The action of the Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr David Trimble, in voting against the Second Stage of the House of Commons Bill which provides for the accelerated release of paramilitary prisoners was an ill-judged decision that sends contradictory and potentially damaging messages to the electorate of Northern Ireland. At best, it reflected Mr Trimble's concern over decommissioning and his anxiety to extract some related concessions from the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair; at worst, it showed a politician under immense pressure, unsure of his own judgement and uncertain as to his future actions.
It was to be expected that Mr Trimble should articulate concerns on the decommissioning issue in light of the Assembly elections that are currently under way in Northern Ireland. Recent opinion polls conducted there show that 49 per cent of the electorate would like to see decommissioning begin immediately. And the issue was accorded equal importance with the pursuit of peace.
But Mr Trimble's actions at Westminster went well beyond what was either prudent or logical. Last Friday, when the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill was published, it was initially welcomed by the Ulster Unionist Party leader on the grounds that it contained the pledges given by the British Prime Minister in his pre-referendum speech at Dundonald. But then, five days later, he joined with the DUP, the UKUP and dissidents within his own party to vote against the self-same measure. Mr Trimble did not just reject specific elements of the legislation. By voting against the Second Stage of the Bill, he rejected the principle underlying it and, by inference, the reassurances given to him by Mr Blair. It was a volte face of considerable proportions. It was also a step the Conservative Party refused to contemplate as it continued in support of the Belfast Agreement.
Mr Trimble is playing a very strange and dangerous game. Appointing a prominent "No" advocate from within his party, Mr Jeffrey Donaldson, as spokesman on the Bill, he effectively issued a licence to link decommissioning with the accelerated release of prisoners. Since then, Mr Donaldson has confirmed he will table amendments requiring "actual and ongoing decommissioning " before paramilitaries could qualify for accelerated releases. In that, he will be at one with the DUP and the UKUP. But the Belfast Agreement contains no linkage between the accelerated prisoner release programme and decommissioning, other than to suggest a period of two years within which both should occur.
In such circumstances it would be highly improper and politically dangerous for the British government to interpret the Agreement in the manner demanded by some of its most determined opponents. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, is understood to have impressed on Mr Blair the need to adhere strictly to the terms of the Belfast Agreement in any legislation produced at Westminster. And the Government is understood to be satisfied with the terms of the Bill as it stands.
If Mr Trimble's approach to the issue lacks clarity and consistency, an explanation might be found in the equally erratic behaviour of his parliamentary colleagues and in the outright hostility expressed towards him. Whatever the cause, or the motivation behind his decision to vote against the Bill, Mr Trimble would appear to have embarked on a course of action which will see a combination of Conservative and unionist MPs oppose the Bill on the floor of the House of Commons. Such a development would have a negative impact on the efforts of both governments to secure the wholehearted and generous implementation of the Belfast Agreement.