Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2009

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order. I was even more sceptical than the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about this extension for the loyalist paramilitaries. When the Leader of the House took on the Northern Ireland portfolio she invited me in to ask my views on the situation in Northern Ireland. Doubtless she did the same with other Peers. I tried to impress upon her that I thought the most vital thing was to get the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission. This is important not only substantively but symbolically because it gives other paramilitary groups such as the Real IRA and the Continuity IRA much less excuse not to decommission. As long as there are loyalist weapons around, which are used largely for criminal activities, it will do no one any good. We appreciate the attempts by the Government to find a way to put more pressure on the loyalist paramilitaries. We welcome the statement that the IICD must report in six months’ time on the progress of decommissioning and the pledge that if no real progress has been made, an order will be introduced to end the amnesty period. However, it was clear from the debate in another place last week that we need to be more precise about the timescales that have been suggested. Parliament is due to rise on 21 July. This falls a little short of the six months that the Minister has talked about, which would be 11 August—six months from today. The noble Baroness’s ministerial colleague in another place, Mr Goggins, suggested that a report would be received by the Government in August and they would publish the report in September. If no progress has been made, a new order will be laid in October when Parliament returns, to shorten the amnesty period. In real terms, we could be talking about shortening the amnesty period by only three months, rather than six. If we find ourselves in that position, will the Minister give a commitment to publish an informal draft of the order during the Summer Recess and to circulate it to interested parties? It should surely then be easier to expedite the order quickly on Parliament’s return. Under such circumstances, we on these Benches would have no difficulty in helping the Government facilitate a debate on such an order during the first week back. That would be preferable to laying an order on the first day back and not debating and passing it until the end of October. Another issue that must be clarified is how the Government will judge whether enough progress has been made to warrant the continuation of the amnesty. There was a lot of discussion in the House of Commons about the meaning of ““significant progress””. What action will the Government commit to taking if we get a positive report? If the report says, ““Yes, we have had significant decommissioning, but we think that there are still arms there, and””, for whatever reasons it chooses to offer, ““those arms are not yet decommissioned””, what action will be taken? There is simply too much wiggle room for the Government and too much scope for slippage. I want to hear more from the Minister that commits the Government to ending the process and that makes it clear that there needs to be something highly exceptional to allow the process to continue past autumn and the end of the Summer Recess. Mr Goggins, the Minister in another place, helpfully indicated that the IMC will be publishing a report in the spring. Although we appreciate that it is not within the remit of the IMC to facilitate decommissioning, this report will be able to give an early indication of the progress that has been made and the attitudes on the ground to decommissioning. Will the Minister give a commitment today to find time to debate that report as soon as practicable after its publication? I would hope that, given the importance of the report, it might be appropriate for an oral Statement to be made or, at the very least, for a debate to take place in the Moses Room within a week or so of the report being published. The Government are asking us to take a leap of faith in accepting the order. We can do that only by trusting them. Although I am still extremely uneasy about the order, I am somewhat reassured by the comments of the Minister and her colleague in another place. It is with some reluctance that we are prepared to accept the renewal of the amnesty period—and, frankly, a good deal of scepticism.