| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. It is not often that two Northern Ireland Members are called in such a short debate. As so many others wish to speak, I shall be as brief as I can.
The intention behind the order is to extend the amnesty period only until 23 May. The extension could have been for another year, which is the usual procedure. The Minister gave us a rather half-baked explanation of why the order goes only until 23 May. That would have been the cut-off date for decommissioning, anyway, regardless how long the order was extended.
I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that the Republic's legislation is open-ended, so the paramilitaries there can hold on to their weapons for another few months and then surrender them, if they so wish.
The order will keep pressure on the IRA and other terrorist organisations to comply with the requirements of the Belfast agreement. The date serves as a pressure point, and they cannot escape it unless the Minister comes back within the next few weeks with another order to extend the date. He would look extremely foolish if he did.
By publishing the order and putting it before the House this evening, the Government are saying that 23 May is their deadline. I welcome that. The more pressure we put on those people, the better.
The Minister knows that I am sometimes concerned about the language used. Sinn Fein-IRA look carefully at every single word that is used. They do not like moving even a comma in one of their statements, in case that will give it a slightly different meaning.
Far too often, we have heard sloppy words from Ministers. Whenever I hear that, I think that the sloppy words betray fuddled thinking, or perhaps it is deliberate, to create an atmosphere or impression. I am thinking particularly of the term "putting beyond use", to which I hope to return.
The Government have a duty to tell the House this evening whether they have any intention of extending the deadline of 23 May. I hope that they do not; the process could go on until 2002.
The order expresses the hope that, if the IRA is serious about handing over its weapons, it must begin doing so soon. In his statement of 31 January, General de Chastelain made that clear when he said that
It is also clear from the report that members of the commission will not hang around for much longer. The last sentence states:
I can well understand that the commission's patience is running out given that, until now, terrorist organisations, which, with the exception of the UFF, were, according to the commission,
The commission also has a time scale. Its report states:
The reports are somewhat cryptic. For example, the second report states:
The report continues:
What does the IRA mean by the full context of the agreement? Does it mean sweeping away the RUC, taking all United Kingdom troops out of Northern Ireland, releasing all prisoners and more? Who is to judge when the full context has been fulfilled? I suspect that the answer is the IRA. The
What does the commission understand the IRA to mean by
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly said that Northern Ireland is changing rapidly--I think that the context in which he made that remark is that the progress that has been made has achieved a transformation--but Northern Ireland, as I understand it, is changing rapidly in another way and the House must understand it at this precise moment.
There was a time when the hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) could be thought of as--how can I put this gently?--dissident voices in the Ulster Unionist party. After the referendum, there were those who would produce statistics to show that the Unionist majority did not necessarily agree with them, but the rapid and continuing change, if I can judge correctly, is that their views represent the authentic majority voice of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. As events unfolded in the past week and as they unfold now, so that voice of Northern Ireland has come to represent a greater Unionist majority than in the past. It is crucial that the House understands that as it considers the order.
I want to follow up the initial points made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry by discussing the date specified in the order. It may unnerve the Minister to know that I, of all people, agree with the one that he has selected. It is highly significant. I know the reason he gave for selecting it--he heard my earlier question, but was diverted and failed to answer. He could have selected a date a year hence, but, because of the Belfast agreement, chose a date that is not very far away. His response to the debate is crucial and he has to answer my question: why did he choose that date? He could have chosen any date within the framework of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, so we need to know whether that choice represents a negotiating stance taken by the Government or a deadline beyond which no alternative arrangements will be made. Does the amnesty run out then and that is it, or does he intend to come back to the House to ask us to extend it again?
In all fairness, I must remind those Members present who do not know the views that I have taken over time that I was one of those who opposed the Good Friday agreement, for a number of reasons. I remain opposed to it. I did not believe, and still do not believe, that
decommissioning will happen, but if I am wrong I need an answer to my question: if decommissioning is for real, what happens after 22 May? I urge the Minister to answer that important point.
Having described the views that I have held from the beginning, I must tell the House that I am a realist. We are where we are, whatever views I might hold, and it is important that we ask, "What happens next?" We must remember that, when we faced the dilemma of whether there would be decommissioning last year, the Ulster Unionist party made a leap of faith. Again, I did not think that it should, and I was not alone in that. I was also one of those who believed that it would not possible for it to make that leap of faith, but it did. My clear view is that an Ulster Unionist majority in support of that was achieved only because of the compromise that real decommissioning must begin by February.
That was a leap of faith. The Ulster Unionists said, "We've jumped, you follow." No one has followed that leap of faith. Hopes were dashed. The leader of the UUP put his political career on the line in the hope that other people would respond to his courage by doing something. We must understand that it is now beyond expectation for the UUP to make the same leap of faith again with some other form of words.
The route of faith has been tried and it has failed, and there is only one route left, which is the route of action--I say that as a realist rather than an enthusiast. We have now reached the stage at which no form of words will do: something must happen. That is why my question to the Minister is so relevant. If there is no action by 22 May, what happens then?
I was opposed to the original amnesty--if hon. Members go back into the records, they will see that I spoke against this arrangement--but I am a democrat, which is more than can be said for Sinn Fein-IRA. I accept the will of the House, and the House decided that there should be an amnesty. I accept that the status quo on the amnesty arrangements must continue for the time being, so I do not oppose the order.
The hon. Members for Lagan Valley and for East Londonderry were arguing that there must be real decommissioning. The amnesty exists, and it needs to remain so that it can happen. The House must put nothing in the way of action. To object to the order would be to change the arrangements that are in place.
We should keep the amnesty until 22 May, but we should make it clear that that was the original agreement, and it is the extent to which we agreed to turn our backs on what I believe is the correct rule of law and the correct implementation of democracy. For that period and for that period only, we will allow terrorism one last chance. The terrorists must understand that we have now reached a point at which weasel words will no longer do.
"given our understanding of the quantity of arms held by the paramilitary groups, and the dispersed nature of their locations"--
so he must have some idea where they are--
"we believe that a time will soon be reached beyond which it will be logistically impossible for us to complete our task by 22 May."
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) dealt with that point clearly.
"If it becomes clear to us that decommissioning is not to happen, the Commission will recommend to the governments that it be disbanded."
That tells us that the general and his colleagues are not hopeful, despite the spin that has been put on their comments about what will happen in the near future.
"further engaged in methods of decommissioning and related support issues"
have shown no willingness to surrender their weapons.
"We remain prepared to state, at an appropriate date, when we believe decommissioning must start and how it must proceed if our mandate is to be fulfilled within the required period."
That must be tied to the published schemes, which are very detailed. Neither the general nor anybody else should be allowed to slide away from the published schemes because people are looking for that. The commission went on to say that
"decommissioning is a voluntary act; any schedule we produce will only be of value if those who have the arms agree to follow it."
It may be voluntary in one sense, but it is mandatory if the requirements of the agreement are to be fulfilled.
"We also note the IRA assessment that the question of British forces and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland must be addressed
Whenever the IRA uses that language, it attempts to place Her Majesty's forces and the IRA on an equal footing. We should never, under any circumstances, give way on that point.
While the future of British troops is outside our remit, the elimination of the threat posed by loyalist paramilitary arms is clearly within the Commission's remit."
"We find particularly significant, and view as valuable progress, the assertion made to us by the IRA representative that the IRA will consider how to put arms and explosives beyond use, in the context of full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict."
It goes on to say that "the issue of arms" needs
"to be dealt with in an acceptable way and that is a necessary objective of a genuine peace process . . . The representative indicated to us today (Friday) the context in which the IRA will initiate a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use".
That is IRA-speak. It needs some translation for hon. Members and the citizens of Britain.
"context of the removal of the causes of conflict"
is clearly IRA-speak for Northern Ireland remaining in the United Kingdom. To the IRA, that is the cause of the conflict. It wants that to end and the British people of Northern Ireland to become Irish republicans. I use "republican" in its true sense. We believe in a constitutional monarchy, so there is a great difference between the two systems of government. I favour the system that we have.
"dealt with in an acceptable way"?
14 Feb 2000 : Column 734
Does that mean security forces' arms and private firearms? What does the phrase cover? I suspect that it covers all weapons that are held in private hands, by the forces of the Crown and by the police.
What is
"the context in which the IRA will initiate a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use"?
The general's language suggested that he had been told what constituted that context. Why have not we been told? That information is vital to a clear understanding of what the IRA is trying to say. The words "put beyond use" could mean a thousand things, if hon. Members want to stretch their imagination, but the vast majority of the people in the island of Ireland and across this island will be satisfied only by the visible public destruction of those weapons. We saw the small quantity of Loyalist Volunteer Force weapons being destroyed and we expect the same for the IRA weapons. Nothing else is of any use.
12.30 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |