| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Is the Secretary of State morally committed to laying the order annually, irrespective of whether progress is achieved in decommissioning?
Marjorie Mowlam: I do not understand the inclusion of the word "morally" in the hon. Gentleman's question. The order was introduced in 1996 by my predecessor, and part of its nature is that it is laid every year. The order involves the suspension of parts of the criminal law, and therefore must be introduced every year. We are doing so today up to 24 February 2000, and that will continue for the five years for which the order was introduced. That is the nature of the order. The order deals with questions of the process of decommissioning--it is nothing more than that.
Mr. Malcolm Moss (North-East Cambridgeshire): The Government have our wholehearted support for the order which, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, renews the amnesty period for a further 12 months under the
Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997--not least because, without the order, the decommissioning scheme would become completely moribund and we would be unable to decommission arms, even if we wanted to.
I join the Secretary of State in her praise for the diligent and impartial efforts of General de Chastelain, the chairman of the independent international commission set up under the decommissioning scheme and reinforced under the Belfast agreement. His is not an enviable position, but he is conducting his role with great skill and patience.
Decommissioning seems to be the critical issue in Northern Ireland politics at present. It features in debates about the pace and efficacy of prisoner release, and about who has the right to take up Executive posts in the new Northern Ireland Assembly. It is central to discussion and argument in this House, as well as in the Assembly.
There are only two questions that need answering. First, why is decommissioning so crucial? Secondly, if decommissioning is so important, why has none so far taken place? The answer to the first question--indeed, perhaps the answer to all the questions--lies in the Belfast agreement, paragraph 4 of which stated that parties to the agreement gave their
The agreement is no less explicit about the ways in which arms and explosives are to be taken out of the equation, and the time scale over which that is to be achieved. It says:
The words "use any influence" might sound weak at first, but as we have had an acceptance in the House on more than one occasion that Sinn Fein and IRA are one and the same, the use of that phrase becomes clear cut:
the people involved in the political negotiations are the same people as those in the military organisation. The agreement set up a time scale: decommissioning was to take place within two years.
Decommissioning is crucial to the setting up of the Executive in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The agreement is clear on that point. It says:
Where is the commitment to non-violence? Only last week, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) focused on that point in a question. Only last week, the RUC found an arms cache. It was confirmed not only that the arms were PIRA weapons but that they were hidden recently, despite the so-called ceasefire that we are supposed to be enjoying.
Marjorie Mowlam:
For the record, the Chief Constable said that the arms were PIRA-related, but there was no ability to put a time scale on them.
Mr. Moss:
I am grateful for that clarification.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram):
Do you accept it?
Mr. Moss:
Yes, of course I accept that important clarification.
Rev. Martin Smyth:
I understood that a time was established, because the police marked the detonators and they could be seen to be from 1998.
Mr. Moss:
We have two conflicting opinions and I am inclined to believe the Secretary of State, who has the latest intelligence reports.
Mr. Hunter:
I encourage my hon. Friend not to give credence to the Secretary of State on that point. Primed weapons were moved into west Belfast, and the Secretary of State will know from her intelligence sources that the Provisional IRA do not move weapons into west Belfast unless they are intended for operational purposes. My hon. Friend should stand fast on that point and not accept the Secretary of State's comments. It is clear that those weapons and ammunition were intended for operational use immediately.
Mr. Moss:
My hon. Friend has made his point. I do not have accurate intelligence reports from the highest source in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has made a statement in the House and I have to believe her. She will have to stand by the comments that she has made to the House. It is as simple as that.
At another level, how can Sinn Fein-IRA and the PUP-UVF equate non-violence with the holding of weapons and explosives? I am delighted to say that that is now the view of the Irish Taoiseach as well as the Leader of the Opposition in the Dail, Mr. Bruton, who was quoted on 15 January in The Daily Telegraph as saying that the IRA had to disarm if Sinn Fein were to be allowed to take its seats in government. He put it correctly when he said:
"total and absolute commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences on political issues"
and stated their
"opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose".
The agreement is unequivocal on force, covering not only its use but the threat of its use. Threats do not emanate only from statements and posturing. The fact that some parties to the agreement are associated with paramilitary organisations with substantial stocks of arms and explosives--they have made ready use of them in the past--is, in itself, a real and tangible threat. In the absence of any statement from Sinn Fein-IRA or the Progressive Ulster Unionist Party-Ulster Volunteer Force that violence is over for good and that they will never again resort to a military campaign to further their ends, the perception of threat will not go away.
"Participants reiterated their agreement to a Procedural Motion adopted on 24 September 1997 'that the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation'".
It further says:
"All participants affirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their intention to . . . use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years".
No doubt those words were extremely well crafted. There was a commitment to total--I emphasise total--disarmament. The reference is to "all paramilitary organisations", rather than military organisations, so demilitarisation of the British Army and its bases in Northern Ireland does not come into it.
"Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office."
Violence has been a common occurrence on the streets of Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement. Punishment beatings--we prefer to call them mutilations--have been widely used by the paramilitary groups associated with the political process to control and intimidate whole communities. The Chief Constable has confirmed that on more than one occasion.
"How long could a coalition in the Dail work if one of the parties in the cabinet had a private army? We hardly expect different standards to apply in Belfast."
As far as the Taoiseach is concerned, despite the "now he said it, now he didn't" claim and counter-claim, one thing is certain: Bertie Ahern's assertion that there can be no Executive without a start to decommissioning dramatically increased the pressure on the republican movement. His statement that the republican position on decommissioning was "illogical, unfair and unreasonable" produced
"gloom, concern and puzzlement in the republican camp"--
to quote one report. From his subsequent clarification, he did that deliberately and consciously. Why should he do that? Various newspaper headlines suggested that he had blown it or lost the plot, or had been too open and helpful in handling the journalist. However, could it be that Mr. Ahern had come to the end of his patience with Sinn Fein-IRA? When he came under pressure from the republican movement, he did not retract. He was courageous in punching home his key message:
"Decommissioning in one form or another has to happen . . . it is not compatible with being part of a government--I mean part of an executive--if there is not at least a commencement of decommissioning, and that would apply in the North, it would apply in the South."
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
My hon. Friend has just said what the Secretary of State said--that there needs to be decommissioning and a start to the Executive. The Secretary of State would not give way to me and therefore did not answer the question about the order of events. Does decommissioning come before the start of the Executive? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that decommissioning starts before there is any question of Sinn Fein-IRA involvement in an Executive?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |