| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Murphy: The hon. Lady is right to say that much had been achieved, and that it does not make sense to people watching the peace process in Northern Ireland—particularly, of course, the people in Northern Ireland itself—that what seems to be a relatively minor matter is holding up the process, but, as she knows, minor matters can have different significance to different people. What is important is to try to resolve those issues in the next few days, because we have agreed on so much and because there has been a great deal of engagement between her party and Sinn Fein over the past few weeks. There is every reason to commend that engagement, and I want it to continue—of course, we do—so I hope that the parties will be able to talk with one another in the next few days. I hope that they will be able to talk to General de Chastelain, and we in the two Governments will do our utmost to try to facilitate such discussions and bring these things together so that we are able to resolve the difficulties that, quite clearly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to yesterday.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool): First, may I dissociate myself rather strongly from the earlier remarks made by the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), which were wholly unbalanced and, in the context, extremely trivialising of what is a very serious and complex situation? The House is entitled to expect greater understanding and greater maturity from the holder of his position.
May I also, on this occasion, decline to join the criticism of republicans in relation to their actions yesterday? I rather endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend that the statement made by Gerry Adams and accepted by the Provisional IRA and their commitment to the cessation of paramilitary activity, should that now be carried out by PIRA, are both significant statements, and I only wish that they had come earlier in the Northern Ireland process and, indeed, during my time in office.
In the context of the breakdown of trust and confidence that characterises the Northern Ireland peace process at the moment, however, decommissioning in such secrecy is no longer a viable way forward. I understand the difficulties that General de Chastelain has in interpreting the legislation enacted by this House, but the need and, indeed, the environment for greater transparency in these matters has grown, not diminished, since the first act of decommissioning took place in 2000. Therefore, the bottom line if the peace process is to remain strong, as I believe it will, is that non-republicans are entitled to greater satisfaction about precisely what has been decommissioned, and of what order. Will my right hon. Friend please communicate that to General de
Chastelain and encourage him to use his good office and his interpretation of the legislation to make sure that there is greater transparency in this matter?
Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend is right on a number of counts. First, with regard to the nature of the re-engagement of the IRA with the independent commission, he was right that that was very important for the peace process. Secondly, he was right in terms of the statements that General de Chastelain made yesterday on the scope and the scale of the decommissioning, which is also significant. He is also right, however—and he draws on his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that it is important that transparency is part of the process. I hope that the next couple of days will ensure that that is precisely the issue that is addressed. We know that the general is chairman of an independent commission, and he will have to make his own decision on how he engages with the parties. He, like everybody else, wants to ensure that this process moves on and that, ultimately, we have devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): I, too, welcomed what the president of Sinn Fein said yesterday. Given that we are now three and a half years beyond the point at which all weapons were to have been decommissioned, and given the well-known worries about personal humiliation among those sensitive souls in the IRA, why did the Government permit yesterday's talks to take place at all, given that they would have known in advance that what General de Chastelain was going to say would not get within a million miles of the clarity and transparency that was necessary for yesterday to be the success that most of us hoped it would be?
Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has considerable experience of Northern Ireland. He is right to draw the House's attention to the Good Friday agreement, which says that decommissioning of those weapons is an integral part of that agreement, and it has taken too long for those weapons to be decommissioned. It is also worth mentioning that there are weapons held by loyalists, too, although we were not dealing with that matter yesterday. It is an important matter, however, and one of which the House should be reminded.
On the decommissioning event, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), General de Chastelain heads an independent commission. It was for him to decide how best to reveal what he could to the people of Northern Ireland in the way that he did. Of course, it would have been much better if yesterday we had had the transparency that was required by the Ulster Unionist party and all of us, but it did not happen. I still think that what he did say was significant, however, both in terms of the re-engagement of the IRA with his commission and because the scope, scale and details that were revealed were considerably better than they were previously.
Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough): We can all agree that the Good Friday agreement is still the only show in town, and it is not the property of us as
politicians but of the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that what is more important now is the decommissioning of minds of all politicians concerned with the continuing agreement, and the fact that they need to make a leap of faith with each other and show a degree of trust, rather than embroiling themselves too much in the issue of decommissioning of weapons?
Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right about the decommissioning of minds, as he puts it, and indeed many minds have been decommissioned over a number of years. There has been an engagement between all parties in Northern Ireland, including those who have not been in favour of the Good Friday agreement, to try to make devolution work—and I believe that it did. In a way, he puts his finger on the issue: it is not just about the decommissioning act itself, but about the trust and confidence between parties that that act represents. Over the next few days, whatever the details of the discussions and negotiations that take place, it will be about trying to re-establish trust and confidence between those parties, and between other parties in Northern Ireland, too.
Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North): May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, associate myself with the expressions of condolence with regard to the tragic loss of the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar)?
The Secretary of State will recall that last week I warned the House that the two parties invited to Downing street to negotiate would not deliver sustainable peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and I have been proved to be absolutely correct. Were the Government taken by surprise by General de Chastelain's report yesterday, or did they think there was a deal in place? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the terms under which the general operates—terms of secrecy—were agreed by the Government, legislated for in this House and agreed by the pro-agreement parties? Indeed, on many occasions the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told us that he would be satisfied with the word of General de Chastelain, while others, including ourselves, warned that it would not be enough.
Does the Secretary of State accept that regardless of issues of transparency or visibility, what happened yesterday in terms of statements and actions fell, to coin a phrase, a million miles short of acts of completion? Where was the commitment by the IRA to disband? Where is even the commitment to paragraph 13 of the joint declaration? Where is the commitment to acts of completion, not another act of decommissioning? I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has committed to elections come what may, and I look forward to the people of Northern Ireland at long last delivering their verdict. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that when the people speak, he should not put his head in the sand but should listen to the verdict of unionists as well as nationalists when they deliver their verdict?
Mr. Murphy: I hope that I never put my head in the sand. When the elections are held, and when the people of Northern Ireland have spoken, it will be the democratic wish and desire of those people who exercise
their vote to give the parties their mandates. I was disappointed yesterday, as I said in my statement. I believed that we were on track for success in getting agreement between the two parties concerned that they would go into an Executive together if they were elected into such a position. At the same time, I repeat that there were some good signs yesterday. One sign is that the people will be given their say, which the hon. Gentleman has already welcomed. Secondly, there was the re-engagement of the IRA with the commission, and the fact that there was decommissioning of a different nature than we have had previously. In addition, there were words said by the leader of Sinn Fein that went beyond what was said in the spring.Taken all together, what was important was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), namely, that trust and confidence had been building up between parties over a number of weeks. Unfortunately, yesterday may have dented that. I sincerely hope, however, that those parties will be able to talk together, along with other parties in Northern Ireland, and exercise their minds as to how best to ensure that we move forward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |