| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Moss: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend and I shall come to that point in a moment. There is no doubt that the Taoiseach sees no disparity or discrepancy between Sinn Fein's public and private position on decommissioning--it will not do it and it has said that it will not do it. Why else should he confront the issue in that way?
On the other side of the argument is the First Minister designate, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party. He has stated time and again that there is no place for Sinn Fein-IRA representatives on the Executive of the new Assembly without substantial decommissioning. His position is as entrenched as that of Sinn Fein. The only room for manoeuvre, it would seem, lies with the two Governments. Perhaps a third ingredient would be President Clinton's involvement. The party invitations to the St. Patrick's day celebrations in Washington become more significant by the day.
The Taoiseach, it seems, has made his move. When can we expect the Government's response? The Opposition's line on this issue has been consistent from the start.
We want the Belfast agreement to be implemented in full. In case there is any doubt, that means that each and every section must be implemented, without cherry picking. The consensus--except among those who retain their arms--is that, in terms of practical politics, decommissioning is an integral part of that implementation.
After last week's critical vote in the Assembly,my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) restated our position. He said:
Mr. Moss:
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, but we are talking about building confidence and about continuing the process begun with the Belfast agreement. We on the Opposition Front Bench have always said that substantial decommissioning should take place but, at the end of the process, we probably would not know whether all the arms had been decommissioned. The fact is that any organisation--in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland as a whole or even in this country--that is serious about terrorism can obtain arms tomorrow, if it wants to. What we are talking about is a full and total commitment to peaceful and democratic means.
Since last May, the Government have achieved much, and deserve credit for that. They have honoured--some would say more than honoured--their side of the bargain. The Assembly has been established; the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has gained Royal Assent; the commissions on human rights and equality have been set up; the reviews of policing and criminal justice have begun; there has been an accelerated release of paramilitary prisoners, which is now more than half way through; and the prudent normalisation of security measures has proceeded.
Have the Government been criticised for a lack of willpower and resolve to implement their responsibilities? I have heard no such criticism.
The Irish Government, too, have faithfully implemented their commitments--so much so that the Taoiseach was moved to say, in his recent interview, that
Perhaps I should apologise to the House, and to the Taoiseach himself, for quoting him so frequently in this debate, but we all know and believe that what he said is true. He has given courageous leadership on this critical matter: would that we had had similar quotable words of wisdom from our own Government. They have the
opportunity this evening, in winding up the debate, to tell us unequivocally that they agree with the Taoiseach that there should be no progress towards setting up the Executive of the Assembly until and unless there is a committed start to meaningful decommissioning.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I shall respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Members for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). The hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to the discovery of an arms cache, saying that the arms were intended for operational purposes. I would have preferred him to have said that they would have been used for terrorist purposes. The people concerned are terrorists. They are not engaged in military operations. Purely and simply, they are brutal terrorists. I was surprised at the language used by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hunter:
Quite frankly, that is pathetic. In the context in which I used the word operational, it means the most vile, horrific, murderous terrorist operational activities. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not appreciate that that was the point I was making.
Dr. Godman:
That intervention was pathetic. Most people who will read the record of the debate will not define "operational" in those terms. The hon. Gentleman is being characteristically pathetic.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire spoke about the Taoiseach's interview in The Sunday Times. Since the interview, there has been some to-ing and fro-ing over the semantics of what the Taoiseach said. The hon. Gentleman wondered why the Taoiseach said what he did at that time. A number of factors influenced him, one of which was the outrage felt by the people of the Irish Republic about the verdict in the trial of those who murdered Garda McCabe, but who were convicted only of manslaughter. Irish people were especially shocked by the interventions of Mr. McGuinness and Mr. Adams shortly afterwards on the sentences that the killers received, and on their so-called early release. The overwhelming majority of Irish people would wish those men to serve condign sentences for a horrific murder in the beautiful little village of Adare.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the terrible murder of an Irish police officer. Does he agree that both Governments are equally committed to decommissioning and that the British Government have made their position perfectly clear? However, is it not part of the political scenery that a statement from the Irish Government, particularly given
Dr. Godman:
As always, my hon. Friend makes good sense. That party can be enormously influential on the thinking of members of Sinn Fein, both north and south of the border.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead):
May I add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It is not merely the Taoiseach who has spoken. Did my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) notice that a week earlier, the Irish Deputy Prime Minister made almost the same statement in Australia?
Dr. Godman:
I recall that that was so. I have enormous admiration for the Taoiseach; it is not as if he enjoys the majority that our Government do. We would all agree that he was not responsible for the headline on his interview in The Sunday Times, and that what he said was courageous. I do not think that in subsequent statements, he was trying to go back on what he said. He has behaved with considerable moral and political courage, just as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done.
Mr. Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire):
This tends to be a place for simple messages, and it is always a risk to try to move the debate forward. Still, it is a lot less risky than paragliding and these days, I have to get my kicks somehow, so I shall attempt to provide a few insights into what is going through the minds of those who are faced with the expectation of having to decommission.
It must be recognised that we have made a lot of progress. Sometimes, in our debates about impasses, we forget that we have made breakthroughs in matters on which, even two years ago, we thought it would be impossible to get a result.
Although today's debate is taking place within the positive context of that progress, we are faced once again with the issue of decommissioning. The whole House, including the Liberal Democrats, will support the renewal of the order, because it represents Parliament's side of the bargain to ensure that the door is always open to enable those who want to decommission to do so. In addition, it puts moral pressure on those individuals to take their side of the bargain seriously.
It is unfortunate that the Good Friday agreement only sets a date by which decommissioning must have been completed--the two-year deadline--and contains no staging posts within that process. The hon. Member for
North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has pointed out that many of us believe that there is a moral obligation on the IRA and all paramilitaries to demonstrate that they are serious about meeting the two-year deadline by taking some steps towards decommissioning before that date, but technically, that obligation does not appear in the Good Friday agreement, so when one speaks to those people, they say that they are under no moral obligation whatever to decommission before that date.
"Sinn Fein-IRA cannot become Ministers until they have fulfilled their obligations under the agreement to start proper decommissioning of illegally held weapons and end violence in all its forms."
Mr. William Cash (Stone):
I hear what my hon. Friend said in respect of a start to decommissioning taking place, and he rightly mentioned that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had called for substantial decommissioning. We know that, from time to time, the Government have a way of talking in terms that appear to be de minimis. Will my hon. Friend be good enough to clarify at what stage decommissioning becomes significant? Even if some decommissioning--or even substantial decommissioning--were to take place, is not the real problem that the threat and the danger to the public would continue to exist if any arms at all are left?
"you can't prioritise and bring forward and incrementally do everything and then say we won't even start on the first 0.001 per cent. of this issue".
By the phrase "this issue", he meant decommissioning.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |