we do get decommissioning moving to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain—I emphasise again to the Secretary of State our confidence in the general and his international commission—may we have an undertaking that the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly will be immediately lifted? I think that the Secretary of State shares my view that direct rule is very much second best, and that we shall be anxious to return to an Executive and an Assembly as soon as possible. It seems to me essential that, if the legislation proceeds through both Houses—as I hope and believe that it will this week—it should receive Royal Assent on Friday. Subsequently, it will be within the Secretary of State's power to suspend as and when he sees fit. On the assumption—I hope that it is a false assumption, but fear that it is a realistic one—that there is no substantial decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by the Provisional IRA to the general's satisfaction, may I have an absolute undertaking that the Executive and Assembly will be suspended by the end of this week? For reasons that are self-evident and that I do not wish to dwell upon, it would be most unwise to delay any longer, as that could be extremely damaging to the process. I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he will be able to give me positive replies on those points.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I note the seriousness of the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. Perhaps that seriousness would be reinforced if he gave us the reasons why he feels that it is essential that that should be done by this Friday.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

It is essential—as I think the hon. Gentleman, the Deputy First Minister, will be aware—because, in a democratic, civilised society, it is not right, practical or possible for people to share ministerial office for any length of time with those who have not completely renounced violence for good. If anyone is inextricably linked to the Provisional IRA—as Sinn Fein is—and if the Provisional IRA has failed to decommission any of its illegally held arms or explosives, it would not be right or proper for him or her to be in ministerial office for any length of time with other Ministers.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

rose—

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

The hon. Gentleman did ask me a question. Although I should be very happy to allow him to intervene again, I should do him the justice of completing my answer. I shall then be only too pleased to give way to him again. I believe that, in those circumstances, it is inevitable, right and proper that others who hold ministerial office would be forced to resign those offices, bringing down the Executive. I think that that would be the wrong way forward. The Secretary of State knows that I believe that, at the end of this week, if there has not been a proper start to decommissioning, the right way forward would be for him to suspend the Executive and Assembly. That would be in the Province's best interests and in everyone's best interests. I hope that that satisfies the Deputy First Minister on my position. I should be very happy to give way, if he wishes to cross-examine me further.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. My questions are asked only in the interests of clarity, which is so important in these issues. If I were to suggest that it should happen on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday—in the hope that that would provide time to achieve the type of movement on decommissioning that could prevent a suspension—would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be wrong to do it on Friday? Does he agree that we should provide that time, if there is a hope that it might work?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I would need a huge amount of convincing. Time and again the paramilitaries and their political friends have broken timetables and assurances, and failed to abide by understandings. The only way forward is either—as I hope—for decommissioning to have commenced to the satisfaction of the general by the end of the week or for the Secretary of State to suspend. I do not think that there is any other option.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

I have listened intently to the right hon. Gentleman. Why does he think that a Minister should take away the rights of the electors in Northern Ireland? Ministers come and go and can be sacked, moved or defeated even in this country, but the characteristic of the Belfast agreement was that it gave the people of Northern Ireland the right to decide. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he wants their electoral rights taken away by Friday. When Assemblies are dissolved there are further elections. What makes him so sure that the Government should abolish the democratic electoral rights of the people of Northern Ireland? What gain would that bring to anyone?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

It will be up to the House to decide what happens in a vote or a series of votes later tonight. I have told the Secretary of State clearly that he has my full support in introducing the Bill. I have confidence in his making the right decision and suspending on Friday because, as I said in answer to the Deputy First Minister a few moments ago, I believe that in a free, democratic, civilised, liberal democracy, people who fail to decommission their illegally held arms and explosives cannot hold ministerial office. It may be acceptable for them to hold office for a short time to encourage them to decommission. That is why I supported the establishment of the Executive and backed the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues when they entered into office with Sinn Fein. There was an understanding when they did so that there would be decommissioning within weeks. As we all know, after more than just a few weeks—we are now well into February—that has not happened. It is deeply regrettable, but that is the position that the Secretary of State and the House are in.

Brian Cotter (Liberal Democrat, Weston-Super-Mare)

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, if General de Chastelain and the commission were to say that a few more days after Friday could produce a result, that would be enough for a possible route forward?

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

I would need to study carefully the text of what General de Chastelain said. As we do not have the current report and we are not getting very far with his text today, I am not confident. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The people of Northern Ireland, the House and world opinion have been let down time and again. We have been strung along with promises, understandings and timetables that have not been kept. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not confident of believing anything short of decommissioning. I would need an awful lot of convincing, even from a report from the general—even if the Secretary of State chose to publish it.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, from its inception with the Downing street declaration, the understanding that only parties totally committed to peaceful and democratic methods could be included has been inherent in the process? From then on there has been a continuous resiling from that principle. It is perfectly in order for the democratic majority in Northern Ireland to say that we are not going to sit down in an institution of government that claims to be democratic with the political representatives of a paramilitary terrorist group.

Andrew MacKay (Conservative, Bracknell)

Over the past 18 months, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) and I have clashed and disagreed over the Belfast agreement and its implementation, but on the point that he raises, we are probably as one. For no sustainable period can one have people who are inextricably linked to paramilitaries who are not decommissioning being Ministers in any part of a civilised democracy, such as the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. I like to think that I can carry the whole House with that view. That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill and why I have—for some weeks, after it became abundantly clear that decommissioning was unlikely—been urging the Secretary of State to suspend the Executive and the Assembly. I hope that suspension will be for the shortest period possible and that pressure will be put on the paramilitaries—so-called loyalist and republican—to decommission. I hope also that the House will send a clear and unanimous message to the men of violence that there is no way they will ever achieve their objectives; the right way forward is through the democratic process; and that they have real opportunities, through the Assembly and the Executive, to be part of that process at last. They will not easily be forgiven by the people of Northern Ireland if they do not grasp that opportunity quickly. The eyes of the world will be on them. I hope and pray that they are listening.

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members requested at a late stage to speak in this debate. I therefore make the plea for contributions to be brief.

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

During the last 10 years or so, this House of democrats has taken a great deal on trust from the present Government and its predecessor Government over Northern Ireland. It is clear from the Secretary of State's speech that we must take a certain amount on trust again today. In the present circumstances, I hope that the House will be prepared to do so. This is a Bill that no one wished to see. Over the years, great progress has been made—old hatreds disentangled and old opponents working together in a way quite unprecedented at any time during recent years in Ireland. Nationalism and Unionism have learned a great deal, one about the other, as they have worked together over the past months. As a result, for a period the guns have been silenced, peace has had a chance, and for many everyday people of Northern Ireland a hope was born that previously was not there. Almost at the final hurdle, there is a stumble and optimism turns to despair. There are three possible outcomes to the present impasse. The happy outcome is that there will be a change of heart and decommissioning will begin. I hope for that outcome profoundly, but it is unlikely in the short term. I certainly do not expect it in the next few days. The unhappy outcome is that the old antagonisms will return in full flood and the murder, mayhem, killing and bombing will recommence. I do not expect that outcome either, although fringe groups—as, tragically, we have seen over the past few days—may return to violence, as they may have done even if the process had continued and proved successful. There have always been those wishing the process to fail for political reasons. There have always been those wishing it to fail because they hide straightforward criminality under the guise of a political struggle. The third possible outcome is the one that I expect. There will be an uneasy time ahead—while political effort continues in London, Belfast and Dublin—as a way out of the box in which we find ourselves is sought. Today's decision by the House will offer time for that work to go ahead. The box is well understood by all right hon. and hon. Members. Arms are not being decommissioned. Why not? If it is because the paramilitaries—and on this occasion, I mean especially the IRA—have an undiminished appetite for a united Ireland at all costs and by any means, the future is a good deal more uncertain than anyone in the House would wish it to be. However, they must have realised—or this process would not have made the progress that it has—that 25 years of violence have not delivered to them the objectives that they sought. There have been enough signs that there are those in the IRA and Sinn Fein who seek a political path for the future, not a violent path. The sensible democrat helps the embryonic democrat to find the way to democracy. That is what London, Dublin and Belfast have been doing for years, with the active involvement of the democratic political parties on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. I hope, at this moment of difficulty, that we do not underestimate the progress that has been made, or what exists still to build upon, even if our present ambitions fall apart in our hands. It is at least possible—and there were times when I thought that it was not possible but probable—that the leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA are prepared to begin decommissioning, but do not know how, or do not have the courage, the confidence or the support of their movements at this moment to do so. Some time ago, when we heard from the Government talk of a seismic shift, I assumed that private commitments had been given. That was a reasonable assumption that I was not alone in making. Either that was careless talk, which I doubt, or the Government were misled. In either event, it is clear that, sadly, the seismic shift has not taken place. Let us consider why that might be. It is not an easy proposition, but I invite hon. Members to try to put themselves in the minds of the IRA to appreciate the dilemma as the IRA sees it. It may be instructive to do so. This House of democrats does not agree with the IRA, but it is instructive to try to understand its perspective, for it is always useful to see into the mind of the people with whom one is dealing. Understanding of that sort is never pointless. Decommissioning is not just the decision of one or two leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA; it is a much more difficult decision to obtain. It requires the consent of the army council of the IRA and a full meeting of so-called volunteers—including those whom I mentioned a moment ago for whom criminality has been a way of life for the best part of the last quarter of a century. That is a difficult proposition to deliver, although it is absolutely necessary and we must continue to demand it. It is for that reason that, last week, I asked the Secretary of State if the leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA had been invited by the Government or anyone else to place a proposal for decommissioning before the army council of the IRA, so that we could see the response. To be diplomatic, the Secretary of State was opaque in the answer that he declined to give me. That is a pity, although I do not press him again, as his silence was eloquent enough. It is a pity, because his answer would have been informative to those of us having to take a decision today in considering the correct policies to follow tomorrow. The great need, after today, is to stick the glue around what has been achieved and to make sure that it does not slip away even though the final hurdle at the moment has not been jumped. It may be that the leaders of the IRA never intended to disarm at all. If that is the case, in my judgment they misled the nationalist community as well as everybody else. Decommissioning does matter, because both traditions in Northern Ireland need the assurance of peace in the long term that only decommissioning can bring. It is a tragedy that it is not at present being delivered. Now, of course, the leaders of Sinn Fein say that decommissioning was never offered as part of the Belfast agreement, and even have the temerity to be offensive to the Secretary of State when he speaks critically of their position. The right hon. Gentleman will have to bear the occasional criticism, because, as I can tell him, it goes with the job. He had better learn to like it, because it will continue to do so. When the leaders of Sinn Fein or the IRA speak in that fashion, we should bear in mind that they are addressing their hardliners as much as they are addressing everybody else. We should not fall into the trap of giving those hardliners the opportunity of making life even more difficult for the leaders and hence for the process.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that the highest echelons of security information state that at least four high-ranking members of Sinn Fein are also members of the seven-man IRA military council?

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am well aware of the inter-relationship. I neither confirm nor deny security information, and the hon. and learned Gentleman must stand on his own comments. Suffice it to say that the interrelationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA is long-standing. We cannot, even the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot—I wish we could—see into the minds of those people and know truly what their objectives are and whether they are seeking to bring a movement towards peace or seeking to pull the wool over our eyes. I do not know the answer to that and neither does the hon. and learned Gentleman. He may have his suspicions—we all do—but we do not know. If there is no intention of disarming, we will have to continue to look for other ways to deal with the problem, and that will become apparent in the weeks and months ahead.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider one other possibility? Whatever Semtex is handed in, those we are dealing with would want more. If they gave everything in, they could cancel the agreement and we would be back where we started. In looking into the minds of those we are dealing with, we have to consider the possibility of obstacle after obstacle being raised and none of them being satisfied. Therefore, there may be an element of suspicion apart from the desire to reunite Ireland, which nobody thinks is possible, because neither the north or south wants it.

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am familiar with the argument that people could go out and buy more Semtex, but one of the aspects of a wholesale decommissioning is that the IRA disarmed is not a sustainable organisation. The disarmament of the IRA amounts to its disbandment. Other fringe groups, such as Continuity IRA—the present IRA is, after all, a fringe group of an earlier body—may return to violence, but once there is wholesale disarmament we will be in a different position, including politically. In that case, no one could doubt that there was no sympathy in any part of any community—as in the past there has been—for the activities of the men of violence. It would be straightforward criminality in everyone's mind, not just in the minds of democrats such as the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members, and it could be dealt with in that fashion. Once there is a general level of decommissioning, there would be a complete sea change, even if some people then moved to fringe groups and rearmed themselves. The question we must face is where we go from the present situation. The Bill establishes the power to adopt direct rule which, sadly, is inevitable and will, barring some extraordinary turn of events, be adopted by the House today and brought into effect over the next few days. Many gloomy words have been said and written about the present impasse and I share the despair that the Bill is necessary and that the promises we thought were made have not been kept. However, even as we despair over that, I hope that we do not carry our despair too far. In our own interests and those of Northern Ireland, we should seek to preserve the gains of recent years, which are substantial. London and Dublin working together is a sharp change from what happened in the past. The end of the sterile debate of the past is another welcome change. The much greater political engagement across the board that has been brought about is, again, of immeasurable proportions in our understanding, especially when one considers how much distrust and fear have fuelled Northern Irish politics for so long. We need to ensure that the political process continues in some state—albeit, perhaps, abbreviated. Talks should certainly continue, to cement the improved relationship and prevent a return to the political barricades. Even if this process does, for the time being, falter, as it seems about to do, in parallel with moves to resurrect it the Government are not powerless in the measures that they can take to continue to give hope and optimism to Northern Ireland. Very serious pockets of economic difficulty exist on both sides of the divide, in Unionist and Catholic areas, and they should continue to be tackled vigorously. Often, the grievance that has sustained the paramilitaries has been an economic grievance of people who felt that they were outside the system and believed that they were being represented best by men who were actually representing only their own violent interests. Removing that grievance would deny them the oxygen of support. In the absence of an Executive, if that is to be a continuing position—which I profoundly hope it is not—the Government might wish to look at the devolution of more powers directly to local government. The concrete achievements of the past decade can certainly be built on.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend has talked about things that we can do to give a positive sense of movement. Would he also consider the alternative approach of imposing sanctions? I refer to the release of prisoners. It seems hard to continue with that policy while the IRA refuses to disarm in any sense.

John Major (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My right hon. and learned Friend approaches the point that I was about to make, albeit slightly differently. The Secretary of State spoke of confidence building and the role of prisoner release. He may also—I cannot remember—have mentioned the proposed reforms of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As the right hon. Gentleman said—and I agree with him on this point—confidence building is two-way; it is not one-way. Democracy cannot continue to offer incentives if there is no response to the incentives that are being offered. Without decommissioning, the concessions that have been made by democracy will have to be re-examined to see whether they are still appropriate in the changed circumstance of there being no decommissioning and no immediate sign that decommissioning will commence in the short term. We should pass the Bill today, without enthusiasm, but we should pass it none the less. As we do so, it is important in the language used here, which finds its echoes outside, that we do not return, and do not encourage other people to return, to the trenches of the past. The message that I hope will go out from the House today is that, notwithstanding the difficulties and disappointments that we are facing, we are still looking for a durable peace that will offer Northern Ireland the ease of mind and security that we on the mainland so easily take for granted. As the Secretary of State searches for that, he deserves our tolerance and support, and I hope that he will receive it.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Like the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), I had hoped that it would not be necessary to bring a Bill such as this before the House. Obviously, when we took the risks that we took at the end of November, we hoped that they would wholly succeed. I am disappointed that we are facing the consequences of the failure of the hopes with which we embarked just over two months ago. Since last March, there has been an effective stalemate in the development of the political process in Northern Ireland and the implementation of the Good Friday agreement on an issue that is not only about guns, but is, at heart, about whether people are genuinely committed to peaceful means and the democratic process. Last March, Mr. Adams, the person returned to serve as the Member for Belfast, West, but who has not done so, coined the phrase that we should "jump together". In subsequent months, we tried many times to explore with him precisely what he meant. In the event, we never achieved absolute clarity on that point. None the less, towards the end of the Mitchell review, and in light of the discussions and the understandings arrived at during that process, we decided to jump first. That was not an easy decision to make. One of the great, and soundly based, fears of members of my party and of people in Northern Ireland who have seen what has happened over the years was that they would be sucked into a process and strung along again and again. It became clear to me as we approached the decision taken by the Ulster Unionist council on 27 November that we should not achieve a positive decision unless we addressed that fear of being strung along. We would not achieve a positive decision unless some clear floor were placed beneath the process. That we did, in the letters written by me and my ministerial colleagues and in the council's decision to reconvene to take a final decision.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

No. That resolution to meet again in February did not set a precondition or a deadline. It was simply the decision of a democratic party to meet to consider the situation. We put no precise requirement in front of anyone, and we did not say, "You must do this or that." As a democratic party, we exercised our right to meet and consider the situation. February was chosen for the simple reason that a clear understanding existed following the Mitchell review that the sequence being put in train would run until January. The existence of that clear understanding was brought into the public domain when, on 12 December, General de Chastelain issued his second report, which, I am happy to say, the Government published within a matter of minutes of receiving it. In that report, General de Chastelain said that he would make a further report in January. That sequence could not have surprised anyone. It was basically the same as the sequence contained in the Prime Minister's proposals of last July—"The Way Forward". Those proposals were underpinned by exactly the same arrangements and expectations with regard to decommissioning as were contained in the Mitchell review.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The right hon. Gentleman is better able than most to answer the question that I wish to ask. The IRA has made it plain, in terms, that it has no present intent to decommission. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and many others believe that they were at some stage given undertakings to the contrary. What undertakings were given to him on decommissioning, and by whom?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I do not know that it would be helpful to explore that question in detail, but I shall do so in general terms. It was clearly said to us that, by jumping first, we would create the best possible circumstances in which to achieve decommissioning. That assurance was given in a statement issued by Sinn Fein, which said that it was committed to achieving it. The IRA issued a statement—in the public domain—accepting the leadership of Sinn Fein. No concrete guarantee was given. None the less, we were told that those were the best circumstances in which to achieve decommissioning. In turn, we responded by saying that, if we moved first—to create the optimum conditions—we could sustain that for only a limited period. The capacity of the parties to move and to sustain what they were doing was discussed at great length. There was no misunderstanding about that whatever; if we took the initiative, we could sustain it only for a limited period. There was a clear understanding by all the parties that that time would run out by the end of January. On that, there was, and can be, no misunderstanding at all. It was further expressly agreed—indeed, the proposition was first put by the republicans themselves—that, if we went forward in that way only to see things collapse a few months later, it would be a bad outcome. I took that to be a clear indication of their intent to proceed. In that situation, we knew that we were giving people an opportunity—in their own description, it was the best opportunity—but one that carried a challenge and a test. I am amazed that, when we reached the end of January, not only had no actual decommissioning occurred, but no concrete gesture had been made at all by the republican movement. No one can be sure until we see the detail of the de Chastelain report, but, as far as I am aware, nothing of substance was put on the table; that continues to be the case. I was, and continue to be, amazed that, having encouraged us to create the situation, the republican movement made no positive response. Given the situation that existed at the end of November and the beginning of December, the republicans can have been in no doubt—nor could any reasonable person—that reciprocation formed part of the understandings; that it was expected; and that the failure to reciprocate would carry consequences. We proceeded "to jump first", but we did so on the basis of certain understandings. The failure of events to develop as we had hoped has falsified the basis on which we proceeded, and clearly makes it impossible for us to continue in the false position in which we now find ourselves. It is, therefore, necessary to reconsider and unwind the matter. The Secretary of State will remember the statements that he made in November, when he made it clear that, in the event of a failure by republicans to reciprocate, the Government would intervene. He knows the extent to which we relied on those assurances at that time. Similar assurances were forthcoming from the Irish Government; the right hon. Gentleman repeated them in his statement to the House last Thursday. The Irish Government know the extent to which we relied on their assurances when we took our decision. We have reached the end of January and seen no reciprocation, so it is necessary that the assurances given by the British and Irish Governments are put in train. That would have to be done irrespective of the meetings that will take place on Saturday. Indeed, one might argue that the assurances should have been put in train sooner than this; the reason that nothing was done sooner is that the Irish Government are hoping against hope that something will emerge. In case my comment sounds a little ungracious, I give the Irish Government credit for the massive efforts being made by Ministers and officials to persuade the republicans to do something—even at this last stage. However, I have to add some cautionary words. It is my understanding that the Irish Government are pressing the republican movement to give a commitment to decommission, and to say when it will do so. Those are the questions put by my colleague, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in the House last Thursday. He asked the IRA to say whether it would decommission and when. The Irish Government are pressing for that commitment, but, as the Secretary of State said last Thursday, words are not enough; it is necessary to go beyond words. Some people in the press are saying that, in the past, the method used by the IRA in similar situations was to dump their arms. It has been suggested that that might be sufficient in the present circumstances. However, may I say to the Secretary of State—in case he is not fully aware of it—that some very misleading impressions have been given about the dumping of arms? The instruction issued by the leadership of the IRA in, I think, 1925 to its members to dump arms was not an instruction to disarm, and no disarmament occurred. Arms were put in dumps, but they were put in them for future use. I recommend that those who have any doubts about that read, or reread—I am sure that all hon. Members with an interest in such matters have already read it— Mr. Sean O'Callaghan's book on the subject. It is not necessary to read beyond the first chapter in which he describes how, in the late 1960s at the outset of civil disorder in Northern Ireland, he and a number of friends and relatives gathered together in a barn, got out their spades and shovels and proceeded to dig up the weapons that had been dumped a few decades ago. They discovered that they had not rusted—weapons do not rust if they are carefully stored—and they proceeded to clean them and dispatch them for murderous use in Northern Ireland. Dumping arms is a chimera. Reality is the only thing that matters. We have legislation, we have schemes and we have a framework through the international commission. It was agreed in the Mitchell review that decommissioning should take place in and through the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and that that was the only way that it should be done. There is excellent advice on the subject. Reference has been made to the fact that sources of the media, which in the past were favourable to republicanism, are now taking a different view. The Secretary of State referred to various editorials, and excellent advice appears in today's editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. It asks why the IRA has not made a gesture and quotes one observer who said that, in the IRA's eyes, such a gesture would be symbolic of their being the bad guys". The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette adds that the right of the people of Northern Ireland to live in peace matters more than a fear by the IRA that disarmament might send the wrong signal. If these 'hard men' are worried about being perceived as the bad guys, they should live up to the spirit as well as the letter of the Good Friday Agreement and give up the guns. It is as simple as that. On the other hand, I was glad to see that, in the IRA's statement issued on Saturday, it says that it poses no threat to the peace at present. I hope that that continues to be the case. We are, of course, disturbed by the explosion in Fermanagh and the fact that Continuity IRA, which had been thought to be quiescent, was responsible for that. I had the impression that the main threat from dissident republicans came from the Real IRA elements around Dundalk, but we now see that the elements around Fermanagh are also a threat. That underlines—as my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) would have reminded the Secretary of State had my hon. Friend been able to be here today—the need to maintain vigilance in Fermanagh. I am glad to see from the Secretary of State's reaction that he understands precisely the point that I make. There is a serious threat not just from dissident republicans, but from other paramilitaries. May I commend to the Secretary of State the words on that point of the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Ahern? In November last year in the Dail, he contemplated just this situation. If it became evident that people would not desist from their violence, he said that the only way to counteract such activity is to enforce the legislation in the toughest possible manner. The legislation to which the Taoiseach referred was emergency legislation in the Irish Republic that was duplicated by the United Kingdom. Since then, it has simply not been utilised at all. It is quite remarkable that we passed emergency legislation that has remained dormant even though there has been a clear need for it in some circumstances. For a few minutes, I should like to look to the future. We are now faced with restoring direct rule. In doing that, we are doing two things. First, we are ending devolution. Secondly, we are introducing direct rule. That is not the second-best option, but the third because, between the first decision and the second, another option has been missed out, which is simply, after the end of devolution, to treat Northern Ireland as it ought to be treated in the procedures of the House, which is in the same way as anywhere else. The status quo to which we should return is the status quo before devolution, which was one of normality. It is not desirable to reintroduce abnormal direct rule, which is not a healthy state of affairs for the operation of Northern Ireland.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

Is the right hon. Gentleman recommending to the House that the preferred option of his party is to go back to the old Stormont rule, before the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) suspended it and introduced direct rule?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake: Stormont was also devolution. If we are to go back to before devolution, we must go back to pre-1920, when Northern Ireland was treated in the House in exactly the same way as England, Wales and Scotland, as of course it ought to be. As a democrat, he would support a situation in which all citizens of the United Kingdom are treated equally. That is the only democratic course. There are of course times when the exigencies of the situation mean that we have to agree on and operate procedures that are less than ideal, and we hope that this return to a less-than-ideal system will be limited. I referred to first-best, second-best and third-best options, and to avoid any doubt that the right hon. Gentleman might have, I make it clear that direct rule is the third-best option and treating Northern Ireland properly is the second best. The best of all is to see devolution succeed within the United Kingdom, and that is what we tried to do through the Belfast agreement and its implementation.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the process of returning to direct rule, as set out in the Bill, will again make citizens of Northern Ireland second-class citizens within the United Kingdom? In addition, it actively encourages those who wish to take Nor thern Ireland out of the United Kingdom to believe that Britain is not terribly committed to the Union and that they should keep going because eventually they will succeed.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I would prefer to describe the situation by saying that direct rule is inefficient and unresponsive to the interests and wishes of those who are being ruled. That has been clearly established by the way in which direct rule operated, and it is likely to be the case in future. We all hope that the interruption of devolution is temporary, but we must all be conscious of the fact that we are returning to the third-best option. I remind the Secretary of State of the remarks that he made in Victoria college in November, when he said that, during any period of suspension, he would like to see what he could do to keep alive the spirit of devolution and to maintain some degree of political continuity between the devolution that we enjoy at present and that which we hope that we will enjoy again in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, while we are suspending the operation of devolution, it is right, as other hon. Members have said, to suspend other aspects of the agreement. As the Secretary of State knows, the suspension must apply not only to the Assembly, but to the associated North-South Ministerial Council and British-Irish Council. The suspension ought also, however, to relate to matters such as prisoner release and the Patten report. The Secretary of State knows that confidence in Northern Ireland was tremendously damaged by the Patten commission's ill-judged report on certain matters. People in Northern Ireland, particularly those whom I represent, will find it incomprehensible if the default by the republicans is glossed over and radical, deeply wounding changes to appease them continue to be introduced as if nothing has happened. I say to the Secretary of State that people will find inaction on that front and failure to suspend incomprehensible. He needs to think seriously about that in the coming weeks and months. Hon. Members and others outside should make no mistake about our objective. While we consider it necessary to suspend the operation of the institutions and other aspects of the agreement, it is not our intention in any way to depart from the substance of that agreement. Indeed, we are acting in this way in order to preserve it, because failure so to act will lead to the entire agreement unravelling. The only way to ensure that the agreement is implemented in its entirety and its integrity is to take the present action. If we proceed now to a review, my objective, and that of the Ulster Unionist party, will be to work for the restoration of devolution and the Executive on a sound basis, and that means resolving the present difficulty. That will be the objective towards which we shall work. In determining whether we can restore devolution on a sound basis, I and my colleagues will exercise our own judgment. Just as we asked the Ulster Unionist council for approval before jumping first in November, we are asking the Ulster Unionist council to consider the situation and give its view on the matters on Saturday. Although I will not anticipate what the council may say and do on Saturday, it would be reasonable for it to say that, in the event of any move back to devolution, it will exercise its judgment on that as well. People should not regard the present situation as a crisis. It is a difficulty. They should regard it not as the end of the hopes that the agreement engendered, but just as a problem that we will work through. It is important that we retain confidence in our ability to work through the problem. We should retain confidence that the hopes contained in the agreement will be fully realised. I was heartened by words that I read in the Irish News this morning. I do not often refer to that paper with approval, but I do on this occasion. Beside the editorial, it had printed some words from Seamus Heaney, who wrote: There is a cynical definition of peace which says it is merely the suspension of war. One of the paradoxical blessings of the past two-and-a-half decades of Northern Ireland's history has been an emergent vision of peace as a creative condition in which cultural, political and doctrinal differences can be actively confessed and intelligently contested. It is the cynics who have used that distortion of peace and who are frustrating the development of the creative condition to which Mr. Heaney refers. It is our intention to try to develop that creative condition as well and as fast as we can.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I want to begin where the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) left off. In its definition of peace, that quotation from Seamus Heaney owes something to Spinoza, but I would go a little further. Peace is not just the absence of war. It is an attitude of mind—a disposition towards benevolence, confidence and justice. Those three factors are worth remembering when we are seeking a definition of peace. I am tempted to give my own definition of peace. It would be much less poetic and much less philosophical. It would be very basic: it would refer to the fact that we have been able to wake up each morning without having to listen to the bad news about who was killed the night before, how many were killed and where they were killed. That is my simple definition of peace. I was impressed when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) asked us to do something that we seldom do: to try to get into the minds of other people. It is a worthwhile exercise, and I should like briefly to continue it. It is dangerous to ask rhetorical questions, but I want to pose one because I should like to gain an insight into people's minds. If there was not a Unionist party meeting scheduled for this weekend, and if resignation letters had not been written with that in mind, would the Bill be before the House now? I do not expect an answer, but I anticipate that most people who assess the question honestly will realise that, without those circumstances, we would not be considering the Bill, irrespective of the strong views in all parts of the House on decommissioning. That is the nub of the problem. I shall speak against suspension, despite the fact that I want decommissioning; indeed, I want it to happen as much as, and perhaps more than, other people. I have been an elected politician in South Armagh for 30 years. I know at first hand the effects of guns and bombs, and the difficulties that such problems cause. I also have experience, going back 30 years, of suspensions. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly that was "put on hold"—or, if one prefers not to use the euphemism, suspended. It was suspended on the understanding that it could be resumed. It was resumed; it took a quarter of a century to do it. We should all bear in mind the fact that suspension or putting on hold do not guarantee a speedy resolution of the problem. I oppose suspension because things are different now. The institutions are beginning to work. Let me give an anecdote to illustrate that. I stood at a window in Stormont last week and watched droves of farmers driving up to the building for a mass meeting to lobby the Executive about agriculture and the problems of agriculture. Twenty-six years ago, a similar mass lobby took place—with some of the same people and even some of the same tractors and lorries: except that those people came then to topple the devolution that existed. The two lobbies encapsulate the change that has occurred. For good or ill, we are dicing with those changes. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but the mental image of those fanners, many of them the same people who participated in the last lobby, and of the change that has taken place, makes me wonder whether the arguments for suspension are sustainable.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembers that there was a similar farmers' demonstration to Stormont 25 years ago. Different sections of the community spoke to them then.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

It is ingrained on my memory. It happened during the pig crisis. As a result of it, I, with others, came to the Palace of Westminster to lobby the then Agriculture Minister on behalf of the pig industry. I made a quiet resolution that day that I would never return here to lobby an Agriculture Minister because we were treated so dismissively. We now have a Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, and we are dicing with the potential that that creates. My second main reason for opposing suspension is that it seems abundantly clear that the chances of decommissioning will be greatly reduced if the institutions do not exist or function. I am not considering who will win the argument, who will lose or not lose face, but the achievement of decommissioning. If suspension occurs, and the institutions are not in place, will decommissioning not be immeasurably more difficult to obtain? The Secretary of State and other hon. Members referred to George Mitchell's review. On his last day in Northern Ireland after the review, Senator Mitchell said that we could guarantee one thing: without the political institutions, decommissioning would not occur. Those are George Mitchell's words, not those of anyone in the nationalist community. It is incumbent on people to answer the following question: if the institutions are removed, how will the process towards decommissioning take place? I shall return to that point later. The third reason for opposing suspension is that it plays into the hands of those who oppose the agreement. Many of them are present in the Chamber; some are members of the party led by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Those people will gain satisfaction from suspension. I would never suggest that they might gloat about it, but they would wear the sort of smile that I can already see. Will that help the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann or the process in which we are all involved? My fourth point about suspension is that there is no such thing as a soft landing. That is a fact of political life, and I have experienced enough hard landings to know it. However contrived, and whatever the machinations, when a governmental institution comes to an end, there is no such thing as a soft landing, and we should not assume that putting such an institution on hold will create one. Some people cling to and propagate the notion that suspension will not really be suspension, that the word is used only for parliamentary purposes, that the event will be feather-bedded in some way and that all sorts of contrivances will sustain the institution. The harsh reality of life is that it cannot and it will not. People will find that out fairly quickly and I believe that we would all be well advised to realise that while we are making this decision.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument clearly, although I do not necessarily agree with it. However, if he wants the structures and institutions of devolution to be maintained, why is he not basing his case on section 23 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 whereby, with cross-community support, there could be exclusion rather than suspension?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intrusion. I mean to use that word, because he is suggesting once again that we tear up the Good Friday or Belfast agreement—whichever people want to call it—and do away with inclusiveness. This goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question: a reason why we are talking about suspension is that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann—or, to be impersonal, the First Minister—and the Deputy First Minister would not be returned on the basis of cross-community support in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The reason for that is that there are those in the Ulster Unionist party who would not vote for the First Minister. I can reasonably assume that if they would not vote for their own party leader they would not vote for a nationalist nominee for Deputy First Minister I may be wrong of course, but I would dearly like to put that to the test for this reason: the right hon. Gentleman and I have had a very difficult two years—especially on that issue, which I shall come to—but the only people outside extreme Unionism in all parties who did not vote for either of us when we were elected First Minister and Deputy First Minister were supporters of Sinn Fein. People keep forgetting that, but I would like to challenge Sinn Fein and those in the Ulster Unionist party and other parties who have taken that stance and go back into the Assembly on the strength of a mandate that could never again be challenged. That is what is at stake here; that is what we are doing. May I refer to last Sunday's bomb in Irvinestown? I am speaking at a public meeting there on Friday night. I am glad that the hotel is still there. This is not the first occasion; it has been bombed many times. I say to the House, with all the power of conviction that I have, that in a political vacuum those who carry out that type of activity thrive, and nihilism comes to the fore. I fully understand the profound disappointment and impatience of Members of the House. I share it. I share the views of the right hon. Gentleman, my colleague, and many in his party, but I ask them to understand that decommissioning is not a Unionist issue or a Conservative party issue. It is an issue for all who want a new future. I believe that we should all bear in mind the fact that that is being said not only by the Social Democratic and Labour party, but by every party in the Republic of Ireland—every one. Every party that I have been in touch with and know well shares that view. It is the position of the Government here, the Government in Dublin, the Government of the United States and the Government of every single country in Europe. In the run-up to the signing of the Good Friday agreement, we had a remarkably long debate about the right of self-determination of the Irish people. They have self-determined that no group on the island of Ireland should hold illegal weapons. Who has the right to stand in the way of the voice of the Irish people when they have self-determined that issue? I repeat that I appreciate that members of the Ulster Unionist party and the wider Unionist community who have supported the agreement all along believe that they have been placed unfairly in a very difficult position. I believe that they have. I believe that they are right to think that. Most people in Northern Ireland with an ounce of common sense believe that, too, but I ask them again coolly to assess—even at this point of difficulty—where their deepest interests lie. Suspension by freezing the institutions will also, I am afraid, freeze our hope of ever resolving this issue. I want to sound a note of caution. To me, suspension means just that, and no feather-bedding. When we are all suspended, if we are, who will remain key players—the key players? Who will come to the doors of the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the President? Not the ex-Deputy First Minister and, after a short time, not the ex-First Minister nor any Member of the House. I offer one guess, and they will not be knocking—they will be invited. Whatever the context, this issue has to be resolved. Whether we like it or not, George Mitchell was right in his review and Patrick Mayhew was right when he said the same thing in the House: decommissioning is a voluntary act and will only be done voluntarily. That is the harsh reality that we all have to live with, but it is a fact. Ultimately, in a political vacuum, those who carry the guns carry with them the type of influence that politics and politicians do not have.

Tony McWalter (Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I want to extract some additional wisdom from him before he finishes his speech. Can the Government do anything to give additional impetus to the decommissioning process, bearing in mind that his constituency contains many of those who are most eloquent about their deficiencies in facilitating it, or is there nothing we can do to move it on?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that pertinent question, which I admit is difficult to answer. Let me answer in these terms: the last thing I would do is let those who hold the arms off the hook. They are under pressure, but please do not overestimate the power of public opinion here, in Ireland or abroad. It swings like a pendulum. Why are they under pressure? Because there is a General de Chastelain, an international decommissioning body and pressure to have this issue dealt with. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is "Don't throw away that card." A second answer is that even the IRA thesis and the Sinn Fein thesis is that only in the full workings of the institutions will the voluntary act of decommissioning be made. If we take away the workings of those institutions, do we not substantially leave them with the main plank of their argument? I do not want to see those who hold arms having the freedom to move outside of either the political process or the requirement to deal with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

Tam Dalyell (Labour, Linlithgow)

The hon. Gentleman may recall that it is 30 years since a group of younger Labour MPs went to see him in Northern Ireland, long before he became an MP. Is he speaking for most of his serious constituents in what he says?

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I have no doubt that I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority of people who would be termed "nationalists" within the island of Ireland. I am not speaking on behalf of those within the republican movement who somehow or other see merit in holding illegal arms, nor do I wish to speak on their behalf. But I suggest I am speaking on behalf of some republicans, perhaps many, who want this issue resolved as much as we do, and have not the capacity to do it. I appreciate the extraordinary difficulties that we all face in the current situation. I know that the Secretary of State and all hon. Members are acting in good faith, confronted as we are with a terrible dilemma. I appreciate the work which has been done by the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this issue, and which will continue to be done. We should all think very carefully, and be very honest with ourselves, when we look at the issue of suspension. I would also urge the republican leadership to take the initiative, by allowing General de Chastelain to report meaningful progress to resolve this crisis. We all share a collective responsibility for doing so, but they hold the key. I should like to pose one or two questions to the Secretary of State so that I may be given information in his winding-up speech. The answers are not clear from the legislation itself—nor could I be clear about the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State that are not in the legislation. The first question concerns the north-south implementation bodies. Has a treaty been negotiated with the Irish Government regarding them? If so, may we be informed of the nature of that treaty? Could it be made available to Members of this House and Members of the Assembly? My second question is posed without any rancour, because I agree with the Secretary of State that publishing the de Chastelain report as of now would not be the most beneficial thing to do. Obviously, it is deficient. My question has three parts. Is default, in relation to decommissioning, default of the terms of the Good Friday agreement, default of an Ulster Unionist party deadline, or default of the terms of the Mitchell review? The answer might be the first, second or third, but if we had it, we would at least be clear where the default lies, if there is default definable—and I mean "definable". How will any review subsequent to suspension be structured? By whom will it be chaired? Will it be chaired by the two Governments? Will it be chaired by one Government? Its structure and how it is handled will be crucially important, because we cannot—and I will not on behalf of our party—have the same type of circumstances as we had in the last review. I have spoken to the Secretary of State privately about that, and will do so again. The remit of General de Chastelain's commission ends on 22 May this year. Will it be extended? Will he and the other commissioners agree to remain? That is a crucial question for all of us. Or does the Secretary of State envisage another agency—any agency other than the international commission—to carry out this work? Those questions go to the heart of the problem. I finish with a salutary reminder to all of us. The document that I hold in my hand is the Good Friday agreement. Let nothing that we do in this House deviate from it or damage it. Let it not be played with—before a review, during a review or after a review—because playing with it would mean that we were playing not just with the present but with the welfare of the future.

Tom King (Conservative, Bridgwater)

I have a certain deep feeling as I stand here. As someone who, for four years, had responsibility for direct rule in Northern Ireland and had to suspend the previous Assembly, I take no pleasure whatever in contributing to the debate on the Bill. I am under no illusions that what we are being asked to approve tonight is a thoroughly unattractive alternative and that it would be infinitely preferable if, even in the last remaining hours or days, a way could be found in which to meet the legitimate concerns of those who are concerned about decommissioning and to keep the Assembly, which has been so painfully and carefully constructed over all these years—one cannot calculate how many years of work have contributed to where we have got to now. Clearly, it took a major shock to the system before the Government, who, like the previous Government, have worked hard to get an Assembly, introduced such a measure. We had a not entirely satisfactory exchange with the Secretary of State about the de Chastelain report. Initially, it was suggested that it was not just British property; it was Irish property as well. Subsequently, it emerged that it was jointly agreed not to publish it and that it would not have been helpful. I do not think there is any great secret in the House about the report. The Secretary of State made the position clear. He asked what the answers were to the three questions: whether, when and by what means there should be decommissioning. I think that his actual words were that there was no certainty, or there was uncertainty, on all those issues. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was concerned about the matter. The only point that I disagreed with in the speech by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was his suggestion that the remarks of George Mitchell showed the way forward. The remarks of George Mitchell preceded General de Chastelain's second or third report. His third report is clearly the blockbuster because it has raised again all the fears as to whether there is any intention whatever to decommission. It is not that we have reached 21 months and have been slow starting, but that, at the 21-month point, there is still not even any knowledge about whether there will be any decommissioning at all. That is the gravity of the present situation and the feeling. It comes as no surprise to me. Some Members may have been at the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on the day that the Downing street declaration was signed. The issue came up in the afternoon. In the general welcome that was given by British and Irish Members on that occasion, I raised the issue of decommissioning. I suppose it was four years ago. Every British Member thought that that was the most obvious and sensible point; every Irish Member thought that it was a thoroughly unhelpful contribution to the debate. One saw then that it was going to be the issue. Anyone who cares to read the interesting autobiography by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) should read the chapter on Ireland—the exchanges with Albert Reynolds and how, at the last minute before the signing, there were issues about clarity on decommissioning, on which the Irish Government needed some persuasion, but were then persuaded. They should read those chapters and understand how difficult the issue is. That is the feeling when we listen to some of the exchanges. As I understand the Good Friday agreement, Sinn Fein has undertaken to be a persuader. It is committed to seeking to persuade the IRA on the merits of decommissioning. It is that uncertainty which comes out of quoted comments. I heard Mr. Gerry Adams, I think three days ago, say, "Who could expect an undefeated army to hand over its weapons?" He is supposed to be the persuader. He is supposed to be the person who has already accepted the argument for decommissioning, yet he appears at this moment to be repeating the arguments of those who do not want decommissioning. I think that all of us took encouragement when the interlocutor was appointed; the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire claimed that he felt there was progress. He is entitled to feel that. There were a number of meetings. With the greatest respect to General John de Chastelain, whom I know from my work with NATO and other experiences, and for whom I have great respect, one wonders what on earth he has been talking about to a number of people for a very long time because, at the moment, as I understand it, the last report is a nil return. Obviously, that adds to the concerns and uncertainty. A fairly telling cartoon in The Daily Telegraph today leaves one with a certain sense of understanding. It consists of a picture of the men in balaclavas, who, when there is a cry for clarity, say: What part of No don't you understand? Nevertheless, as we are now in that type of situation, it is essential to determine whether we can achieve some movement. If we cannot, absolutely no confidence will be felt by Ulster Unionist party members or by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that movement will come. We are therefore left with this desperate appeal, but also with a feeling that there has been so much progress. So much of the Good Friday agreement has run ahead of expectations. I do not think that many people in the republican movement expected the speed with which prisoners have been released. In so many aspects of the process, there has been no suggestion of a breach of faith; if anything, there has been an improvement on what they might have expected. That is what makes the decommissioning issue so disappointing. I strongly and totally endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh on decommissioning. No civilised, democratic country can accept arms dumps around its countryside. Decommissioning is therefore not simply a Unionist or a Conservative party issue. It is not even a solely British issue. I have spoken to Irish Ministers, and—in the fullness of time, away from the bright lights of the current problems—they will not tolerate arms dumps in their country, which is where I think the dumps are principally located. Irish Ministers will not leave the dumps there, to be pinched by the Continuity IRA and other dissident bodies who gain access to them. Recently, there was a report of Semtex being transported by the Continuity IRA, clearly out of a Provisional IRA dump. That is the threat—the warning on the packet—that arms dumps pose to democratic, legitimate government throughout the island of Ireland. I use the expression "throughout the island of Ireland" because the referendums were one of the constructs of the Good Friday agreement. If one wants to take the most republican, united Ireland position on the decommissioning issue, one could point out that the Irish people have spoken on it. By an overwhelming majority, the Irish people have said what they wish to happen. Therefore, whatever the ambitions and dreams of republicans may be, if they are loyal Irishmen and believe in the right of the Irish people to self-determination, they cannot insist on maintaining weapons and a programme of violence. The Irish people—the people on the island of Ireland—have spoken on the issue in the clearest possible terms. We are faced again with an Irish situation and with a Bill containing provisions that we hope never to have to implement. However, this is not the first time that that has happened in Northern Ireland affairs. Nevertheless, although we find ourselves here again, our prayer must be that the message of hope gets through. With good will, we wish for the Good Friday agreement to be implemented. We want devolution and real power progressively to be transferred. I tell those who have served in the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly that, in their early days, devolution was being implemented very impressively. We want that process, and decommissioning, to continue.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

I hope that the House will listen to me if I argue the case against supporting the Bill. I do not feel able to go into the Lobby to support it today, and I want to tell the House why. I begin by saying what I said to the Secretary of State when he made his statement last week: I think that the Government's handling of the situation in Northern Ireland has been absolutely brilliant. I have sat here a long time, and I have heard many statements—some of the former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are in the Chamber, but I do not blame them—and I recall all of the obstacles that have been put in the way of progress. When there was a ceasefire, the reply was, "We can't talk to you because it isn't permanent." When it was permanent, there was a gag on the Sinn Fein leaders, and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) was not allowed to broadcast. There was also prevention of terrorism legislation, but it did not work. A new Government were elected—I pay a personal tribute to the Prime Minister, the previous Secretary of State, now the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the current Secretary of State and all the Ministers in his Department—and things began to move, partly because they used correct language. We have been fighting a war with the Irish Republican Army. People never use those words—they say "the IRA", although many people do not even know what that means. We have been fighting a war with the Irish Republican Army. When the former Secretary of State went to the Maze and spoke about prisoners of war, she was using real language. The release of the prisoners has been the release of prisoners of war that occurs at the end of a war. The result of it was a flowing in of confidence that brought some prospect of success. If, 10 or 20 years ago, I had been able to say, "I must tell the House that, on the future of Northern Ireland, everyone—the Prime Minister and the House of Commons; the Taoiseach and the Dail; two Nobel prize winners, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume); the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon); two other Members, the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) from Sinn Fein—is agreed: they all want the Good Friday agreement to work", people would not have believed it. That is the real guarantee of progress. The whole House agrees that we want decommissioning. There is not a single hon. Member who would have any doubt whatever of the need for decommissioning. The question is whether decommissioning is really the obstacle to progress under the Good Friday agreement. Is it or is it not? In the absence of killing, there is a type of peace. However, the matter goes further than the absence of killing, because the desire to use the weapons has gone. I think that that is the best guarantee for the future. There is a strange alliance between the opponents of the Good Friday agreement on both sides of the argument. Continuity IRA does not like the Good Friday agreement because it does not provide whatever its long-term objective is—the unity of Ireland by force. It does not like it, but neither do many Ulster Unionists like it—they think that it gave Sinn Fein far too much. Therefore, there is a type of coalescence of the rejectionists. They feed on each other.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a vast difference between paramilitaries who are against the Belfast agreement and those of us who are democrats and against the Belfast agreement? We are entitled to be against it, and we do not need to use arms to defeat it.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

Whatever the difference of method, the objective is identical: the hon. Gentleman and Continuity IRA want to see the Belfast agreement killed. I put it like that not to suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a gun in his pocket—of course not; he has something much more difficult to deal with: a veto in his pocket to bring the whole Assembly and Executive to a halt. The fact is that those two sides feed on each other, and that the real contemporary political division in Northern Ireland is not between the Unionists and nationalists, but between those who are for peace and the Belfast agreement and those who are against peace. If Continuity IRA were to drop a bomb, the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and his colleagues would say, "There you are—it proves that the Belfast agreement is a failure." If the Executive were to be suspended, Continuity IRA would say, "Yes—that proves it. They would never let us continue." The two feed on each other. My fear about the Bill is that it represents a victory for the rejectionists. I know that it would be a reluctant victory for them, but it would feed both. The Bill is being considered eight weeks after the new machinery was set up. One would have thought that, if the Government had thought that it might collapse, they would have included a provision in the original legislation, but they did not do so at all. I shall not go over the history of Bills that have been passed in one day, but I can think of quite a few Bills that have been passed in a day that have not exactly been legislative triumphs. What are we going back to? We have not given the new agreement a chance to succeed, but instead are going back to a system that everyone knows failed. I am not blaming anyone, but, my God, I remember the arguments on various provisions. Partition failed; Stormont failed; internment without trial failed; supergrass trials failed; and Diplock courts, plastic bullets, strip searching and broadcast bans all failed. I am not blaming anyone for trying them, but we have tried all the methods of dealing with terrorism trumpeted by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I was in the Cabinet in 1969 when we sent the troops in. We were told that that would solve the problem. If my view is different now, it is because we have tried direct rule and it failed. The opponents of the Good Friday agreement like the old system. The hon. Member for West Tyrone says that he has a democratic mandate, but he does not have a mandate for opposing the Good Friday agreement because that was put to the people in a referendum. Those Unionists who used to say that they represented the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, which they did on many issues, do not represent the majority on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I have been in a minority before, so I am not blaming them for being in a minority, but even the reverend gentleman the hon. Member for North Antrim is not a representative of the majority of the people of the north for whom he speaks. In the past, the Unionists proclaimed their loyalty to London and to the British flag, but all that they wanted was British troops to help them when they had trouble in repressing the nationalist community. That settlement has led to years of violence. What alternatives were open to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet? What would have happened if we had not suspended the Executive when the First Minister, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann resigned? Would the Executive and Assembly necessarily have been brought down simply by his decision to go? People resign; it is not uncommon in politics. Usually, they are replaced. Sometimes deputies succeed their leaders. I am not saying that that would have happened in Northern Ireland, but it is not unknown. I do not believe that it is in the power of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to bring down the Belfast agreement by resigning to satisfy a difficult Unionist council, because the people of Northern Ireland want the agreement.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

indicated dissent.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He may represent a majority of the population on a religious or historical basis, but he does not represent the majority on the agreement. If the First Minister had resigned to keep in tune with his party—that still happens occasionally, although not very often these days—he would have lost touch with the people whom he represented. I do not think for a moment that we shall go back to the violence of the past, because so much has been achieved through the desire to make the agreement work, but there will be a damaging sullen atmosphere. One issue made up my mind on whether I could vote for the Bill. Having set up an elective mechanism to produce an Assembly, the Government are now saying that if one of the leaders of the Assembly resigns they will destroy the whole democracy. None of us has the automatic right to be in Parliament or the Assembly, but the people who elected us have the right to have somebody here. Usually, if people resign from an Assembly there is a by-election. If the whole Assembly resigned in a huff, there would be a general election. For the Government to threaten to take away the votes of Unionists because the IRA will not submit weapons is saying, "We banned your bullets and now we'll ban your ballots. If they won't give up their bullets, we'll take away your ballots." That is not a proposal that a democratic House can endorse. I find it hard enough that we do not let the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Mid-Ulster sit here unless they swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen. We expect them to deny their political history and faith to sit on the green Benches and then we lecture them on democracy. Now we are saying that if they cannot get on with the Assembly, we will cancel the whole thing. The Government can suspend it, then bring it back, then suspend it again—and so on for ever. We are being asked to pass permanent suspensory legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh will admit that the suspension could be lifted and reimposed indefinitely. Democracy is being put in the hands of the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is a very good Secretary of State and I am not saying anything against him, but I do not believe that the House should accept legislation on that basis. It is an error of judgment that I cannot support—I wish that I could. Even if the Bill goes through—

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

rose—

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

I am on my last sentence, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to prolong my speech that is always welcome.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I have in my hand a copy of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which I believe the right hon. Gentleman supported in the House. Section 16(7) allows for the possibility of the First Minister bringing down the whole structure. Why did the right hon. Gentleman vote for that if he does not agree with it?

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

If that Act was effective, we would not need the Bill. I am not a lawyer and I would not dream of embarking on a dispute with one, because I would be out of my depth. A nation that pretends to teach the Irish about democracy will not be believed if its first action is to take away the new democracy. It would be better if we gave matters a little longer to develop. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who got a Nobel prize for his work for peace, would not then be so ready to resign his position while we are still within the time scale allowed for decommissioning, even though it has not occurred yet. The real hope lies in the desire of the people of Northern Ireland to build a better future.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I hope that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not misunderstand me if I find myself in the invidious position of having to defend his Front Bench against some of the allegations that he has just made. It is not a job that comes naturally to me. To talk about banning bullets and banning ballots is to misrepresent the Bill. To accuse the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) of trying to destroy the democratic process is not remotely connected with the serious issues that we have been considering since 3.30 pm. Like everyone else who has spoken, I regret the need for the debate. I share the Secretary of State's analysis of the urgency of introducing the Bill. I do not want to rehearse history and old tit-for-tat arguments. We have had a little of that, but not much. Bearing it in mind that we are going to have a review, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the agreement to inform the future. The House knows that I have always supported the Belfast agreement from the day that it was signed. That has also been the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), representing the Opposition officially, although it has not always been the view of all my hon. Friends. I share the importance that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) attaches to the agreement. The agreement was hugely welcomed when it was signed, but it always had a potential defect at its heart. That defect has best been summed up by those commentators who have referred to its creative ambiguity. That was never more evident than on decommissioning. There were those who said that creative ambiguity was brilliant because it allowed each party to interpret the difficult parts of the agreement in a way that permitted them to move the argument forward. In that sense it created momentum. Others said that that creative ambiguity was potentially lethal, because it formed the basis for criticism. For the second time in my speech, I am not going to criticise the Government. The Government were in an extremely difficult position, as were the other parties to the agreement. They had only two choices. They could try in advance, in a political vacuum, to agree every nut and bolt. The reality is they would never have succeeded and there would have been no agreement. The other choice was an element of creative ambiguity, to allow matters to move forward to create a degree of political momentum—hoping that would be sufficient to get the various parties over the really big hurdles that everyone understood had to be jumped. If the clock could be turned back and we were sitting on the Government Benches, we would probably have taken the same view as this Government. The downside is that the momentum might deal with the easier issues but not be sufficient to deal with the really hard issue and leave it isolated. That is the position in which we find ourselves. We have dealt, in some anguish, with a number of issues, yet 10 years ago that might have been thought inconceivable—the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was right on that point—but we are still left with decommissioning. It has been made more difficult by the creative ambiguity of the relationship between the paramilitaries and the political parties that purport to speak for them. It was in everyone's interest to create the impression, and be willing to believe, that the politicians were speaking authoritatively for the paramilitaries. We are discovering that is not entirely true. Only two judgments can be passed. One is that a genuine debate is going on that has not been concluded; the other is that certain politicians deliberately and maliciously pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else. I have never had the opportunity to discuss those matters with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), so I have not had the opportunity to form a personal judgment. I surprise myself slightly by saying that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe that he does want change in a peaceful, democratic direction. I do not believe that is true of all his associates and I do not believe that that is true of all the IRA—if it were, we would not need this debate. I can understand another problem for the leadership of Sinn Fein and the IRA. The history of Ireland is replete with examples of republican movements that have split to the enormous detriment—as they would see it—of the republican cause and have consequently resulted in a good deal of bloodshed to boot. The hon. Member for Belfast, West and others do not have to look further back than 1969 and the traumas of their taking over from the Official IRA. When they look back and then to the future, I can understand the importance they attach to not splitting the movement. Perhaps the most important message of the referendums on the self-determination of the Irish people of which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh spoke, is not that they represented a great agreement, but that the broad mass of sensible people in the island of Ireland were willing to contemplate splits in both the Unionist and nationalist republican movements to build a better future. There have been splits in the Unionist community; there have not been any overtly evident splits thus far in the nationalist republican movements. It may be that the greatest leadership that can be provided is to contemplate the need to split on both sides, to allow the mass of the people to move forward. That challenge has already been faced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. The House can legitimately ask the hon. Member for Belfast, West when he will face up to a similar challenge. The bomb on Sunday was an evil act. I choose to believe that it was more—that those in the republican movement were saying to the hon. Gentleman, "Careful. If you split the movement, you will get more of this." It will take great political courage to put the interests of the people of the island of Ireland ahead of that threat. This House is saying that he and his colleagues must do so. I pay tribute to the Taoiseach and his Ministers for their continuing hard work. Mr. Ahern said at the weekend that clarity is really needed. That is not what I think. We have clarity but we have no decommissioning. We need product. That will be difficult to deliver because it is hard for people not to feel let down by the new revelations in the de Chastelain report. It is hard for the Unionists not to feel that they have given, but have not received, commensurately in return. It is already hard to avoid recrimination and the instinct of people on all sides to use the coming review to start a new shopping list of demands. Recrimination will make a difficult review process even harder. For that reason if no other, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and I part company on that issue. The sooner we are into that review, choke off recrimination and engage again in the constructive dialogue necessary to get devolution and decommissioning running in parallel—as George Mitchell said they should—the better. The fact that the guns are silent is not an adequate substitute for decommissioning. In the absence of any constructive alternative from Sinn Fein or the IRA or both—if such an alternative exists—I support the Bill. Not as an end in itself but as a necessary means to a better end.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

This has been a bleak and dismal debate. That is not surprising because, in a few days, we may see the dismantling or suspension of political devolution in Northern Ireland. I am saddened but not surprised by the powerful but pessimistic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I can well understand his sadness and anger over the bleak prospect of the suspension of the remarkable institutions created by the agreement—the Executive, the Assembly, the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council. The last was debated the other day in the Scottish Parliament and every speaker supported it, with some arguing that it should have a Parliamentary Assembly. At the weekend, I was asked by a group of young constituents whether the Northern Ireland Assembly was anything like our Scottish Parliament. Was it akin to the Scottish Executive? I ought to be careful here, because I recently criticised Scottish National party Members for being day-trippers here. However, I told my constituents that I had a day trip to Stormont last week. I saw the farmers' lobby, with 2,000 to 3,000 farmers being addressed by Members of the Legislative Assembly. I think I am right in saying that the motion seeking help for the farming industry was moved by an MLA by the name of Paisley, and the motion was supported by every party in the Assembly. I met a number of Ministers and talked to them about their work—Mark Durkan, Michael McGimpsey and Mr. McGuinness. I spoke to many Back Benchers, and I had the good fortune—some might say the misfortune—to bump into the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). In a comradely way, with his arm draped over my shoulder, he gave me an impromptu lecture on the architecture of Stormont. He has two vocations—preaching and politics. He will never pursue a career as a lecturer in 20th century architecture. It was for me—someone familiar with the Scottish Parliament—a remarkable day out. Later, there was a debate on disruption in schools. There was an absence of good will among Democratic Unionist party Members and the Minister of Education. I know also that the Health Minister, Barbara de Brun, has not won friends in some quarters as a result of her decision concerning a certain maternity facility. I genuinely believe that we must give every encouragement to that Assembly, the Executive and the other bodies. I have sympathy with those who believe that the Bill is not helpful to the decommissioning process. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh asked, what will happen when suspension takes place? It would be a tragedy if the suspension were to last for a year or more, but there is a danger of that. When are Ministers to meet their counterparts in the Irish Government? My question to the Secretary of State was voiced by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also—who will conduct the review? It is worth thinking that the review be conducted jointly by the Secretary of State and his counterpart in Dublin. I have argued for a definitive timetable for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons, and I have been supported by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in that. I am concerned that there might be a danger of a readjustment of the 22 May deadline. Is that a possibility, or a probability? That is worrying, but I suspect that it will come about. The two Governments must work closely together on the review. If the period of suspension is inflicted on the institutions and the people of Northern Ireland, it should be as short as humanly possible, and the review must be urgent. I have serious concerns about the Bill, and I share some of the reservations voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). However, I have sympathy for the Government, and for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) concerning the difficulties that he faces. It is wrong to offer a simplistic analysis of his difficulties. I took note of today's editions of the Irish Times and the Irish Independent. The latter said: Suspension is a bleak prospect, but the alternative is worse. I have some sympathy with the approach adopted by those newspapers. As a Scottish Member of Parliament long committed to a federal structure for this country and to genuine political devolution, I—unlike some hon. Members—regularly visit Northern Ireland, although I have never lived there. I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that devolution is far better for all concerned than direct rule.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

indicated dissent.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The hon. Gentleman and I are in profound disagreement on the subject of devolution. It is better that we have genuine subsidiarity than direct rule. My sincere hope is that if we are faced with a period of suspension, it is of a short duration and that the review is conducted realistically, sensibly and compassionately, taking the interests of the smaller parties—as well as the larger parties—into consideration.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I regret that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in the House, but I still have to say that he should get his facts right. I happen to speak for 192,000 people. I fought my election on this very issue and I topped the poll, so I speak with a certain amount of authority. I, at least, am a democrat. I tell the people what I believe in, and I go to the people on the issues. I and the people of Northern Ireland get frustrated when we are told that the people of Northern Ireland are overwhelmingly for the agreement. The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag today when he said what would happen if there were an election in five weeks' time. What about all the talk about the referendum, in which everyone was for the agreement? He said that, in five weeks' time, it would all disappear down a black hole. How can he say that all the people from all sections of the community want the agreement, and then say that we must keep them from having an election? Any structure of government that cannot stand up to the results of an election cannot be a proper democratic structure. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) should consider this, too. Would he like to belong to a House that could be swept away because of a change in the voting pattern of the people? We need a solid building, and we do not have one. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is appealing to Mr. McGuinness to split his party. If he splits his party, would that help? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) did not want to split his party—he wanted to hold it together—but he departed from his election pledges. People in Northern Ireland may be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom, but they expect election pledges to be kept. If they are not kept, the people deal with that at the next election. The right hon. Gentleman often said that he would not join an Executive without decommissioning, and that he would not sit down with the IRA and Sinn Fein until there was decommissioning. Eventually, he did the very things he said he would not do. Have not the people a right to take him to task in those circumstances? His own party are doing so, and they are democrats. They are entitled to do so. We heard the Secretary of State today praise the glories of the agreement. Some of his claims that everyone is enjoying the current situation are far-fetched. Where does he live? He should go and ask the victims of terrorists whether they are enjoying the so-called agreement, when they see the person who murdered their nearest and dearest walking in the street, or past their house, or when they are doing their shopping. Is there any joy for them? There is no joy for the victims of terrorism and those who mourn their loved ones. Little has been said about the Royal Ulster Constabulary by Front Benchers tonight, but the guillotine hangs over the RUC. We talk about the arguments over decommissioning, but what Mr. Adams thinks about decommissioning and what the majority of right hon. and hon. Members think about it are not the same. IRA/Sinn Fein believes that the guns should be taken from every soldier, every policeman and all the individuals who have personal weapons because the police think that they are in danger of being shot. IRA/Sinn Fein is not talking only about the decommissioning of illegal arms but about the prevention of the holding of all arms. The Secretary of State then tells us that it would not be justified to demand that the terrorists hand in their weapons, because they must do so mutually. They must come to a voluntary arrangement. Well, the House and the Prime Minister did not say that after the killing of the children at the school in Scotland. They did not tell people who had held arms for many years and only used them for sport that they could voluntarily hand in their arms. They were commanded to hand them in and they were faced with imprisonment and heavy fines if they did not do so. Why should they be treated in that way while terrorists, whose hands are dripping with the blood of the innocent victims of their crimes, are not dealt with similarly? It is said that that is not possible, but it has never been tried. All the programmes that have failed were thought up by Governments without any consideration for the people of Northern Ireland. How many times have I said that the House will reap what it sows? That is what is happening tonight, because of a flawed agreement that could not work. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) resigned. His resignation was indicated from the Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State, but then it was discovered that if the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh came back he would not get cross-community support. It was then discovered that he had not resigned. We are having this debate tonight because the Secretary of State said that, in his opinion, there was no way for the First Minister and his deputy to be re-elected in a new Assembly. Why should they be re-elected? If the Assembly had lost confidence in them, it should have the right to say no to them.

Seamus Mallon (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I wish to make it clear for the umpteenth time, first, that I did resign; secondly, that I never said that I did otherwise; and thirdly, that I stand by everything I did, because I did it for a reason and I am pleased to say it was successful.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I never said that the hon. Gentleman did not resign, and he knows that. It was a resignation, but the point is that people cannot say, "This is the agreement", and then, when it no longer suits them, say, "This is not the agreement." The agreement has not been abided by: it has been departed from. The matter before the House is serious, because upon it depends the peace and quiet of the minds and hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. They know that the IRA have the best weapons of any terrorists in the western world. The House knows what the IRA did at Canary Wharf. The records in the Library show how much compensation was paid after that bomb. It is nearly as much as the total compensation paid out in the whole of Northern Ireland in all the years of violence. Some people in Northern Ireland say that the trouble is that the Government are afraid of the IRA starting up again in this part of the United Kingdom. The Government are being bullied and blackmailed by that threat. All I can say is that there is no way forward in the agreement as it stands, but if we are to have a review I want to know what sort of a review it will be. Will we have a narrow review or a proper review? Who will participate in the review—the Members of the Assembly or the members of parties who have representatives in this House or in the Assembly? Who will sit at the table? Who will advise as to what should happen as a result of the review? Who will preside at the meetings? I have been at every conference but one that the British Government have ever convened on the issue, and we have discovered that the two Governments seem to think that they are there to push elected representatives in the direction they want them to go. We have all to go back to the electorate, and if the Governments want to carry the country, they must carry the representatives who have their people behind them. People cannot be pushed down an undemocratic path. I saw the writing on the wall written by the Prime Minister, who told us that there would be no men in the Executive who belonged to lawless organisations. He told us that decommissioning would start and that no one would be let out of prison until it did. That is what people voted for in the referendum, but it did not happen. The people voted on promises, and they now say no. I have met hundreds of people who have told me that they voted yes, but that they would vote no today. There are not many yes voters to be found who say that they want to maintain the agreement. We need only look at the demonstrations on the issue to know how the land lies. I tell the House: if we pull the Assembly down and have a review, let it be a real review and let us face up to the issues realistically and practically, and not be like Mr. Mitchell, sweeping them under the table so that they rise another day to haunt us.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Not for the first time, I find myself at the Dispatch Box when little more needs to be said and, frankly, there is little time in which to say it. Equally, not for the first time, I find myself particularly impressed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The question has been put to me: what does it matter if they have guns, ammunition and explosives if they do not use them? That is a seductive, but shallow, question. It could be rephrased, "Is it okay if one half of the political process agrees to observe the law and the other half does not?" Adopting the idiom of the geometers of classical times—that is, reductio ad absurdum, or taking an argument to the limits of absurdity—how would it be if we acquiesced in the proposition that Conservative Members could be armed with guns, ammunition and explosives but the Labour Government could not, and the Government said, "That's okay; they haven't used them much recently." We would not fail to recognise that absurdity. It is the same question in Northern Ireland. Antrim, Armagh, Down, Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone are as much part of the United Kingdom as Warwickshire, Yorkshire, Aberdeenshire, Powys or Devon. Although Northern Ireland is historically and culturally different, the fact is that we do not allow armed people to participate in the running of our affairs in this kingdom, nor should we. The Secretary of State said earlier in the debate that not merely was he taking power to resume direct rule in the absence of decommissioning, but that he felt that less damage would be done if he moved promptly than if he did not. We agree.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I should like to respond to one of the points made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The hon. Gentleman accurately pointed out that, in the previous European elections in Northern Ireland, he topped the poll. He went on, rather modestly, to equate his position in the poll on that occasion with the position that he takes on the Good Friday agreement. It was a big vote, but it was a big vote for a big character, and did not necessarily reflect overall agreement for the hon. Gentleman's position. Events will prove me right or they will prove him right, but I think that he was unduly modest about his position in the poll. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield approaches many issues from the position of a democrat. I appreciate that he has a long record as a parliamentarian of viewing issues through the eyes of a democrat. That is perfectly reasonable; in fact, it is a very principled position. He went on to talk about how the Good Friday agreement, the elections to the Assembly and so on, were sacrosanct because of democratic considerations, and that, if anything was to be changed it should, de facto, be done by an election. However, my right hon. Friend overlooked the fact that all the arrangements—the Executive, the north-south bodies, the Assembly itself as well as decommissioning and many of the other issues that form part of the Good Friday agreement—are interlocking. They are interdependent. It is in some respects like a house of cards, although rather more robust. Take away one and the rest no longer make any sense and collapse. There are those who would like to see it collapse, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend is one. However, he needs to understand that the issues are interlocking and interdependent. Therefore, it is not enough to view the Assembly as a body that can be sustained only by further democratic endorsement. That is an over-simplification of the arrangements.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

If we are relying on the Belfast agreement as part of the process of interlocking authority, what authority is in the Belfast agreement for the suspension of the Assembly? There is none.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I will cover that point in my due course, and no doubt my hon. Friend will listen with care. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in a speech that was full of wisdom and insight, was right to say that this was a Bill that most of us in the House, whether Government or Opposition Members, and the majority of people in Ireland, both north and south, hoped would never be needed. It is, however, the only way of sustaining the potential of devolution. The situation has, in the past few weeks, started to blossom into a real and meaningful political project, one that is uniquely suited to the conditions and history of events in Northern Ireland. It serves no purpose to debate the actual decommissioning obligations under the Good Friday agreement or, for that matter, any comments that may have come out of Senator Mitchell's review. The truth is, as the right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), among others, have rightly said, decommissioning, trust and devolution go hand in hand. For one section of the community, trust is inevitably linked not only to the silence of the guns but to their absence. Given the continuing difficulties in achieving progress on decommissioning, there are three options, as we see it. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield suggested, we could have stood to one side and allowed the Assembly and Executive to collapse. For, as sure as night follows day, we would have reached that position sooner rather than later. The second option would have been, by some means, to enable the exclusion of those parties which were considered to be in breach of, or in default of, the obligations to decommission. I do not think that that would have worked either. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) explained eloquently why many delicate relationships exist in the Good Friday agreement and the arrangements that followed it. That leaves us with the final option—to suspend. We hope that that will lead eventually—sooner rather than later—to progress on decommissioning. By extension, it will enable the political process that is under way to start again. This last option, as my right hon. Friend said, leaves all the parties in a position in which the issues can be debated. There will be a review process and, once the two Governments decide what form that should take, we can then get on with it. Given that we, our close colleagues in the Irish Government, the pro-agreement parties and most of the Members of this House, remain of the view that the Good Friday agreement is the best way of making progress, any option other than suspension—we all hope that it will be a temporary suspension—would have been counter to the spirit of the agreement. No one is arguing that it was pre-figured in some way in the agreement. That is not the case. This is the best way that we can find to preserve the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. We did not want the Bill, but it represents the best available option. I hope that the House will send a clear signal tonight that the Good Friday agreement is still in place. Overwhelmingly, we want it to work. On the Government's behalf, I thank both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for making it clear that they support us, and I praise all those parties in Northern Ireland who have taken their courage in their hands to move forward on implementing the agreement. The agreement remains in place, and we all—nearly all—want it to work. Giving discretion—indeed, power—to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State demonstrates our support for the agreement. The most important thing that the House can do tonight is to show, by giving my right hon. Friend that power, that we still believe that the Good Friday agreement can be made to work. During the period of suspension, if it happens—we hope that it will not—there will be an opportunity for those who must take action to take that action. Only then can we achieve agreement and get the institutions back on track. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want. I attended an event recently with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and others—

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [MONEY]

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Before we begin, may I make it clear to hon. Members that we are using two separate amendment papers. Amendments tabled yesterday were printed on pages 949 to 951 of the Vote bundle. Amendments tabled today are on a separate paper, which is available in the Vote Office. We are using the version of that paper which includes amendments tabled as at 4.30 pm today. In addition, copies of a further, later amendment, tabled by the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), are also available in the Vote Office. The relevant selection list is the one headed "as at 4.30 pm" and is available in the No Lobby.

SUSPENSION OF DEVOLVED GOVERNMENT IN NORTHERN IRELAND.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (5).

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

As we covered much ground on Second Reading, I shall be brief; I hope that we shall be able to speak more generally on Third Reading. The amendments are simple; they would delete subsections (5) and (6) of the clause. They follow on from the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) on Second Reading: a concern that, in suspending the Assembly, we would also suspend the other institutions established under the Good Friday agreement. We are concerned because those institutions form part of the mechanisms for creating greater understanding between the different traditions on the island of Ireland and between the Six Counties and the Irish Republic. The dialogue that was developing as a result of those institutions means that there is a continued commitment to the ceasefire and to the peace process. It is beyond understanding that we should penalise those existing, successful institutions through the measure. We are concerned that in doing so, there is a risk of longevity not only for the suspension of the Assembly but for the suspension of that dialogue. That is the basis on which I introduce the amendments. The process would not be jeopardised if those existing institutions remained. We have been told of the necessity for the scrapping or suspension of the institutions, because of some interlocking authority that derives from the Good Friday agreement. However, the Bill has no authority under the agreement; there is no power given to the British Government to suspend those institutions. As that organisational structure has operated effectively, the institutions should be maintained. On that basis, I ask the Committee to accept the amendments.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I shall also be brief, as I, too, seek clarification. Have discussions about the British-Irish Council taken place with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Executive and others involved in the council, which held its inaugural meeting a few weeks ago? I think that another meeting is planned for June of this year. Although I realise that discussions continue all the time with the Irish Government, when were the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Executive and the Welsh Assembly informed of the probability of the suspension of the British-Irish Council?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I wish to challenge slightly the terminology that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) used when moving the amendment. I am sure that he will appreciate that the term "suspension" is entirely different from the term "scrapped". I do not want to labour that point, but I think my hon. Friend will recognise that it is important to make that distinction. A fundamental principle of the Good Friday agreement is that all the institutional arrangements are interlocking and interdependent. My hon. Friend acknowledged that, but he took issue with the context in which we have used that argument in the Bill. However, he will know that the concept is set out in the declaration of support at the beginning of the agreement. If suspension is called, it will inevitably impact on all the institutions. In particular, the agreement recognises that the Assembly and the North-South Ministerial Council are so closely interrelated that the success of each depends on that of the other. When we talk about interdependence and interlocking, that is precisely what we mean. During any suspension, the Assembly and the Executive will be suspended. All Northern Ireland Ministers will cease to hold office. In practice, that will mean that the North-South Ministerial Council simply will not be able to function in the absence of representation from the Northern Ireland devolved Administration. As my hon. Friend suggested, clause 1(5) and (6) provide that, during a suspension, the functions conferred on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 cannot be exercised. That means that the Secretary of State cannot nominate people to take the place of Northern Ireland Ministers on those bodies. It would be frankly inappropriate for him to do so given that the institutions are interdependent. I realise that my hon. Friend's amendment is designed to preserve some of the good developments that have taken place in the recent past—and we should acknowledge that huge strides have been taken. We have recognised where there is common purpose between Northern Ireland, the Government in southern Ireland and ourselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made clear, some institutions also involve Scotland, Wales and other parts of the British isles. Clearly, therefore, consultation will be necessary on the implications, and they will rightly take place in the coming period. However, it would be inappropriate to carry on as if all the institutions were still in place and as if nothing had happened during the period of suspension. I repeat what I said earlier: we hope that the Bill becomes unnecessary, that the institutions carry on and that the Executive and the Assembly will be able to continue. However, if, over the next few days, it becomes clear that that is impossible without everything collapsing under its own momentum, it will sadly be inappropriate for us to carry on as though nothing had happened. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that the close working relationship that we have with the Irish Government will continue. On matters on which we clearly have a continuing interest—not least the continued implementation and, if suspension takes place, re-implementation of the Good Friday agreement—that relationship will continue at Government level. I hope that we shall be able to work our way through the problems.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

The Secretary of State was opaque on occasions this afternoon. I can understand why the two Governments must have relationships with one another, but will the Minister clarify whether the suspension of ministerial bodies will also include the suspension of implementation bodies, or was I misled when I heard that they will come under Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The powers of the implementation bodies transfer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is for him to decide where it is appropriate for those powers to be used. I emphasise that we consider it inappropriate to carry on as if nothing had happened; that would simply be flying in the face of reality if a suspension were to take place.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I am not aware that the Irish Government in any way dispute what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. The institutions can hardly continue to survive if a suspension of the Executive and Assembly occurs. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm what he has just touched on? If, unfortunately, there is a period of suspension, will he confirm that close ministerial contacts will continue between the two Governments? In view of the circumstances, the contacts in some areas will be even closer than they were before the Good Friday agreement. Everyone on the Opposition Benches should understand that.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which enables me to make the position absolutely clear. We simply would not have got as far as we have without the close co-operation and understanding of Ministers in the Irish Government, the Taoiseach and of Irish politicians, from various parties and holding various principles. It would be inconceivable that we could continue our work if that relationship did not still exist. My hon. Friend is right. Contacts will continue to take place at an official level and, over the next few days, they will intensify. They will involve Ministers and they might involve the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. When things are difficult, it is important that relationships are maintained. We can make progress only through those contacts and if we have an understanding of the difficulties that the parties in Northern Ireland face. If we ignore such factors, we will find ourselves running out of road. It is important that we maintain all those relationships.

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour, Islington North)

I am pleased to hear that the Minister intends to continue to have the closest possible contact with the Irish Government, but I do not understand why he finds it necessary to suspend the workings of the North-South Ministerial Council, when it ought to be possible to continue them by ministerial contact, despite the suspension of other activities.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I have used well-chosen terms to explain why that situation should pertain and, without being disrespectful to my hon. Friend, I think it would be tedious to the Committee if I were to repeat that explanation. This is a delicate situation, and I have made what I thought were sensible remarks about it. If I were to enter into negotiation across the Chamber, that might undermine discussions taking place elsewhere, and I know that my hon. Friend would not want me to do that. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will appreciate that although I realise that they tabled the amendment in a constructive spirit, hoping to maintain a close working relationship between the two Governments, it would in the current circumstances be inappropriate for the amendment to be carried. I hope that they will recognise also that we shall use all other available means to try to work as closely as possible with our Irish counterparts, and that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the Minister saying that the bodies will also be put on hold?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I think that the hon. Gentleman was in his seat when I made my speech, and it would be unnecessary and difficult for me to become involved in a detailed discussion about the matter. There are issues that have still to be discussed. No one has yet agreed to suspend any of the institutions, and we hope that suspension can be avoided. In the Bill we are taking a power, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will exercise if things go wrong over the next few days, to suspend devolved government, and everything that depends on devolution will necessarily cease if devolution does not continue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman finds that a suitable explanation. I repeat my hope that my hon. Friends will feel that it is appropriate to withdraw their amendment.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

Our hopes are that if suspension takes place, it will continue for a short period. We have been given an assurance that if it continues for a long time, there will be a continuing dialogue between the Governments, and structures to enable the co-operative working relationship that has been established to be maintained. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 1

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

I begin my contribution by returning to a matter that was raised earlier. I deplore the fact that we have had to consider the Bill without having available to us the de Chastelain report. The Secretary of State has come to Parliament to ask us to approve this legislation on an emergency basis. The only reason that he has done so is the de Chastelain report. Astonishingly, when one of my hon. Friends made that point earlier, the Secretary of State rebuked him and told him that he ought to be talking about something more significant than the de Chastelain report. In this context there could hardly be anything more significant than the report. We in the House are not to be shown the report. That is an outrage. The Government proclaim themselves devoted to open government. One could hardly have a more eloquent example of their failure in that respect and of their arrogant contempt for Parliament than their failure to allow us to see the report.

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

I am most grateful to you, Mr. Lord. I asked for a considered ruling, rather than an immediate one, because you and Madam Speaker will have carefully to read Hansard from today and last Thursday to find out to what extent the Secretary of State quoted from the report. My impression is that a careful reading of what he said today and on Thursday will disclose that he quoted from the report. The Secretary of State did not improve matters with the explanation that he gave when we raised the matter earlier today. He appeared to rely on the fact that the report was made to the Irish Government as well as to the UK Government as a reason for not disclosing it. The clear implication was that pressure from the Irish Government was the reason why the report was not to be made available to the House. I do not know whether the Secretary of State had thought through that justification and its implications, but it seems to me that it has most unfortunate consequences. There are many areas in which it would be desirable for the UK Government to co-operate closely with the Government of the Irish Republic, and such co-operation would have the enthusiastic support of the House, but if the consequence of that co-operation is that the Irish Government will be able to exercise a veto on the disclosure of information to the House, that will inevitably give hon. Members pause before they support such co-operation in future. I have no doubt that, when the House was originally told that the de Chastelain report would be submitted jointly to the Irish Government and the UK Government, no one thought that it was a matter of concern. That would have been regarded as an entirely appropriate step, and so far as I am aware, no one in the House registered an objection to that course. Had we known, however, that it meant that the Irish Government would have a veto on whether or not the content of the report could be disclosed to the House, even when the House is being asked to approve emergency legislation on the basis of the report, the attitude of many hon. Members would have been different. That would have been unfortunate. The explanation that was, in the end, dragged out of the Secretary of State earlier today has unfortunate, far-reaching implications. I hope that he will reflect on those implications when he considers the course that he has taken and the way in which he has kept from the House the contents of that report.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. His argument is strengthened if he shares my understanding that the decommissioning commission was established by legislation from this place and is accountable to this place. There was no corresponding legislation in the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland.

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which reinforces mine. It is a serious argument, on which I hope the Secretary of State will reflect. I proceed to a more general point on clause 1 stand part. Clause 1 sets out the effects of the suspension of devolution, if and when the Bill comes into force. I support the Bill and share the regret which has been widely expressed that it has become necessary. When we debated affairs in the Province in July, I posed two questions. If the IRA and other terrorist organisations have indeed given up violence for good—the basic assumption on which the entire peace process rests—why should they need to keep their guns and their bombs? If at some point they will be prepared to give up their guns and their bombs, why not now? I do not believe that there is any answer to those questions, which is why I find it difficult to be optimistic about the process, much though I should like it to succeed. I shall refer to one aspect of that process, which the Bill directly calls into question. It was touched on earlier, during Second Reading—the release of terrorist prisoners. Many of us found that the most difficult and painful provision in the Belfast agreement. It raises and, indeed, breaches principles that are very dear to us. The provision impinges directly on my constituents, who would have been victims of the seaside bombing plot in 1984—a plot prevented only by effective action by the police. The release of those responsible for that plot and for terrible deeds of violence which they did commit was a bitter pill to swallow. We were, however reluctantly, prepared to go along with the provision. In my case at least, the decisive argument was that the prisoners would be the most powerful promoters of the peace. They, we were told, would be the most persuasive advocates within their movements for the abandonment of violence, for the end of terrorism and—an essential part of the process and the agreement—for giving up the guns and the bombs with which such enormous suffering had been inflicted. We were in part persuaded to take that step because the legislation that put the agreement into effect identified with some precision the factors that the Secretary of State must take into account in deciding whether prisoners should be released. Under the existing legislation, one of those factors is the extent to which the organisation to which the prisoners belong is prepared to co-operate in decommissioning. It is, alas, now clear that our expectations have not been fulfilled, and that calls into question in the most direct way the continuing release of prisoners under the existing legislation.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy to me. Can he confirm that more than 200 prisoners were released under 1995 legislation when he was a member of that Administration?

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

The prisoners were released, but the circumstances were entirely different. What happened on that occasion was not some arbitrary shortening of the sentence, as is provided for under the current legislation. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to what happened in Northern Ireland. Is that right?

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

indicated assent.

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

What happened then was that the provisions that existed at that time in Northern Ireland were brought into line with the provisions that existed in England and Wales. There had been a difference between the provisions for remission in Northern Ireland and those that existed in England and Wales, and on that occasion they were made consistent with each other. That was a set of circumstances far removed from those that exist under the current legislation.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way. There are those who will find his argument hard to follow, but is it not summed up by what happened in the courts last week, when two people were convicted of murdering a Roman Catholic and a Protestant, and they showed contempt for the judgment, because they know that they will walk out in July?

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry to hear that he thinks that my argument will be hard to follow. I thought that the argument that I was putting was simple, clear and easy to follow, but we must all be disabused of our pretensions. However, I agree that the example that he cited illustrates my point. If, as we were told, the prisoners are the most powerful promoters of the peace, an announcement by the Secretary of State under the existing legislation that the release of those who remain in custody will cease until progress is made on decommissioning would put clear pressure on them to do what we were told they would do—to promote the peace. If they cannot or choose not to influence the process, the original justification for their release will not exist. Either way, prisoner releases should not continue, and I hope that we will have a clear statement from the Minister this evening to that effect.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I shall be brief. My contribution to the clause stand part debate centres on my concern for those who are employed in any of the institutions that may face suspension. When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, can he confirm that the interests of those employees—I have no idea how many people there are in the employment of the Assembly or the Executive, for example—will be protected in accordance with their terms and conditions of employment?

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

As we know, clause 1 lies at the heart of the Bill and provides for the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland. My approach to the Bill is generally supportive, but I have one point of genuine concern, which I hope the Minister can address when he replies. The House spent tens of hours scrutinising and deliberating on the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and a not inappreciable amount of time considering what became section 30. I do not understand why the Government are introducing the Bill at all. Section 30 of the 1998 Act allows for the exclusion from ministerial office of members of a political party that is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means". Many hon. Members opposite understandably said that they wanted the structures and institutions of devolved Government to continue. The 1998 Act provides for that. I do not understand why the Government are introducing the Bill when they can exclude under existing legislation those who are deemed not to be committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic methods.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) expressed our party's opposition to the Bill and to dismantling a delicate edifice of political institutions, which will be extremely difficult to restore. I apologise to earlier speakers for my absence, but I have just left what, sadly, may be the last meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I want to stress to the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), that this morning's Order Paper in the Assembly included a motion to exclude Sinn Fein and that it did not receive the necessary number of votes—which is only 30 out of 108—to support it. The Assembly is a cross-party body, and Unionist parties, extreme and moderate, and nationalist parties, extreme and moderate, do not support the exclusion of Sinn Fein at the moment. That is a lesson to the House about how carefully we handle our delicate political institutions. That is why my party opposes the whole concept of the Bill, the contents of which are mainly embodied in clause 1. We cannot enforce decommissioning by such a measure, which is a slap on the wrists of Northern Ireland politicians. It penalises elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the vast majority of whom are not culpable through failing to decommission. It is therefore important to put on record that the Assembly, no later than a few hours ago, did not believe it proper to exclude representatives of the IRA from their number. In that case, why should this House do it?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Before we consider clause 1 stand part, I express our sympathy to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). All of us have known him for a long time, and we respect his courage in being here today following the recent tragic murder of his niece. I am sure that he has the sympathy of all hon. Members. I suppose that I am required to declare an interest when considering clause 1. Several hon. Members who have spoken also have an interest. I am a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and a Minister with responsibility for a Department in that Government. I want to speak against what might be perceived as my interest. I have been a convinced devolutionist for a long time. For the past 21 years in the House, I have frequently argued, from both sides of the House, for devolution in Northern Ireland and for decentralisation of powers. I believe without qualification that no matter how well intentioned Ministers who went from Great Britain to Northern Ireland may have been, in the time that they were there they could not have had the same feel for the needs of people in Northern Ireland. Given their number, it was asking a lot of each Minister, or of any human being, to take charge of what would be four Departments under the present system. I am not against devolution in principle—I support it—but when I read the Belfast agreement I realised that the price that the people of Northern Ireland were being asked to pay for it was too high. The four principal features of the agreement were the release of terrorist prisoners before their due dates, the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the setting up of apparatus that leaned towards a united Ireland—including unaccountable all-Ireland bodies with executive powers—and placing in government those who were still unrepentant and have clear terrorist connections and relationships. To me, that corrupted the democratic process. One might have expected, in a fair and reasonable world, that somebody holding those views might not have been thought unreasonable, but holding them when the Government hold a contrary view can become very unreasonable. We have been accused of many things over the past months and years, but we made it clear at the beginning that corrupting the democratic process in such a way had sown the seeds of the agreement's destruction. Day by day, it becomes more apparent that having terrorists in a democratic Government is a contradiction in terms. Sooner or later, the leaders of political parties had to recognise that conflict. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has attempted over and over and over again to put off the evil day, hoping beyond hope that Sinn Fein-IRA would perhaps be prepared to decommission. There were many to advise him that everything they knew about that organisation's behaviour was such that that would not happen. He has learned the hard way in his party and in his constituency, where he can barely walk the streets. That is the reality of life in Northern Ireland. If the price of devolution was too high, the Government's suspension of the institutions is hardly the appropriate response, which is the proper exclusion of those who are not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means". The hon. Member for South Down responded in some measure to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). The answer is yes: section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 contains a power allowing the exclusion of political parties if, for one reason or another, they do not measure up to the standards laid down in the Act, but it can be triggered only by a cross-community vote. Indeed, such a proposal can be put before the Assembly only if 30 people are prepared to stand in their places or sign a motion support it. In the Assembly this morning, 29 people were prepared to support that motion, but in the absence of the 30th it was not even debated. Even if it had been, it is abundantly clear from the comments of members of the Social Democratic and Labour party that it would not have received the cross-community support necessary to exclude Sinn Fein-IRA. In those circumstances, it was a weapon that could not be used. When the 1998 Act was going through Parliament, many of us on this side of the House argued that it was an ineffective weapon that would not be appropriate when the circumstances required it to be so. It would be far better and more honest if the Government said, "If people are not prepared to play by the rules of democracy, out they go until they are prepared to pay the membership fees of this club." Instead, their answer is to suspend everything and democrats will be punished alongside the terrorists. Indeed, it must be said that the central feature of the failure of the agreement to work has been the issue of decommissioning. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the silence of the guns. I suspect that if I had pranced across the Floor, put a Smith and Wesson to his ear and asked him to sit down, he would not have been saying to himself "At least the gun is silent. I needn't worry too much about it." I think he would have sat down, and he would have done it very quickly, because the reality is that if one puts a gun to somebody's head it does not matter whether it is silent. It is always silent before it goes off. The threat is there, and it is that threat which Sinn Fein-IRA rely on to give them their negotiating strength. It is that threat which they rely on to give them a status well beyond that of political parties in Northern Ireland which have greater electoral strength than they have. It is that strength which ultimately Sinn Fein-IRA recognise is their ace card in any negotiations about the future of Northern Ireland. Many people talk about Sinn Fein and the IRA being inextricably linked. So they are, but it does not quite indicate the nature of their relationship. Sinn Fein is subservient in that relationship; it does what the IRA tells it to do. The IRA does not follow the leadership or instruction of Sinn Fein, which is the junior partner in that relationship.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said something that I do not think I have heard said before in the House. He referred to the representatives of Sinn Fein in the Assembly in Northern Ireland as the representatives of the IRA, which we all know is so, but I do not think I have heard it said before.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I often look across the Assembly Chamber at the ranks of Sinn Fein. I see among its membership members of the army council of the IRA—present-day members of the army council of the IRA. With the exception of two Members, every one of them has served in the ranks of the IRA. Most of them have gone through the educational process of the prison system. It is very clear that all of them are supporters of the IRA. All of them come under the whip of the IRA, and when it is cracked they jump. No one should get away with the idea that Sinn Fein can lead the IRA by the nose and require it to do one thing or the other. As my friend the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) indicated, the fact that four of the seven members of the IRA army council are also leading Sinn Fein members indicates a close relationship and the fact that there is no division between the views of Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

Is not that a significant difference from what happened in the past, when at Sinn Fein conferences a messenger came from the army council? There no longer needs to be a messenger from the army council, because it is at the head of the Sinn Fein movement.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes, and I do not need to go into the names. We all know the leading members of Sinn Fein who are members of the IRA army council. The injustice of the clause is that it does not contain the freezing of certain other elements of the Belfast agreement. The Government's argument is that they have suspended a number of the operations under the clause because they believe that institutions should be frozen because they cannot proceed as a result of the IRA's failure to decommission. The reality is that if there was ever a linkage in the agreement, the clearest was between prison release and the decommissioning of illegal weaponry. Both were intended to be within a two-year time scale. Neither had an absolute starting date set down, but it was very clear that as soon as the Government proceeded helter-skelter to release prisoners it took the pressure off the IRA to meet its bargain on decommissioning. If the Government simply continue releasing prisoners, it is a win-win situation for the IRA. It will be doing away with Stormont and at the same time continuing to get its prisoners out of jail. It can be disobedient, but be rewarded with the freeing of its prisoners.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Does the hon. Gentleman recall what was said on Thursday during questions to the Secretary of State on his statement? The right hon. Gentleman said: We will not be suspending the Good Friday agreement; therefore, we are not going to put into reverse all those gains and all those changes that have flowed from its implementation."—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1325.]. In other words, the Secretary of State was telling the IRA, at the very moment that he was announcing the possibility of suspension, that he would continue to reward it.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to an unfortunate message which, no doubt, was picked up by the Provisional IRA. As the Secretary of State will see, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act expressly states that he has the power to stop the release of prisoners if there is not a clear continuation of the commitment of an organisation to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The Act specifies four areas for the Secretary of State to take into account when judging whether that continuation is taking place, one of which relates to decommissioning. I wonder whether one of the reasons for our not having the report from the decommissioning body is that if the report says that the Provisional IRA has not been complying with the conditions, the 1998 Act requires the Secretary of State to stop any release of terrorist prisoners. It will be interesting to see what happens when the information eventually surfaces—and the Secretary of State will discover that, in Northern Ireland, these things do eventually surface, in one way or another. I believe that the Secretary of State should have taken the alternative course of excluding those who were not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I believe that he should also have suspended the implementation of the Patten recommendations and acted differently in regard to prison releases. However, given the limited nature of the Bill, I have no choice but to go for the second-best option that the Government are offering: the suspension of the institutions.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Along with, I am sure, the rest of the Committee, I join the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in expressing our condolences to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I have already expressed my condolences privately, but I think it would benefit the hon. Gentleman's family to know that we have expressed ours across the board. Let me say to the hon. Member for Belfast, East that I suppose my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I should declare an interest: if the suspension goes ahead, one or other of us will be doing his job next week, although we do not expect to receive any extra pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) talked about the people who are employed in the institutions. As the Secretary of State and I have said repeatedly, our hope is that the institutions will not need to be suspended, but if they are, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, many of the detailed arrangements will need careful consideration. I assure the Committee that proper regard will be given to the circumstances of people who are employed in any of the bodies. Obviously, we are not at the point where we can give precise details of that, but if suspension goes ahead we will quickly have to turn our attention to my hon. Friend's point. In an exchange with the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) raised a question about the status—in terms of agreements between ourselves and the Irish Government—of the decommissioning commission. As he will be aware, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was established by an international agreement between the British and Irish Governments. That agreement was followed by parallel legislation in both jurisdictions, so it is from that that the relationship in respect of the commission derives. Therefore, when the Secretary of State refers to the report being the joint property of both Governments, it is because of the parallel legislation in both jurisdictions which led to the establishment of the commission. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) raised a point on which I think I can give some reassurance. Subsection (3) makes it clear that no Committee of the Assembly can meet or conduct any business during a suspension. That includes statutory and all other Committees. All Committees will cease to function for the duration of suspension. Subsection (4) deals with those individuals who hold statutory office under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, just as clause 3 deals with their reappointment in line with the provisions in that Act. The Bill does not address the various non-statutory appointments, such as chairmen of Standing Committees. Nevertheless, they too will cease to exercise any of their functions during a suspension. Their committee cannot meet or conduct any business. The Secretary of State, who, under the Bill, takes responsibility for salaries and allowances, will ensure that they are treated on a par with the chairmen of statutory committees. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe took issue with the Secretary of State's explanation of why he did not feel it was appropriate at this time to publish the General de Chastelain commission's report of a week ago Monday. He went on to discuss precisely what terms the Secretary of State might have used this afternoon. In his observations on the content of General de Chastelain's report, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was summarising what was said. As regards publication, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has held high office; he was Home Secretary. He knows that, on some occasions, certain issues are highly sensitive and delicately balanced in terms of the relationships between different bodies—in this case, the relationships between ourselves and the Irish Government. I hope that he will accept that it is because of the delicacy of the situation that, at this time, the Secretary of State does not think it appropriate to publish that report. I hope that he will also accept that the Secretary of State has made it clear that, if and when a further report is published, he will undertake to ensure that both are published at the same time.

Michael Howard (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe)

The form of words that the Minister has just used—it was not an explanation; it was simply a form of words—is no more convincing than the very similar form of words used earlier today by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister not recognise that we are here today because of the de Chastelain report? How in those circumstances can he justify not making that report available to the House? When General de Chastelain came forth with a report that contained some relatively good news, the Government were quick to publish it. Surely the Minister should recognise that the Government should be equally quick to publish a report that, most regrettably, contains bad news.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Forgive me, but I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is engaging in a little bit of sophistry—he knows the precise situation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no secret of the fact that we are considering the Bill today because the progress on decommissioning that everyone rightly expected to be made has not been made—[Interruption.] I repeat that insufficient progress has been made. My right hon. Friend also made it clear that progress is ultimately a matter for General de Chastelain, who will subsequently report on it. However, as I said, at this stage it does no good for us to pore over the entrails of precisely what has happened. We want decommissioning to occur, so that suspension will never have to be imposed. However, if it is imposed, we want to ensure that we all have confidence—this is about confidence-building—that, at that time, the suspension could be lifted.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then I must make some progress, as we are running short of time.

Norman Godman (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

A moment ago, I sought assurances for those who are employed in the institutions. However, what will happen to the Bills that were presented to the Assembly at the beginning of last week? One was a fisheries Bill, and another was on social work administration. Presumably those will be taken on board by Ministers?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

During a suspension, the Assembly would have no powers to pass any legislation. Progress on legislation during a suspension would have to be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State or me. If we decided that passage of the legislation was not appropriate at that time, we would not make progress on it. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of the situation that we are in.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Will the Minister give the House an assurance?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then really must move towards a conclusion. He must realise that time is limited.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Given that the Secretary of State has told us that he will release both the de Chastelain report and the successor to it, will the Minister assure the House that such release would not at any point depend on the agreement of the Government of southern Ireland, and that they do not effectively hold a veto over the release of such a report—which we are now told will precede re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the position as clear as he can. I stand by what he said, and he will stand by what he said.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

Will the Minister give way?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I shall not give way. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene—for which he did not have the courtesy to thank me—and he will forgive me if I reply to that intervention in my own way. The situation is precisely as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described it, and the hon. Gentleman should not try playing games to get me to say something different from what my right hon. Friend has said. If he is trying to do that, he will not succeed. We are in a difficult situation. What my right hon. Friend said stands and it is neither useful nor necessary for me to add anything.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I was not going to speak in this debate, but I was moved to do so by the Minister's tortuous and very unconvincing arguments. The issues covered by the Bill, particularly clause 1, hang on the de Chastelain report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has made that point particularly well. The Minister failed to explain how it was possible to publish the first de Chastelain report, and why it is not possible to publish the second report if it is possible to publish a subsequent report, should one be produced. The Minister talks about confidence-building and trust. I agree that we need confidence and trust. He and the Government—and the Government of the Irish Republic if they have anything to do with the publication of the report, although I do not see why they should—ought to take the House into their confidence and trust the British people by publishing the de Chastelain report so that we know all the gruesome details. I fear that the reason for the Government's unwillingness to publish the report is that some of its comments about the attitude of the IRA and Sinn Fein are unpalatable to the Government. The Secretary of State has the right to stop prisoner releases if parties to the Good Friday agreement are not complying with it. If the de Chastelain report were published, the Minister might have to decide that the IRA—or Sinn Fein; whatever they like to be called—were not complying with the agreement and that prisoner releases should therefore be suspended.

ENDING SUSPENSION

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1).

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (3). No. 20, in page 2, line 4, at end insert— (3A) The Secretary of State shall publish the complete text of a review under the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement. (3B) The Secretary of State shall publish the complete text of any report from the Commission on Decommissioning that may be made in connection with the review conducted under subsection (1).'.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I promise not to go on quite as long this evening as I did a week or two ago, because, unfortunately, we have tighter time restrictions. Amendment No. 15 would delete the lines printed in italics at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill. I do not understand why they are printed in italics, but they say: "As soon as is reasonably practicable after section 1 comes into force, the Secretary of State must take steps to initiate a review under the Validation, Implementation and Review section of the Belfast Agreement." Amendment No. 16 would remove from subsection (3) the words: Before making a restoration order, the Secretary of State must take into account the result of the review conducted as a result of subsection (1). Several issues cause me concern. At no time during the Secretary of State's statement to the House last week or his answers to the subsequent questions did he refer to a review. The review came out of the blue. It has already been pointed out that the Secretary of State has other powers that he could use, but he has chosen to go for a review. May we be told why we were not informed last week? Was it because the Bill had to be drawn up at the very last minute? I doubt it. I have been here long enough to know that Governments tend to have all sorts of contingency plans on the shelf, to pull out of a pigeonhole when needed and polished up. If the right hon. Gentleman knew before his statement that he was going to have a review, why did he not tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland? That straightforward question should receive a straightforward answer. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the weapons problem could be dealt with some other way—that he could go down another path, which turned out to be blocked? He made it perfectly plain in his answers on 3 February that weapons had to be dealt with or there would not be devolution because the agreement had not been fully implemented. We hear about full implementation when it concerns something of which the terrorist organisations approve but not when it is something of which the law-abiding population might approve. Stopping the release of prisoners and other things to put on pressure are not done. The Government's one real lever against the IRA was prisoners. They and their families were exerting pressure on the IRA, on the ground. None of those people should have been let out the gate until such time as weapons were given up. That is the view of everyone in Northern Ireland who understands the mentality of those folk. The Government refused to understand. They threw away their strongest card and let out prisoners, so their leverage against the IRA disappeared. I have no doubt, as the release of prisoners is to continue, that it will be played out right up to July, until the very last of those fellows is out through the gate—including the two chaps that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned, who were sentenced for a double murder only last week. There could be no doubt where the Unionist population stand. To them, weapons always have been, and are, the litmus test of whether or not the IRA-Sinn Fein system of terror, murder and intimidation will move to democracy. Weapons are the key. The distance that my hon. Friend has travelled is not a distance that I would have travelled. My experience of those people, given that I live among a fair number of them, is perhaps greater than some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I know how they think and react. If one wanted to put pressure on those people, it had to be done in a different way than giving in to them.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) also recognised that point? He said that there should be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

Perfectly correct, but that view seems to have vanished into the past. The SDLP, it seems, wants to forget about that. All it wants now is an ounce of Semtex left at the door—token decommissioning. We were told that at the weekend. It is not sufficient for the people of Northern Ireland and certainly not sufficient for the Unionist party. Its position is perfectly clear. After this time, there must be a massive giving up of weapons and explosives—the means of violence and war. During the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who has just left his place, I referred to the Secretary of State's words on 3 February, when he was very precise about his intentions. He said that he would not be suspending the agreement—that it would remain intact, as would the consequences of its creation and all its actions. I am not clear how the Secretary of State intends to proceed with the review. The Belfast agreement contains three conditions under which a review can take place. [Interruption.] I understand that the two Ministers on the Front Bench know all about this and do not have to listen. I would like to know which of those three conditions applies in this instance. The agreement states, first: Each institution may, at any time, review any problems that may arise in its operation and, where no other institution is affected, take remedial action in consultation as necessary with the relevant Government or Governments. It will be for each institution to determine its own procedures for review. Under that procedure, the Assembly can take its own decisions and talk only to the Governments as necessary. I assume that the institutions mentioned refer to the two Governments and the Assembly, rather than to the various bodies which flow from the operation of the Assembly. The second set of circumstances is: If there are difficulties in the operation of a particular institution, which have implications for another institution, they may review their operations separately and jointly and agree on remedial action to be taken under their respective authorities. That would seem to involve a combination of institutions, all having to take separate reviews—followed by a joint review—and then agreeing. That is rather complicated, and I cannot see it meeting with much success if what the Secretary of State said about the frailty of the process and the structure is accurate. A structure that cannot stand another election and still survive has a mighty poor chance of surviving into adulthood. The third set of circumstances is: If difficulties arise which require remedial action across the range of institutions, or otherwise require amendment of the British-Irish Agreement or relevant legislation, the process of review will fall to the two Governments in consultation with the parties in the Assembly. Each Government will be responsible for action in its own jurisdiction. In this case, the two Governments have to take the lead and then consult with the parties in the Assembly. They do not have to get the parties in the Assembly to agree with them—they can go ahead in any case. Which of those courses of action—or which combination of them—applies in this case? It might be difficult to have a combination, and it may have to be one. What criteria will the Secretary of State use to make up his mind? When he does make up his mind, will he tell the House which set of criteria he is taking into account and applying? When the review is set up, can we be told what items it will look at? How are the decisions within the review to be reached? Who will make the decisions? What evidence or reasons will be published so people understand what is going on? Clause 3(2)—which refers to the restoration, as it were—gives the impression that the Secretary of State should not be involved in the review because, if he were, he would have to be not only the investigator and the chairman, but the jury and the judge in regard to whether or not he would restore the Assembly to operation. In those circumstances, we need to know the evidence. We need to know who will chair the review. We need to know the criteria, and the task that the review is being given. The only reason for this debate is the refusal of the terrorist organisations to hand over their weapons—their firearms and their other means of murdering, blackmailing and intimidating the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland, and of this wider nation. If we are to go beyond the weaponry, we must be told why, what steps are to be taken into account and what is to be reviewed in the next few weeks.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

I tabled amendment No. 20 in the spirit of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) to avoid the ambiguity and obtain the clarification that is lacking. As clause 2 (3) stands, before making a restoration order, the Secretary of State must take into account the result of the review conducted". I submit that a requirement to take into account is wholly inadequate and what is needed is the requirement contained in amendment No. 20. First, the Secretary of State should be required to publish the complete text of the review that has been undertaken and, secondly—and more importantly, in the light of the general thrust of our debate this evening—he should be required to publish the complete text of any report from the commission on decommissioning. At this stage, with little time left, I shall not rehearse the arguments again, because they have been forcefully presented by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government have totally failed to convince us as to why the de Chastelain report should not have been made available to the House and amendment No. 20 would ensure that that would never happen again.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I shall not detain the House long, because I merely wish to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 20. I notice Ministers muttering on the Treasury Bench, but perhaps they should consider more fully the implications of what they are doing. The issue of the de Chastelain report is a question of confidence and trust. There can be no trust if we are not allowed to see the report. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it refers to the intention of the IRA and Sinn Fein to decommission. We are being asked to legislate without knowing what on earth the report says, but that is leaping hopefully in the dark. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that there is no body of opinion in the nationalist community that is opposed to decommissioning. So can the Minister tell us what was in the report? Was there anything to suggest that a body of opinion in the nationalist community—that must include everybody in the nationalist community—is opposed to decommissioning? If Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA, we must know about Real Sinn Fein, Continuity Sinn Fein and all the other splinter groups. They were in the IRA about two and a half years ago. Are they really so different? Does the Minister have any information—is there any in the de Chastelain report—about such groups as Real Sinn Fein and their links with the rest of the Provisional IRA? It is as certain as it could be that the leadership of the IRA and of Sinn Fein know who is in Real IRA because they used to have an organisation that included them. That relates also to the prosecution of the Omagh bombers, of whom only one has so far been arrested. Does the report say anything about that? It has been alleged that two Members of this House, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness—not yet hon. Members, because they have not taken the oath—may know who these people are. Have they helped in any way in the prosecution of the Omagh bombers? We need to see that report so that we can make a judgment on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. We do not trust Ministers to make it for us.

Nick St Aubyn (Conservative, Guildford)

I, too, do not want to detain the House. However, I was most disappointed at the Minister's earlier suggestion that we were playing some sort of game over this issue, which goes to the heart of the matter. If the report is not published and made known to us, and if we are not given a chance to debate it, how will it be possible to convince Sinn Fein-IRA that this House and our Government are serious about the need for decommissioning? If we are not to have the opportunity to question Ministers on how much movement they require before considering invoking clause 2, how will we know—and how will they know—whether or not the whole process is nothing more than a charade in the eyes of Ministers? Will the Minister clarify again whether the Government have a right to publish the report independent of any permission or agreement from the other Government, who claim that it is their property as well? In the absence of a clear reply, we do not know whether Ministers can activate clause 2 when they believe it appropriate to do so without the prior agreement of the other Government. Neither do we know what change there must be in circumstances, and what criteria the Minister will objectively apply before invoking clause 2.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Clause 2 provides that, after the Assembly is suspended and the Executive members lose their posts, a review has to take place. The review seems to be very limited, as it centres mainly on decommissioning—when it will take place, if it will take place, when weapons will start to be given up and when it will be completed. These matters have been debated on numerous occasions. As a result of understandings reached in the last review, it was assumed that they had been resolved. However, as we have come to see, they have not been resolved. It is unlikely that they will be resolved in any review—certainly not to the satisfaction of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. The review should be much wider, taking into account the changes that have taken place in the people of Northern Ireland and their views, especially in the Unionist community. For it is absolutely clear that the majority of people in the Unionist community no longer support the agreement. We have always been told that any future Government of Northern Ireland and any future Assembly must have the support of the majority of both sides of the community. Support is obviously lacking on the Unionist side of the community. If support were lacking on the nationalist side, we would be told that a wide-ranging review would be needed. However, it seems not to matter when support no longer exists in the Unionist part of the community—it seems that we shall plod on anyway. I implore Ministers to undertake a wide-ranging review that considers all the issues, rather than just decommissioning. We need a thorough review so that we may achieve proper administration for Northern Ireland that is democratic, accountable and supported by all the people.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The Secretary of State's explanation of the Government's reasons for not publishing the de Chastelain report are totally unsatisfactory. We have not got to the bottom of the question whether the Irish Government have a veto. We had the bizarre statement that if General de Chastelain produces a third report, it will, even if entirely unpalatable and full of unwelcome news, be published along with the second. By not publishing the report, the Government have let fly a flurry of speculation. First, there is speculation about what the report contains—and that may be damaging, because rumour builds on rumour, and speculation on speculation. Secondly, there is speculation about why the Government are not publishing it. Their refusal does them no credit, and it does the House no credit given that our whole debate has been triggered by the report and the IRA's refusal to disarm. Hon. Members are grown-ups, and the general public watching our proceedings must find it bizarre that we have not been made party to the critical information that has triggered the debate. I appeal to the Minister to give us a serious and sensible reason why the report has not been published.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seeks to remove the requirement for a review. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 contradict the main purpose of suspension, which will come about only if it becomes clear that the political institutions no longer carry cross-community support and confidence. If that happens, it will be essential to bring the process back on track through discussion and negotiation. In other words, we will need a review. That fact was recognised during the negotiations that resulted in the Good Friday agreement, which is why the agreement includes a section titled "Validation, implementation and review". If suspension occurred without a subsequent review, we might find ourselves in a dangerous political vacuum, and that could lead to the destruction of everything for which we have worked for so long. Almost certainly, the Good Friday agreement would end, because suspension without a follow-on would end the story. A desire to see that state of affairs come about may well lie behind the hon. Gentleman's amendments. The Bill is intended not to suspend the agreement, but to save it. Although I know that the hon. Gentleman—he posed a series of questions, but he appears to have left the Chamber—would disagree with me, I hope he would accept that we are being consistent. I am convinced that the twin proposal of suspension followed by review will bring us to a positive outcome. We cannot do that by suspension alone. I cannot in all conscience recommend that we accept amendments Nos. 15 and 16.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I have been a Member of this place for a fair number of years, Sir Alan. It is rare that a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and asks hon. Members to accept legislation such that we know not what it will do, nor how, nor why, and we know not who is in charge of it. In the light of the Minister's inadequate response, we must press the matter to a Division.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Having listened to the debate, I have no doubt how most hon. Members would sum up the views of the House. There are those in the House who reject the entire notion of inclusive government. They would rather not have self-government than share it with those whom they consider beneath contempt. Those who reject self-government because they cannot bear the idea of sharing it with others do not speak for the majority of people in Northern Ireland, who have demonstrated beyond doubt that they like devolution, they like having their own Executive, and they like having locally elected people who are democratically accountable—local voices taking decisions on local issues, and people with local accents in charge of local affairs. What unites most of us is not a rejectionist mentality. Most of us, of whatever party or leaning, want the Good Friday agreement to succeed. There are aspects of it that some do not like, but they realise that the agreement stands or falls as a whole. It must be taken as a job lot. It cannot be cherry-picked. It must go forward together or not at all. Most of us in the House commend the Unionists for letting devolution happen, and we share their disappointment that decommissioning has not followed. I do not believe that any hon. Member would honestly or realistically deny that the original deal following Mitchell was that if the Unionists went first, others would follow, and that following devolution, a start on decommissioning would be made not long afterwards. What also joins most of us in the House is that we are not obsessed with attaching blame to anyone. We are not interested in spreading recrimination for our current difficulties. We would prefer people to make the agreement work, rather than stand accused of acting in bad faith. Accusing people of bad faith and of letting others down gets us nowhere. I am struck and I feel encouraged by the marked absence of recrimination.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

rose—

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

No, I am sorry, I shall make my speech. The hon. Gentleman has had his time. It is striking that right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate were overwhelmingly positive. They wanted the agreement to succeed. They were not interested in playing some ridiculous, destructive blame game. We can agree thus far. However, we must consider what we should do now that decommissioning has not begun, and what the Ulster Unionists should do in its absence. Most Ulster Unionists are running on empty because of the disappointing lack of progress. Consequently, the Executive is close to collapse, in a matter not of weeks but, tragically, of days. What is the right course of action? There are no easy options for anyone. Some are marginally less disagreeable than others. Several hon. Members who contributed to today's debate suggested that the Government are motivated simply by a desire to head off a Unionist veto or to deal with Unionist blackmail, and that our actions are determined by a metaphorical Unionist gun, which is pointing at our heads. That is not true. We face a complicated, real-life political predicament, and we must deal with it. People have genuine attitudes and prejudices; they have become genuinely exhausted and despair of the situation. We must face that reality and work out a response to it that preserves our achievements, saves what has been created and ensures the endurance of the possibility that the institutions and the very important Executive will flourish permanently. I am firmly set on that course, not on some short-term manoeuvre or tactics that will simply tide us over the next day or two. We are not considering any individual. We are not trying to save the skin of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), although his skin is pretty valuable, and worth saving if we can. I believe that because he has shown admirable leadership of his party; because we would never have formed the Executive and set up the institutions without him; because he has a great deal of leadership left in him; and because, if he relinquished the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party, I would fear for the consequences for Northern Ireland, given his likely replacement. We are not considering going back to the bad old days of Stormont, and government by one side of the community. We shall not do that now, later or at any time. Under no circumstances or terms will we entertain for one moment a reversion to that form of government in Northern Ireland. I appeal to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to whatever extent they found the attitudes of some Ulster Unionist Members who contributed to the debate lacking, not to take a similarly one-sided view in their analysis of the situation in Northern Ireland. The new institutions in Northern Ireland cannot function with the support and confidence of one tradition alone. The new Executive needs two legs to walk on. At the moment, one leg is badly disabled and out of action. I do not think that the Unionist leg is out of action permanently, but it is dragging its foot slightly lamely as a result of a collapse in confidence following Unionist disappointment over the lack of decommissioning since the Executive was set up. I regret that and wish things were different. If I were a doctor with a miracle remedy at my disposal, I would apply it to that Unionist leg and hope for an immediate or overnight cure, but I am afraid that one is not available to me. There is still a chance that we can repair what has gone wrong before the weekend, which I entirely accept is the next watershed that we face. I appeal to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann not to despair and not to turn off, but to remain open to new ideas and new proposals that might yet be canvassed in the coming days and to keep the channels open. We will need all his strength and energy during the review if we are to succeed in resurrecting the Executive and the institutions, should it prove painfully necessary to implement the Bill before the weekend. I say to my hon. Friends from the Social Democratic and Labour party that I understand only too well why they feel that the option of suspension—putting the Executive and the other institutions on hold—is so very painful. The nationalist people whom they represent in Northern Ireland have been shut out of government for so long through no fault of their own, so it is deeply disappointing—almost too much to bear—to have staked their claim in the ground of the new Executive only to have it so cruelly removed after only eight weeks. I fully understand and deeply sympathise. If I could do anything to avoid that, I would do it. If there is anything that the Government, together with the Irish Government, can do before the end of the week to avoid that, we shall do it. I understand why the prospect of returning to direct rule is so unattractive and so disagreeable, but, although this may be unfair, perhaps it is all right for the SDLP to indulge itself somewhat by not facing up to the harsh and unpalatable reality of what we have to do. For others, I am afraid that there is no alternative to the heavy lifting that we have to undertake and no alternative to putting the institutions on hold to create a pause to give us time—a breathing space—so that we can work hard with it and with others to resurrect that which we hold so dear.

Tony Benn (Labour, Chesterfield)

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that positive statement. May I make a suggestion, which might be helpful? The Bill gives him the right to suspend the Executive and the Assembly. It is an undated cheque. He can suspend them at the end of the week if there is no news—or in a year or two years—without coming back to Parliament, but Parliament has to pass an order for them to be restored. Can he give the assurance, which would be very welcome, that he would come back to the House to make a statement in the light of the contemporary circumstances, which might be quite different, if at any time and for any reason it was necessary to bring the Bill into force, even though there is no legislative provision for that? That would give us an opportunity to consider and endorse his proposals.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

That is a tempting offer by my right hon. Friend, and I fully understand the spirit in which it was made. I am afraid that I may not have that scope; there may not be that flexibility, between now and when I have to act, to come back to the House to make a statement and to give the House a further opportunity to debate the matter. If it were possible, if I had that latitude, I would certainly use it, because I regard it as very important on an issue as important as this, on which there are such strongly held feelings, to give people any and every opportunity to debate it properly in the only place in which democracy—live, open democracy—has been able to operate in relation to Northern Ireland for so long. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate. I very much hope that, in the weeks and months ahead, if we have to take this painful decision before the weekend, it will not be too long before I can return to the House with better, more positive and constructive news. I hope that I can show how the parties together, as a result of the review that we intend to make, have been able to chart a new way through these very difficult waters, and how we are able ultimately to get the progress we want, not only in creating proper, democratic, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, but in having the decommissioning that is an essential part of this peace process, without which the politics in Northern Ireland will not work. I am confident; I am optimistic. I will certainly use all my energy to make sure that we get out of the dip—the trough—that we have now slipped into. I hope that it will not be too long before I can return to the House and give it better news.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

This has been a sombre debate. I contrast it with the time, nearly two years ago, when we had a sense of hope and a sense of the future. It was then that we realised that the Belfast agreement might give us the opportunity of ensuring that the future of the island of Ireland would be determined not by the gun or the bomb or by British mandate, but by the Irish people themselves. The agreement gave the Unionists the possibility that their future would be decided neither by some form of brute force nor by a British sell-out. They would be a party to decisions: that is why they would regain the structures of a statelet. For republicans and nationalists, there was the acceptance of the sovereignty of the Irish people as a whole, and the prospect of a mechanism to create a united Ireland. The agreement gave all of us—both traditions—peace and an opportunity to involve ourselves in policy making and governmental structures that would have an impact on the day-to-day lives of the citizens of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. It offered the chance of a normalisation of politics—of the politics that we have taken for granted on this island: politics that are determined by electoral mandates and policy discussion in a civilised framework. The agreement gave us the chance of a radical reform programme, the achievement of equality, respect for human rights and, in every area of policy and everyday life, a debate about what the quality of life should be. I am sorry that some quarters have appealed tonight for a retreat from that programme of reform, for it is important that we press on. For some of us, the agreement provided the hope of a united island of Ireland at some time in the future, on the basis of agreement and mutual respect for different traditions. It provided the hope of an Ireland strengthened by the process of agreement. We accepted that peace was never to be a single act and that there were never to be any armistices. It was a process that would be achieved in stages. There must be incremental steps: lessening violence, removing violence, engaging in dialogue, achieving the appreciation of different perspectives and the understanding of different views, and securing agreement for a way forward. That is why the Bill is such a step backwards—and it is a major step backwards. It removes the structures of the government of Northern Ireland that would make possible the debate, the process of reform and the dialogue. I am confident that we shall eventually restore those structures and achieve peace, but, as we have heard today, there is a history of structures being abolished or suspended that goes back about a quarter of a century. I believe that the Bill poses a risk. Some people are trying to use the decommissioning issue to undermine elements in the Good Friday agreement, and some are trying to undermine the agreement overall. Decommissioning has become a weapon in the hands of anti-agreement elements—of rejectionists. It was used first as an excuse to delay the setting up of the Executive; now it is used to put the whole peace process in jeopardy. But what does decommissioning mean? The IRA has not fired weapons or exploded bombs since the restoration of the ceasefire on 20 July 1997. Before that, the ceasefire had lasted from 13 October 1994 to 9 February 1996. With the exception of the tragedy at Canary wharf, the IRA had held a disciplined ceasefire, with weapons out of commission for more than five years. No one in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s would have ever been optimistic enough to hope that that could be achieved within that time scale. The weapons are out of commission. We are urged today to suspend the arrangements and structures that have consolidated that ceasefire, that form of decommissioning. Why? Because some want to press some extraordinary process of surrender—and surrender is what it will be viewed as.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

All the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate so far, including those who voted against Second Reading, have pointed out that they are in favour of decommissioning. Is that a position that my hon. Friend adopts? As he is closer to contacts with Sinn Fein than I will ever be, will he press decommissioning upon them, because it is the friends, or the people who have links with Sinn Fein, who might be able to shift its position?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

Decommissioning has been recognised as a responsibility. That is why the agreement was signed, but decommissioning itself is a process and the achievement for most of us was peace, the lack of bombs and the lack of the use of the gun. That has been achieved. That is an argument of good faith, which has been demonstrated, but the ramifications of pressing the process to its nth degree have already been explained: the risks of splits and jeopardy for all. This week's bomb is a reminder of the problems and of how it is difficult to hold organisations and traditions together.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

Most of us were against the IRA campaign of terror, as we were against the so-called loyalists on the other side during those long 30 years. We made our position clear. Will my hon. Friend take into account the article in The Irish Times today—which I have already quoted in an intervention—by my friend the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who pleaded with the IRA for some form of decommissioning? We should bear it in mind that it was he who set the peace process in motion in the first place.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Of course, we are all pleading with all sides to move forward together on a path to peace and to decommissioning in the end, but let us make it clear that the agreement contains no provision for the suspension of power and did not set a deadline—the deadline has been set as a result of an external intervention by the Unionists. It is the exercise of a Unionist veto on the agreement, a veto that is dangerous. The Unionist veto was dangerously used in 1975 and 1985. There have been periods when it has undermined the democratic institutions that British Governments have tried to establish in the Six Counties. We are seeing it again now. Why should we allow a timetable to be imposed by one of the parties to the agreement which is not in the agreement? A lasting peace can be founded only on trust. It is clear that sufficient trust has not been established between the parties to the conflict. The irony of the Bill is that it suspends the operation of the key body that is engendering trust—the Assembly. The Assembly is the key forum, in which representatives from all the constituencies and all the parties are able to meet, mix, discuss and work together on common problems in the interests of their community. That process is a key foundation stone of building trust to secure decommissioning. After only eight weeks' operation, we are asked to suspend that key body of trust and confidence building. The Bill's wide-ranging powers are shocking. The Secretary of State is able by order not just on this occasion through the Bill, but on future occasions, to suspend the Assembly and all the mechanisms associated with the agreement without full and adequate debate. Orders are never adequately debated in the Chamber. That wide-ranging power does not even contain a review element; there is no review element on revocation or restoration. It is government by order. There is no power in the legislation for consultation with the Irish Government, although I accept Ministers' assurances on that point. I oppose the Bill. It will not help the peace process; it is dangerous; it is undemocratic; and it cannot be supported. The Belfast agreement was founded on an agreement to secure by consent peace and a future for the island of Ireland. The Bill rides roughshod over the concept of consent, without even consulting the Northern Ireland Assembly or going back to the people of Ireland. If we are not careful, the Bill will undermine the peace process. I therefore urge care on the Secretary of State. I urge him not to enact the Bill immediately, but to allow more time for discussion and, if necessary, to bring together again the parties that founded the Belfast agreement. This short-term measure could have long-term ramifications, and I urge other hon. Members to vote against it.

William Ross (UUP, East Londonderry)

I have occasionally listened to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) speak on Northern Ireland and Irish affairs, but I rarely find myself in agreement with him. However, I agree with all those who complain about rushed legislation. In the years that I have been in this place, I have seen that every time a new piece of legislation is rushed through, we have lived to regret it in one form or another. In this case, I believe that the Bill is the inevitable consequence of the IRA failing to live up to the commitments that it appeared to give. IRA spin doctoring did good service. In Northern Ireland, however, people like clarity, and one cannot get away with trying to conceal reality in ambiguous language. Eventually, reality breaks through. I regret that we have not managed to examine the rest of the Bill's clauses and amendments, few though they are. Various issues were raised in the amendments that should have been debated. I do not believe that this is a happy day for anyone. To some extent, I also regret it. However, my reasons for regretting it are different from those that have been expressed hitherto. My regrets stem from the fact that we are in this position today because we did not at the very outset address the hard issues of weaponry and IRA objectives. If those issues had been settled initially—three, four or five years ago—we would not be debating this Bill. We would have come up with a totally different agreement and a totally different Northern Ireland Act 1998. Although we probably would have had something at a much lower level, it would at least have been workable and provided us with a sound foundation for the future in Northern Ireland—with that part of the United Kingdom remaining firmly within this Kingdom. That, of course, is the crux of the matter. Republicans of all stripes seek to destroy the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within this Kingdom. It is around that political and constitutional issue that all the battles have been fought and all the violence has taken place, and from which all the horrors that we have suffered have flowed. Unless and until certainty is introduced, and unless and until doubt is removed about the long-term political and constitutional future of Northern Ireland, we can expect violence to come back in one form or another. That old, old sermon has been preached in the House for many years by me and by many other hon. Members, but I fear that it has not yet been absorbed. I think that, in any Parliament, we get to the stage when people start to absorb the lesson, learn from it, understand it and accept it. Then, we have a general election and a new group of hon. Members have to be taught all over again. It is a learning process, perhaps, for many right hon. and hon. Members, but it is a learning process that the people of Ulster have paid for in blood.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

When the Bill is passed today, as I am sure it will be, it will be a very traumatic experience for the political process in Northern Ireland. In 1974, I participated in the formation of the Executive. In the intervening 26 years, we have struggled to re-establish that which we had then. It is true that, at that point, the Executive—that partnership—was brought down by the violence of the loyalist paramilitaries and the extreme loyalist political parties. Times change over a quarter of a century and I thought that we had built an edifice that would withstand the test of the coming weekend. My party is opposed to the Bill, as we showed by voting against Second Reading. We do not see any merit in it, or even understand the strategy involved. Because the leader of one party gave a pawn ticket to his party that certain things would happen by a certain date, we are condemned to be the unserving elected representatives of Northern Ireland for an indefinite time. As many people have said, in Northern Ireland it is much easier to destroy than to build. I understand the difficulties and the gamble that the Government are taking, but we think that the gamble is wrong. We do not understand the purpose of the Bill other than to protect the leadership of one of the eight parties in the Assembly. If the Bill, with all that could flow from it, is directed to that one end, as I fear that it is, it does not say much for the Government's understanding of the circumstances of Northern Ireland and our capability—it takes time but it has been well illustrated over the past 24 months—to muddle through our differences somehow and come out again at the other end. I have experienced 30 years of killing and maiming. I say clearly that weapons should have been decommissioned—indeed, they should never have existed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said many months ago, the process is for the slow learners who failed to understand what Sunningdale was about. I would not like to contemplate the aftermath of the failure of 1974 being repeated. If the Secretary of State's intention is to achieve decommissioning, I assure him that he is going about it in the wrong way. I sincerely want decommissioning. I have opposed violence all my life. I know that promises and understandings given during the Mitchell review in the last weeks of November have not been fulfilled by Sinn Fein. The question was who was to jump first—would it be devolution or decommissioning? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party took the courageous step of jumping first. My understanding was that decommissioning would be the second phase and would happen before Christmas. If that had happened, the de Chastelain report of 31 January would have been positive. I understand that it is not, although I have not seen it. We have been let down yet again by the paramilitaries, but let us pause with this thought: are the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries—let us not forget that they have not decommissioned either—working together to ensure that the democratic process fails? Do they see the development and success of the Assembly—I assume that its last meeting was held today—as a danger to their programme of violence? Do they see no future for themselves? Is that why they are trying to break the process? Getting eight different parties to work together has not been easy. Even the members of the Democratic Unionist party, who are opposed to the agreement, are working in all the Committees and other paraphernalia of the Assembly, even if they are in separate rooms from the rest of us. That is an evolutionary process. We have a lot to tolerate in one another and the only way is participation in the Assembly. I fear—virtually dread—that the effects of the Bill will come into force prematurely, without giving us the chance to create our solution to our problem. The Bill is a bad idea. I understand the sincerity and integrity of the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues in presenting the Bill to the House. We must beg to differ on interpretations of what will happen. I hope sincerely that the Goverment are right and I am wrong.

Andrew Hunter (Conservative, Basingstoke)

Unusually, I find myself supporting the Government. I had no hesitation in voting for the Bill on Second Reading, and in the prevailing circumstances, the Government are taking the right action. I deeply regret, however, the tone and tenor of the Secretary of State's early comments. As long as he equates opposition to the Belfast agreement with opposition to peace, the right hon. Gentleman will alienate himself increasingly from a significant body of thinking. I have never concealed my personal opposition to the agreement and have incurred much unpopularity for so doing. I do not believe that that agreement will generate or create political stability—without which there can be no lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Civilised society has core values that include the absolute rule of law, a system of justice free from political intervention and genuinely accountable democratic structures—so the Belfast agreement and the political arrangements that flow from it are ultimately doomed to failure. I demand the right to express that view without being accused of being opposed to peace. Every time the Secretary of State makes such an allegation, he is alienating himself from an important body of thinking in the province of Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I regret that tonight's debate has been accelerated, although I appreciate the reasons. Only two clauses in this Bill of nine clauses were debated in Committee. It is most unfortunate that so much of the Bill is being passed without detailed consideration by this House. I hope that will be put right in the other place and that there will be amendments, so that our debate can be prolonged. I particularly regret the fact that we did not debate one of the Bill's deficiencies, in clause 9. The Secretary of State said that the Good Friday agreement stands or falls together. I only wish that were so. The agreement contains a number of independent strands that are not related. If we had reached clause 9, I had hoped to debate the desirability of linking suspension of the structures and institutions of direct rule with the accelerated release of prisoners. I hope that point will be raised in another place. I support the Bill but regret that it did not receive more consideration. I regret that the Secretary of State continues to equate those who oppose the Belfast agreement with those who oppose peace.

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

Two speeches have expressed fully the view of those who are opposed to the Bill, and they should be responded to—one was from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and the other was from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I know and respect both Members, and they speak well and from the heart. However, their arguments were flawed and I wish to try to counter them. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that things are different now, and he wishes that state of affairs to continue. Everyone can agree with that, and there has been a fantastic change in the nature of Northern Ireland politics. However, we have to ask how that came about. It came about because of all the work done to establish the Belfast agreement, which is still in place. The Assembly and the Executive extended the arrangements and started to bring people together. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, the policy was one of jumping first and attempting to take others along afterwards. As that has not occurred, we have a problem. If suspension did not take place and if there were no decommissioning, the Assembly and Executive would go forward on a false prospectus. We must seek to tackle and correct that by the suspension method if decommissioning does not take place. The second argument of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the chances of achieving decommissioning were lessened with the suspension. I do not know whether they are lessened or improved, and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman knows, either. If suspension occurs, we will at least avoid the collapse of the Executive, which would have been much more damaging in terms of decommissioning. We know that Sinn Fein has many interests in keeping the process on board. Its future in democratic politics is open. It can become a major party within Northern Ireland, and a major party within the Republic of Ireland, holding the balance of power. We should expect Sinn Fein to be involved in decommissioning, to achieve those hopes. The third argument from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was that the suspension played into the hands of those who are against the Belfast agreement. That is entirely wrong. Without the suspension, we would play into the hands of those—especially in the Unionist camp—who wish to see a majority of "no" voters and who wish to stop the developments. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh's fourth argument was that there was no such thing as a soft landing. I do not think that anybody is arguing that there is an easy or soft landing; there are many difficulties. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) argued that neither decommissioning nor going back to the bombings was on the cards, and that we would need to work carefully in continuing our efforts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said that the desire to use weapons had gone. If that desire has gone, it seems to me that the circumstances are then much easier for weapons to be handed in. Those two things should go together, and the record of exilings, beatings and other incidents suggests that the desire has not yet gone. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield argued that suspension was a victory for the rejectionists—a similar argument to the one used by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. My right hon. Friend's major argument, however, was that democracy was taken away from Northern Ireland by the Bill. That is not quite true. Democracy, in some senses, is certainly weakened by having the institutions taken away. There are alternative democratic institutions that will operate—but what is democracy, especially in a context in which people live in fear of guns? I have just finished reading once more Nye Bevan's book "In Place of Fear", which he wrote in 1952 and in which he talked about the need for democracy. He recognised that democracy was weakened in circumstances in which people were exploited and placed in fear, and he said that democracy could not function properly unless the conditions of exploitation were removed. He directed his remarks mostly at class power and wealth in society, but we can apply the principles in his book to the situation in Northern Ireland. Democracy will be distorted if the gun poses a threat to its operation.

Kevin McNamara (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I have followed my hon. Friend's speech with care. However, how are we likely to be able to persuade Unionism to come back into the Assembly and the Executive, given that the Anglo-Irish agreement has now gone and that articles 2 and 3 are changed—which were the two main points that Unionism wanted to achieve in the negotiations? They have been achieved but there has been no quid pro quo. How will the situation be restored and, in particular, how will we maintain the Irish dimension, which has also now gone?

Harry Barnes (Labour, North East Derbyshire)

I believe that the Unionist population will ensure that the politicians respond to those concerns. A change has taken place, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, and it is a fantastic alteration in Northern Ireland politics that no one wants to let go. The commitment that has been made by the leadership of the Ulster Unionist party means that it is possible to maintain the change. What has to happen is that the rest of the Unionist camp, who are trying to realign and reorganise, have to be outmatched. If we put a little faith in Sinn Fein being able to advance towards decommissioning, we may also put some faith in the Ulster Unionist party and other forces in Northern Ireland—such as the Women's Coalition and other people—in the hope that they will bring about that change.

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

Having lived in Northern Ireland all my life, I have listened in amazement to some of the speeches that have been made today. Many of those who have made speeches may have been well meaning, but they have shown that they do not know very much about Northern Ireland. We have tried to press the Secretary of State on why he has not produced the de Chastelain document. I suggest that he is embarrassed to do so, because there is nothing in the document. The former Secretary of State and the Prime Minister assured us that there was a tremendous change happening in the IRA and that it would decommission. Indeed, we have heard this evening from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that he expected to see decommissioning. Many reporters also expected to see decommissioning. The fact is that they have all—including the Government—been fooled by the IRA because it does not intend to give up any of its arms. It is an embarrassment to the Government to have to acknowledge that, especially to the Prime Minister. We have listened to many speeches in praise of the wonderful Assembly and all the good things that are supposed to be happening in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State waxed so eloquent on the subject that he was carried away by his own enthusiasm, oratory and spin doctoring. Then he had to tell us that the situation was on the brink of disaster and that it no longer had the support of the Unionist community, which it does not. He also told us that a crisis would develop at the weekend unless he took action. He told us that if the leader of the Ulster Unionist party resigned, the whole thing would collapse. He said that there could be another election, but that would be a disaster because a majority would not be returned supporting the agreement, so the only alternative was to suspend the agreement. Thirdly, as the Secretary of State spoke from the Dispatch Box this evening, I noticed the change of tone from last week, when he told us that Sinn Fein had betrayed the Ulster Unionist people and the people of Ulster by not decommissioning. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman talked about all the people of Ireland, in fact.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

Will the hon. Gentleman way?

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

No, I will not give way.

Peter Mandelson (Labour, Hartlepool)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way and allow me to correct what he said?

William Thompson (UUP, West Tyrone)

I will not give way.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.