| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): Is not the problem that, judging by what Sinn Fein and the IRA have said on the subject, it is not a question of their adhering to some legalistic nicety that gives them until some time next year to complete the decommissioning process, but that they have publicly said that they will never decommission?
Mr. Öpik: I might be an optimist, but I have to say that when I speak directly with those individuals who, I can be pretty sure, represent those organisations, my feeling is that they are saying that they will not decommission now. We could enter into a moot discussion on that point, but I think that we can all agree that, if no decommissioning has taken place in two years' time, that will be an objective outcome: whichever party has failed to decommission will have failed to fulfil its half of the Good Friday agreement, and we are all acutely aware of the consequences of that.
We are currently considering how we can move forward from an impasse. Basically, one side is unwilling to decommission or to provide any sign at all that the guns will be handed in, while the other side is applying pressure--its case is coherently argued--by saying, "If you don't show a willingness to decommission, we will be entitled to exclude you from the Executive". That leads me to my next point.
Mr. Field:
The hon. Gentleman keeps mentioning an impasse. There is only an impasse if one group is trying to prevent something from happening. I have listened to the debate, and I believe that there is no will in the House to state that people should not enter government unless they surrender their weapons. That is in stark contrast to the approach of the Irish Government. As I said by way of intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), both the Irish Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have said clearly that they do not think that there should be access to government until decommissioning has occurred. Therefore, the Irish Government are creating an impasse, but we are not. We seem to be suggesting that we are being carried along by events and that we might review
Mr. Öpik:
That is what I meant when I mentioned the risk involved. I am providing the perspective--with which I do not have a great deal of sympathy--of many of those who are presenting obstacles to decommissioning.
Turning to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), individuals who are intimately involved in the peace process have created the expectation that decommissioning must take place at this point in order to provide some confidence that the parties really mean it. Incidentally, that is why I echo the comments of the Irish Prime Minister: he has established a moral expectation that individuals will demonstrate their willingness to decommission. My point is that those who oppose decommissioning respond simply by saying: "Where is the time frame in the Good Friday agreement that we are expected to adhere to?" That is the impasse that I am describing.
In case there is any doubt, I am not being an apologist for those who refuse to decommission, but I am trying to move beyond the kind of rhetoric--which is so easy to engage in in the House--that says that their views are without basis.
Mr. Hunter:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Öpik:
I will give way when I have finished making this point. Regardless of how right we believe we are, it does not serve any purpose not even to attempt to understand the opposing point of view. A superficiality creeps into our debates about decommissioning that is caused by our unwillingness to ensure that we understand the opposing arguments and show that we do, whether or not we have chosen to accept them. Those on the other side of the debate sometimes feel that we do not even understand where they are coming from.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
rose--
Mr. Öpik:
I will give way to the two hon. Gentlemen and then I must conclude.
Mr. Barnes:
The agreement involves not just the two-year provision. It does not follow that, if one side decommissions the day before the deadline, it will be seen to have fulfilled the agreement. The agreement also comprises a commitment to the democratic process and having foresworn any participation in activities involving arms. Those conditions influence our understanding of how the two-year deadline operates. It makes sense to say that we must see some movement towards decommissioning and that it is reasonable to expect those signs before the Executive is established.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is making a speech, not listening to a series of contributions by others.
Mr. Öpik:
I apologise for my judgment and thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am far too
I think that we are violently agreeing. The arguments that we are rehearsing across the Chamber are exactly the ones that we must put to those who refuse to decommission. I shall leave the House with one simple point. We need to understand that there is an intransigence based on a kind of logic, which makes sense to those people who refuse to decommission. I do not agree with them; I do not think that it is right for them to act in what I regard as bad faith--
Mr. Hunter:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Öpik:
I really should not; I need to bring my comments to a close.
It is not right to fail to act in good faith, and it is wrong not to trust the process; but let us make our position clearer by proving to the people who refuse to decommission that this Chamber understands their logic, but chooses to reject it. Let us say that we understand that they are arguing according to the letter of the Good Friday agreement, but that we feel there is a moral imperative at this point--an imperative felt not only by politicians, but by a large proportion of people in Northern Ireland as well as in the Republic of Ireland and on mainland Britain--for them to show good faith by decommissioning.
The message that we are sending by renewing the order is that we in this Chamber are acting beyond the simple letter of the Good Friday agreement and are acting in the spirit of reconciliation, trying to open a gateway to make progress. We now expect others to do the same.
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford):
The renewal of this order is a timely event because decommissioning has certainly been the main issue in political debate in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. If decommissioning does not take place in the forthcoming year--the order is being renewed for another year--I regret to say that the whole political process built on the Belfast agreement will collapse.
I disagree with the interpretation advanced by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) of what is required in the Belfast agreement in respect of decommissioning. I say that as one of the three negotiators for the Ulster Unionist party who was involved for two years in those negotiations and knows exactly how every word of the agreement was carefully chosen.
I well recall the Tuesday before Good Friday when we had the first draft of the Belfast agreement, which I dismissed out of hand and said that I would not touch with a 40 ft pole, and rightly so. The Prime Minister came to Belfast that evening, and we had continual negotiation for the next three days, culminating in the revised agreement from which, I am glad to say, many things were removed and to which, I am afraid, some things were added. None the less, there had to be compromise, and on the basis of that compromise we have the Belfast agreement.
Why is the renewal of the order timely? It is timely because all the participants in that agreement had to do something, and almost every one of them, with the exception of Sinn Fein-IRA, has done what was required. Her Majesty's Government were required to commence the release of terrorists imprisoned for criminal offences. I hope that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is listening. There was no time scale for the beginning of the release of prisoners. There was a two-year end-date, but no date for the beginning, yet the release of prisoners has commenced.
The review of policing in Northern Ireland and the review of the criminal justice system--these were commitments by Her Majesty's Government, and they have commenced. There was a commitment by the Dublin Government and the people of the Republic of Ireland that they would recognise Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. This they have done by means of a referendum. There was a commitment by the SDLP that it would enter into a new British-Irish Council, replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement--this it has agreed to do.
I was in Edinburgh on Thursday and Friday meeting the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists. I was glad to find enthusiasm in Scotland for the British-Irish agreement. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), was in Wales recently and also in the Isle of Man. I gather from his press releases that there is encouragement for the beginning of the British-Irish Council.
The Ulster Unionists have also made their contribution. They were not happy with the idea of north-south implementation bodies, but on 18 December, we agreed those with the SDLP and with the Irish Government. The six implementation bodies are ready to go into operation, once we get an Executive in Northern Ireland.
There is only one thing left to happen in order to make the agreement the success that the House wants it to be, and that America, the Dublin Parliament and the peoples in the whole of the island of Ireland want it to be, and in support of which both the European Parliament and the Council of Europe have passed motions.
What is that one remaining thing? It is, of course, decommissioning. Sinn Fein-IRA--the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House has confirmed that they are inextricably linked, and the Dublin Prime Minister has said that they are one and the same organisation, with interchangeable membership--say that there is no need for decommissioning. Well, there is a full chapter on page 20 of the agreement on the need for decommissioning. It is not there by accident. I repeat that it is there as a result of detailed negotiations with all the parties in the Stormont talks, including Sinn Fein-IRA.
Paragraph 1 states that
None of that is in the agreement. Sinn Fein-IRA, led by Gerry Adams at the Stormont talks, agreed that the decommissioning should be of illegal armaments only. That is what is in the decommissioning chapter. What is most important in that chapter--I ask the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to pay greater attention to the detail of the Belfast agreement--is the fact that decommissioning is specifically and deliberately connected to the chapter on setting up the Executive.
That point did not appear in paragraph 1 of the decommissioning chapter by accident. It was put in deliberately and it was agreed by all the participants in the Stormont talks, including the two Governments, that in resolving the decommissioning issue, we
Paragraph 25 states that those who want to serve in the Executive of Northern Ireland must be totally committed to peaceful and democratic methods. It states:
"'the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation'".
Paragraph 3 of the decommissioning chapter goes on:
"All participants"--
that includes Sinn Fein-IRA--
"accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"
and
"to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms".
Here I want to make a distinction from a comment that was made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)--I think it was a slip of the tongue. The agreement does not call for total disarmament. It calls for the total disarmament of illegal armaments. It is Gerry Adams who calls for total disarmament. I see that he is away to Australia and already saying that there must be total disarmament--the British Army must have no arms in Northern Ireland, the RUC must have no arms in Northern Ireland, and the farmers must have no shotguns.
"also recall the provisions of paragraph 25 of Strand 1"
of the Belfast agreement.
"Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means,"
and it continues:
"and those who do not should be excluded . . . from office"--
in other words, such people cannot even get into the Executive.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |