| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): The right hon. Gentleman says that he supports the Belfast agreement, but the motion tries to create a link between prisoners and decommissioning that does not exist in the agreement. Is not the effect of the motion to undermine the agreement, even if that is not his intention?
Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should take a bit more note of what the Secretary of State has said from the Dispatch Box. In answer to questions from me during Northern Ireland questions in October, she rightly said that prisoner release and decommissioning should go in parallel. In answer to questions from Opposition Members on 2 December, she said:
- "Let me make our position absolutely clear: decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement; it is not a precondition but an obligation."--[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 867.]
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): The issue of linkage is fundamental, as I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree. Was not one of the Mitchell principles that no one was allowed to take part in the peace discussions unless they had forsworn violence for good? Yet we know that, since the Good Friday agreement and beforehand, many paramilitary groups, particularly the IRA, have been involved in many beatings and, in the case of the IRA, the murder of a man called Andrew Kearney in Belfast. Is not that the linkage? It has been linkage throughout, yet some now try to deny it.
Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I underline that point by quoting the Prime Minister at the
Dispatch Box in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. On 6 May, he said:
- "Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course".--[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Rothwell): It is right for the right hon. Gentleman to seek a debate on an issue on which there is some debate to be had, but does he intend to put the matter to the vote? It seems unreasonable to put on public record a division of this sort--something which we did not do in opposition. That could be harmful to the agreement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think seriously about that. I would be unhappy if I had to vote on the matter.
Mr. MacKay: I can answer the hon. Gentleman clearly. We had expected, hoped and assumed that our motion would not need a vote, but would be passed by the House. As we now see an amendment on the Order Paper, I suspect, Madam Speaker, that you might well be calling a Division at about 7 o'clock.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should not have votes on matters concerning Northern Ireland. I wish that he and his colleagues had taken that advice when, year in and year out, they ratted on emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism legislation, when bombs were going off here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, murdering innocent people. At best they abstained, and at worst they voted against such legislation. They were soft on terrorism. I am glad that they have now changed. I had not intended to raise this. They have chosen to do so. The facts and the votes recorded in Hansard speak for themselves.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian):
The right hon. Gentleman seems to want it both ways on bipartisanship, and now he seems to have an a la carte approach to the Belfast agreement. He knows perfectly well that the whole House, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, are completely committed to the whole agreement, including decommissioning, so why on earth does he even contemplate voting against the Government on the issue, knowing what message that will convey on the island of Ireland?
Mr. MacKay:
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, let me say that the simple truth is that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have always been right to say that the Belfast agreement cannot be cherry-picked. I am not cherry-picking; the paramilitaries are cherry-picking. We are backing the Belfast agreement, and anyone who does so should support our motion. As I deploy my arguments, the hon. Gentleman will see why.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacKay:
This will be the last time for a while. No one else will be called to speak in the debate if we continue like this.
Mr. Thomas:
How many paramilitary weapons did the right hon. Gentleman's party manage to get
Mr. MacKay:
That has confirmed my worst fears. That pathetic and irrelevant intervention is not fit for a response.
At the time of the Belfast agreement, we were deeply uncomfortable about the early release of terrorist prisoners, as were the great majority of decent, law-abiding people in this country.
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacKay:
I shall proceed a little.
With the greatest reluctance, we swallowed our concerns, because we realised that early releases were part of a wider package. As the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister said at the time, it was not to be cherry-picked, and had to be seen in the round--complete.
It is absolutely clear under the Good Friday agreement that paramilitaries whose political associates had signed the agreement would decommission all their illegally held arms and explosives over two years, and, at the same time, the Government--starting when the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 became law in July--would release terrorist prisoners early, providing that the Secretary of State was satisfied that they were not likely to return to violence or associate with other paramilitaries.
What has happened? The Government--I do not quibble with this, as the Secretary of State knows--have released a number of terrorist prisoners early, to show good faith and that they were keeping their part of the Belfast agreement bargain. Seven months on, not one gun or ounce of Semtex has been handed in, but more than 200 terrorist prisoners have been released early. To say the least, that is hugely disproportionate.
Any reasonable person looking at the scene in Northern Ireland would say that, seven months on--more than a quarter of the way through the two-year decommissioning period--some weapons should have been handed in. After a mere three months of the two-year period for early release of terrorist prisoners, half have already been released.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill):
Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether his speech will give more aid and comfort to those who voted for the agreement or to those who voted against?
Mr. MacKay:
The best aid and comfort that I can give to those who voted yes--I campaigned for a yes vote, along with the Secretary of State--is to make sure that the Prime Minister's pledges at the Balmoral agricultural show, and subsequently at the university of Ulster at Coleraine, are met. Having returned from the Province within the past few hours, I can tell the hon. Lady that a large number of people who voted yes feel deeply disillusioned and let down by the Prime Minister, because
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that members of the public, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom, are appalled and cannot understand the logic of continuing to release terrorists without the decommissioning of arms? They are bemused and puzzled. Many of my constituents have written to me about this issue, and are delighted that my right hon. Friend has had the courage to face reality.
Mr. MacKay:
I agree with my hon. Friend that any reasonable person would be perplexed, confused and disappointed that, seven months on, no guns or Semtex have been handed in, yet well over 200 terrorist prisoners have been released early. That is grossly disproportionate, and it calls into question whether any decommissioning will take place.
Mr. White:
Is it not true that, when the previous ceasefire took place, the Conservative Government released more prisoners? Prisoners were released when violent acts were still being carried out, whereas now there is no violence.
Mr. MacKay:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Labour Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have a very limited memory of what happened in the previous Parliament. We increased remission to 50 per cent. to bring Northern Ireland law into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That did not involve decommissioning, and it did not entail the two-thirds remission that is now in prospect. Under the agreement, every terrorist prisoner will be released within two years. The two situations are not comparable, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misled the House.
It is worth while quoting the then Secretary of State during the Second Reading debate on 30 October 1995. He said:
"The House will be reassured to know, however, that many of those who have been sentenced for the most heinous offences would under the provisions of the Bill remain in prison until at least the end of the first decade in the next century."--[Official Report, 30 October 1995; Vol. 265, c. 26.]
That is not happening now. I do not quibble with that, but to make such comparisons is ill advised and a mistake.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |