| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.15 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: The Government want decommissioning and a timetable. The best way to achieve both is to do what is set out in the Bill. The essence of the argument concerns the role of the independent commission. From the beginning of the process, and certainly from the time that the Good Friday agreement was concluded and put to the people of Northern Ireland, who in a referendum agreed on decommissioning just as they agreed on the other parts, the intention was that decommissioning should be in the hands of an independent commission.
We all know that the authority, integrity and wisdom of General de Chastelain and his colleagues are not in question. They have spent many months considering in enormous detail how they can deal with the problem of decommissioning--the modalities and so on.
Trust and confidence have been mentioned by many speakers in this short debate. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said that the last hurdle was decommissioning. I think that the last hurdle is trust, although decommissioning is part of it. The only way in which we will ensure that the terms of the agreement are implemented is by putting in place a genuinely independent commission.
That Independent Commission on Decommissioning must set the parameters and specify how decommissioning is to be carried out. Why do we say that? There are two reasons. One is that that is set out in the agreement. The other is that all parties to the agreement wanted the commission to be independent
because they would not trust us as a Government, any more than loyalists would trust the Irish Governmentas a Government. Our only hope of success in decommissioning is to ensure that the commission is genuinely independent of Government, although it reports to Governments, and that it sets the parameters.
Mr. Howard:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is rightly laying great stress on the role of the commission. Can he tell the House, now or later, whether the decisions of the commission are subject to judicial review? In other words, are the decisions of the commission final or are they open to review in the courts, with all the consequences that might follow?
Mr. Murphy:
I shall return to the matter, but my initial reaction--I speak to a lawyer who is much more qualified than I am in these matters--is that the commission's decisions are subject to review.
The agreement, as has often been said, is not a legal document. It is a political document. People voted for it because they thought that an agreement would bring them peace and stability. The question is how we can establish a commission that will attract the trust and confidence of those who must decommission, and those who want decommissioning to take place.
Sir Brian Mawhinney:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is making the case that the commission is independent. The case has been made on previous occasions that the Government do not seek to influence the commission's judgments. That leaves me with a concern. Do the Government have any view on the timetable, or are they neutered on this fundamental issue? If they cannot lean on, or advise, or seek to persuade, the commission, and the decision is purely for the commission, is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that, instead of supporting a timetable, as the Opposition do, he is moving even further--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. Too long.
Mr. Murphy:
I shall deal with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, because it is important to state where the Government stand. Let me return to the independence of the commission, and how that was reflected in the negotiations two or three weeks ago. Schedule 2 is entitled "Text of the Joint Statement". Paragraph 3 refers to the devolution order, and paragraph 4, which refers to the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, says that
Mr. Murphy:
I am saying that the commission itself has worked out how best it can achieve its ends. It is saying to us that the best way to achieve those ends is finding the points of contact, ensuring that they are in place and discussing with them how best to proceed. I know that the hon. Gentleman is going to say, "Ah, they will do their best to prolong all this to ensure that it does not come within any specified time." All of us in the Chamber would agree that there has to be speed in this matter. The general himself said in his press statement that the process should begin within days--the person concerned should be identified and the modalities construed--and, after that, the first actual decommissioning should take place within weeks. Within that, he also specified September, December and May as dates for reporting progress.
The Bill also ensures that the failsafe mechanism will come into operation at any point in between should the commission report that commitments are not being fulfilled. It seems to me that that absolutely ensures that decommissioning is achievable, and properly achievable, within the time limit. That is what General de Chastelain is saying, but it is important to understand that he also said that decommissioning could not be achieved in its entirety by May 2000 unless a start was made now. That is in the report; it clearly refers to the timing, scheduling and timetabling of decommissioning, for which he is responsible.
Mr. Murphy:
Before I allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene, I must say to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that he is a much better lawyer than I am. My understanding now is that the commission is immune from judicial review. [Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. There are too many conversations going on and the Minister should be heard.
Mr. Murphy:
I give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
Mr. McCartney:
Paragraph 21 of the commission's report indeed says:
Mr. Murphy:
The chairman of the commission will have to report to the Government and the Government will surely have to ensure that the failsafe mechanism operates if seriousness is not present and the chairman says, "Look, we are not getting anywhere and nothing is happening." One of the purposes of this process is to test people's seriousness about decommissioning and how it should occur.
Mr. Tom King:
The right hon. Gentleman refers to testing the seriousness of those involved. In General de Chastelain's report, which accompanied the recent statement by the Prime Minister, the commission asked 10 political parties to confirm their views. It asked:
The Secretary of State did not hear my earlier contribution. I believe that General de Chastelain is entitled to get reinforcement from the House, which should provide a proper framework that does not put the whole responsibility on him, because that is an unreasonable weight to bear. The House should give him a time scale that enables him to assert the independence of his commission and to establish fair rules within a framework that the House has agreed.
Mr. Murphy:
In his report, the general makes it clear how best he will be able to achieve decommissioning. He says that the best way is to define a timetable for the main paramilitary groups. The commission
"the Commission will have urgent discussions with the groups' points of contact. The Commission will specify that actual decommissioning is to start within a specified time. They will report progress in September and December 1999 and May 2000."
Perhaps more significant is the commission's report, which was presented during the week of negotiations. Paragraph 21 says:
"While the Commission is prepared to define a detailed timetable for decommissioning of arms by the main paramilitary groups, it believes this will best be achieved in discussions with the groups' various points of contact. Once such a timetable has been
13 Jul 1999 : Column 266worked out, paramilitary groups will be expected to adhere to it to ensure completion by 22 May 2000, and the Commission will report on progress to the two Governments."
Mr. Donaldson:
Is the Minister saying that the timetable will be determined by the Independent Commission on Decommissioning, which will negotiate that timetable with the terrorist organisations?
"The Commission believes that the detailed modalities, the timetable, and the commencement of actual decommissioning should be agreed with the paramilitary groups as soon as possible."
The Minister has said that that might take place within days, but will the failure of the commission to agree those matters within days constitute a breach of the agreement?
"Is the paramilitary group willing to give the Commission a firm basis for expecting that decommissioning will take place within the timescale set forth in the Good Friday Agreement?"
The commission said that there were no responses to that question from either the IRA or the UDA. That is what concerns us.
"believes this will best be achieved in discussions with the groups' various points of contact."
He is not going to be dictated to by those groups. He consults and discusses matters with them, but he and his two colleagues will, for their own integrity if nothing else, report to the Government on precisely how far the groups have gone. This legislation will come in at that stage.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |