| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clergymen's Widows (Pensions)
32. Mr. Cohen: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, when the Church Commissioners last reviewed the level of pensions paid to the wives of deceased clergymen.[6531]
Mr. Alison: Levels of pension benefit for both the clergy and their widows or widowers are reviewed every year at the commissioners' annual general meeting. The revised rate agreed at this year's AGM in June takes effect from 1 April 1997, when the full basic rate of a widow's or widower's pension will rise by 3.5 per cent. to £5,890.
Mr. Cohen: When did the Church Commissioners last review the pensions and widows' entitlement for clergy who have served overseas? I understand that many people lose entitlement by ministering overseas. I am told that there even had to be a whip-round among the clergy for one bishop who had died. Have the Church Commissioners examined the position, and will they act on it and put some proposals before the House?
Mr. Alison: I have certainly never received any correspondence or complaints about the level of pensions for clergy serving overseas; in nearly every case, that is because they serve with a properly funded charitable society that would be responsible for developing and maintaining a pension for them.
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make about tomorrow's debate. The estimates day debate on the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service, etc., was incorrectly reported as being class XVIII instead of class XVII. As a result, the wrong motions were printed. The correct motions have now been printed and are available in the Vote Office. I confirm that the subject of tomorrow's debate, as announced in Thursday's business statement, is access to Government information.
9 Dec 1996 : Column 22
Orders of the Day
Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In a democracy, politics and violence do not mix. Arms and explosives, illegally held and illegally used for political purposes, have for long bedevilled the politics of Northern Ireland and, more importantly, the lives of its people. They have to be removed from the scene. It is tempting to say that they must be eradicated. It is true that the police services on both sides of the border will continue to root them out where they can.
I believe that the whole House will wish to pay a warm and grateful compliment to the outstanding recent successes of both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana. Vast potential for murder and destruction has been discovered, but it is unlikely that all the lethal weapons and other munitions in existence will be uncovered. In any case, time is very short, for the influence that those armaments continuously exert, even from their hiding places, obstructs the full success and, indeed, even the progress of the political process in which most of Northern Ireland's parties are engaged, together with the two Governments.
Expressed briefly, the natural fear is that the armaments are held on to in order that one day they may be used. Otherwise, what is their purpose? If that were correct, it would not be compatible with the exclusive commitment to peaceful methods and to the democratic process that is rightly required of all who seek in this democracy to negotiate its future. If that is judged to be absent in any party, no matter that it be an elected one, others will not sit at the table with it.
That is why such armaments have to be removed. That much almost everyone is agreed on: it is the easy bit. It gets harder when it is recognised that, illegal though it is to hold them, the yielding up of those armaments will be done either voluntarily or not at all. Therefore, to secure the best prospect of having them dealt with so that they are for ever out of harm's way, it is necessary to put in place a more sophisticated scheme than many would like.
I acknowledge that; but to those who bridle at the notion of helping terrorists to decide to get rid of their weapons, I offer this thought. A weapon which, in accordance with any such scheme, is taken out of commission can never kill in the future, as it may have killed in the past. A weapon which is retained in terrorist hands may well kill again, unless it is seized by the security forces before it can do so, which cannot be ensured.
No scheme of any kind can be constructed without a downside. But the thought that I have offered is the justification for seeking to put a well-judged scheme in place. That is the view of the Government; and we are fortified in that view by the international body, set up by the British and Irish Governments, when it reported in January this year.
9 Dec 1996 : Column 23
The body's remit was to provide an independent assessment of the decommissioning issue, and to report on the arrangements necessary for the removal from Irish politics of illegal arms. Chaired by Senator George Mitchell, working with former Prime Minister Holkeri and General de Chastelain, the body received oral and written submissions from each Government, from political representatives from all parties, from church and community leaders and many others.
Following careful examination and consideration of the issue, the body published its report on 22 January this year. I shall call it from now on the Mitchell report. It noted that
The Mitchell report can be seen as falling into two parts--for this purpose at any rate. The first examines the question when decommissioning should take place. The second deals with how it should take place. But this Bill is germane only to the second part of the report. It is an enabling Bill. Its purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to give effect to Mitchell's recommendations as to how decommissioning will take place, at whatever time or stages may be decided.
The latter issue is, of course, of crucial importance. It is currently occupying the parties and Governments taking part in the political talks, which have been in progress since 10 June.
Strong views, as I am well aware, are properly held on every side. I do not intend today to seem to pre-empt, or even comment on, the negotiations. They are at an important stage at the present moment. I hope and believe that it will possible to reach a conclusion before Christmas.
I can, however, say that all the participants want to see the total and verifiable decommissioning of all paramilitary arms at the earliest possible moment. Whatever may be finally agreed about that, however, there will be a need for a mechanism and a structure to enable decommissioning to be achieved. They also all support the guidelines on the modalities of decommissioning set out in the Mitchell report. I am sorry about the word "modalities"; it really means the ways in which decommissioning can be carried out.
Since talks recommenced in September, after the break, it has become increasingly clear to both Governments that there was a need to introduce legislation to provide a firm statutory basis for decommissioning. Such legislation would be based firmly on the guidelines contained in the Mitchell report and would provide a context in which further discussion on decommissioning could progress.
9 Dec 1996 : Column 24
So the Bill now before the House is, in parallel with proposed legislation which I understand the Irish Government intend to introduce very soon, designed to provide a statutory foundation for decommissioning, and the secure context in which discussions on decommissioning can move forward.
Before I turn to the clauses of the Bill, when I shall relate them to the Mitchell report, I hope that it will be helpful to explain the general approach that we have adopted in framing the Bill. This approach is also, I understand, to be adopted in the draft Irish Bill.
This Bill is intended to reflect, and enable effect to be given to, the six principles underlying the detailed guidelines which Mitchell has provided in paragraphs 39 to 50 of the report. Those were that the decommissioning process should: first, suggest neither victory nor defeat; secondly, take place to the satisfaction of an independent commission; thirdly, result in the complete destruction of armaments in a manner that contributes to public safety; fourthly, be fully verifiable; fifthly, not expose individuals to prosecution; and, sixthly, be mutual.
Central to the Bill is the concept of a tightly defined and narrow amnesty. It will be available only to those who adhere to the strict terms of a decommissioning scheme, and only for offences that they technically commit in respect of anything done in accordance with such a scheme. Those offences are specified in the schedule. They are mainly of a possessory character.
"everyone with whom we spoke agrees in principle with the need to decommission",
and that differences in timing and context should not obscure
"the nearly universal support which exists for the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations."
Her Majesty's Government's position on decommissioning is squarely based on the Mitchell report, which we fully endorse. We agree with the report's conclusion that decommissioning must continue to be a principal objective, and that it should receive a high priority in all-party negotiations.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |