| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Feb 2003 : Column 815—continued
David Burnside (South Antrim): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is verification? What does decommissioning or disbandment mean when there is no trust in the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that a Privy Council committee made up of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland should be constituted to verify that decommissioning and disbandment had taken place? Would not that mean that hon. Members could then believe that it had taken place, and that we would not be misled by what is, at present, a con job?
Mr. Davies: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the fundamental sense that there is a need for verification. I am glad that he used the word that I used just a few minutes earlier. We are at one, therefore. We accept the same concept, and use the same word to describe it. He should be very satisfied that we are in agreement. We need transparency and verification—the word that he and I both used. The necessary confidence will come only if we have transparency and verification. He has proposed a mechanism to provide that verification, and the House will listen with interest on that. I hope that we can discuss similar interesting new ideas in this afternoon's debate.
I was about to make another suggestion in respect of decommissioning. I do not for a moment want to change the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the de Chastelain commission. As I have said, I have the greatest confidence in General de Chastelain, and I think that that is shared across the
political spectrum. In addition, it is clear that we need professional military officers of considerable standing to undertake what is a professional military task. The IICD provides that, and politicians would not make good substitutes for soldiers in that role. Moreover, the de Chastelain commission gives us an objective mechanism for determining whether decommissioning has taken place. That is vital.As the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) will be all too well aware, we could otherwise argue until the end of time about whether decommissioning had taken place. Without the IICD, people could always claim that weapons were being kept somewhere. They would not produce evidence, or say where the weapons were being kept. That could go on forever, and the position would be hopeless. However, thanks to the IICD, we now have an objective mechanism to determine such matters. If de Chastelain says that decommissioning has taken place, we can take it that there has been decommissioning. If he says that half an arsenal has been decommissioned, we can take it that only half has been decommissioned. If he says that decommissioning has been substantially and materially completed—that is what we want to hear, the end of the process—we can accept that.
I have that confidence in de Chastelain, and I believe that it is shared by people across the political divide in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to imagine that the views of anyone else would have the same weight in making such a determination. That is common ground, which is good. As I saw the Minister nodding a few moments ago, I hope that that common ground is shared with the Government.
My suggestion is made in a helpful spirit; no personal or political ego is invested in it, so if somebody came up with a better one I should be only too happy. Because, as the hon. Member for South Antrim said, we must all have the same confidence in the objective verification of disbandment as we require in decommissioning, we should use the same commission and extend its remit to verify disbandment. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that disbandment will certainly need verification.
Disbandment means winding up military structures. At present, those structures are not engaged in active military operations but, as we know, they are engaged in training and targeting. They have certainly been engaged in buying arms, in breach of the agreement and the ceasefire—that was what Florida was about, and there may have been other cases. They are engaged in logistics, personnel management and all the other functions associated with such organisations. Their disbandment will be a military procedure. Professional soldiers will be able to get to the bottom of things and verify that disbandment is actually occurring. They will be able to find out what is happening not only to weapon stocks but to logistics, procurement and training.
We should use the de Chastelain commission and expand its role. If someone has a better suggestion, that is fine, but we need some form of independent verification.
I hope that the effect of the debate will be to make the Government go the whole hog in frankness, clarity and decisiveness in the use of language. I shall be most disappointed if the Minister again shelters behind the acts of completion formula. We do not want a
theological formula; we need pragmatic facts. We need full disbandment and full decommissioning. Nothing less will do. I explained last night that we have only a few weeks to achieve it, so that we can reach a settlement on all the interlinked aspects, put the power-sharing Executive back, restore the momentum of the Belfast process and, indeed, save the Belfast process. Lord knows that we have only to look at what has been going on in Northern Ireland during the past few weeks—the bomb in Enniskillen and the disorder in west Belfast—to realise what the stark consequences of that highly volatile situation could be if we miss this vital opportunity.3.38 pm
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): If we were not so short of time, I might be tempted to reflect on the history of decommissioning as it is more than nine years since the Government introduced the concept. I shall restrain myself from going back over the whole period, but it is worth making some reference to the past couple of years.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) referred to the fact that the agreement sets out a two-year period for the achievement of complete disarmament. Members will recall that, before the agreement was made, the Government gave us their authoritative interpretation of that part of the agreement. Their view was that the meaning of that part of the agreement was that decommissioning should begin immediately. That was the intention as far as the Government were concerned. Indeed, that was also the case for us and for those people who followed our lead in voting for the agreement in the referendum. We did so in the belief that decommissioning would begin that summer and be completed in 2000. But it was not.
I find it very strange that, over the past three years, the Government have sat and allowed themselves to be lectured about the need for full implementation by republicans when the people who have been most guilty of default are republicans. Instead of getting down to examine each jot and tittle of alleged default by the Government, the republicans should contemplate their comparative complete failure to fulfil their part of the bargain.
The Government should never have tolerated a situation where the people who were so grievously at fault themselves lectured them about full implementation. Equally, of course, the Government should never have tolerated that situation developing. There was linkage in the agreement, but, unfortunately, although the then Secretary of State talked about the linkage, she failed to ensure that linkage was, in fact, occurring, so, consequently, we saw the situation deteriorating.
The Government's approach was seriously flawed in the aftermath of the agreement, and I wonder whether they would ever have exerted themselves to try to bring about decommissioning if we had not insisted on it. It was wrong in a sense that it was left to me and my colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party to insist on that, but we did. Of course, as the House knows, that led to the suspension of devolution, and then to a promise by the republican movement itself in 2000.
Whatever play of words they might have had about the agreement being endorsed only by Sinn Fein, on 7 May 2000, those in the republican movement unequivocally promised to put their weapons completely beyond use in such a way as to maximise public confidence. It is important to hold on to the fact that a clear promise was made that has not been kept. That promise was made in the form of a statement by the IRA's alleged army council. It is important to bear it in mind that the very clear promise that it made has not been kept. Of course, as a result of that, I and my colleagues resigned office in 2001, which led to the beginning of decommissioning in the autumn of that year.
The Minister has already said how that beginning was not followed through, but there is also the very drawback to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred: the way in which the form of decommissioning was self-defeating. It should have been visible and it should have spoken for itself, but instead we simply had the rather opaque statement from the independent commission. I understand why those on the commission adopted that course. I advised them against doing so, but I know the reasons that they had on their minds. I am sure that they were well meaning, but they were wrong. The mistake that they made has had a significant impact on the credibility of the IICD. That is a simple fact. They made a mistake—a well-intentioned, honest mistake, but it was a mistake, and we live with the consequences of that mistake. That is significant for the future, too.
The question is what is needed in terms of the current situation. Clearly, we want to see all the paramilitaries decommission. I emphasise the word "all". We have had a small act of decommissioning from a loyalist paramilitary organisation—indeed, the first act of decommissioning came from a loyalist paramilitary organisation—but we want to see all the paramilitaries decommission. No doubt, many of the calls made this evening will focus on republicans, but I want the House to understand the fact that we are just as anxious to see decommissioning by loyalist paramilitaries as well.
We cannot make any reference to loyalist paramilitaries without recording again our horror at their behaviour in recent weeks. There is some hope that the situation in Belfast will quieten down, but I wonder whether that it not just because the slightly more intelligent elements in loyalism are realising that there is a need to clean up their act, rather than through any genuine change of heart. Although there might be a slight improvement on the ground, it does not cure the underlying problem that loyalist paramilitaries have behaved very badly over the past four years, and the calls that are made for paramilitaries to decommission and go away—for them not to be there any more—apply to them just as much.
I return to the question of verification in relation to decommissioning. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim mentioned an idea that he has mentioned a number of times before, although I would have quibbled slightly with the composition of the committee that he mentioned, but that is a minor detail. He was making the serious point that the present arrangements for verification will not be sufficient. There is a clear need for the Government to consider how the IICD can have its credibility reinforced.
We need more than just the verification of acts of decommissioning. Even if, for the sake of argument, we had a situation in which the paramilitaries announced that they were disbanding—perhaps they will decide to adopt the word on which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is so keen—and made a statement to that effect, would that statement have any credibility? I doubt it. How could we prove whether a secret army had disbanded?
The Government have focused on the need to see a complete cessation of all forms of paramilitary activity—no more shooting, beating, recruiting, targeting or gathering of intelligence. However, the absence of those activities can be judged only on a daily basis. Just because we have had a week, a month or two months of complete absence of paramilitary activity, can we be assured that the paramilitaries have genuinely disbanded and gone away?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |