| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): Does the Minister agree that, at this moment, as so often in Northern Ireland, the important thing is that we try to find a constructive way forward? Does she accept that there was a very good statement last week—the statement of General de Chastelain—but that, thereafter, things sadly fell apart because of the nature of what was clearly a bilateral agreement? Do the Government now propose to include the other parties to the Good Friday agreement—including parties such as the Alliance party, which assisted greatly at an earlier stage in very difficult times—so that there can be an open and transparent agreement, engaging all the political parties, that can deliver a result in the days ahead? Does she agree with what Mr. Gerry Adams said last week, when he said that the statement made by General de Chastelain indicated that paragraph 13 of the joint declaration about permanent cessation of activity has now been delivered and is available in Northern Ireland? Can she give us a date by which she hopes that the second half—the agreement between all the parties—will be delivered? Will she and her colleagues do everything they can to ensure that it will be delivered before the end of this year?
Jane Kennedy: Devolved government was suspended last year because of a catastrophic breakdown of trust and confidence between two of the parties. Restoring the confidence between them is the key requirement for moving forward and the Government have been facilitating that process, but we would not have made the great advances that we have made in recent times without the collective efforts of all the pro-agreement parties. I pay tribute to all of them for their courage and commitment. Without, for example, the SDLP's commitment to the policing process several years ago, we would be much less far forward now.
On the hon. Gentleman's last point about paragraph 13, we need to move forward to a point where we can develop that confidence between the parties. If we need to achieve disclosure to do that, we need to do so in a way that does not undermine the position of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and that promotes the confidence necessary for future acts of decommissioning to proceed, and the hon. Gentleman is right: that involves doing so by agreement.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): Does the Minister agree that, no matter what the Prime Minister intended to say, what he actually said caused problems in Northern Ireland for some of the parties and a general feeling that people were being misled? Is it not really important when anything is said in Northern Ireland that, if the Prime Minister knows something, people in Northern Ireland should know it too?
Jane Kennedy: I do not agree with the thrust of the point that my hon. Friend makes. It would be much
better to go forward into elections in a positive atmosphere. We have done all that we can to help the parties. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that any hon. Member is misleading the House. He will withdraw the remark that I heard him make.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I was simply picking up on the word that hon. Lady used in asking her question. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. So long as the hon. Gentleman assures me that he was not referring to any hon. Member.
Mr. Davies: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have not used that word in connection with any hon. Member.
Jane Kennedy: The lengthy discussion that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had with the decommissioning commissioners last week left them with a far greater sense of the scale and nature of the act of decommissioning than it was possible to disclose in the statement or in the press conference. We should not forget the significance of that event last week, which was described as a substantial act that put beyond use weapons that, in the words of Mr. Sens, would have caused death and destruction on a massive scale. The House should note that and welcome such a step.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): The House will be aware that a degree of uncertainty about the use of English language has existed for some time. While one would not necessarily accuse people of telling lies, one might think that they would be fit company for Ananias and Sapphira. The Minister referred to agreement between the parties. Is that not an agreement between the then interlocutor for Sinn Fein-IRA and General de Chastelain, which has put a block on this matter, and which we have been led to believe is written in law? Furthermore, does part of the trouble arise from further revelations in Northern Ireland that the general may have been kept incommunicado, to put it mildly, for many hours before he was able to return to Belfast?
Jane Kennedy: It is disappointing for all sides that the Provisional IRA chose to impose the confidentiality on the general that led him to be unable to disclose the scale and the detail of the event. That lack of transparency has caused the speculation about which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) spoke earlier. I do not propose to add to that speculation this afternoon. We are bending all our efforts, however, to continue to make progress in what I recognise is a difficult time.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West): Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need, as well as building confidence between the parties in Northern Ireland, is a restoration of confidence between the parties in this House? Does she also agree that that would be best served by the kind of patient, calm approach that she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have taken in these matters, rather than the hot-headed emotional spasms of the Conservative party?
Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is for those who portray
themselves as opponents of the agreement to explain to the House and to the country how they would advance our current position. They do not tell us what they would do, and the attitudes that we hear from them would have meant no advance at all in Northern Ireland.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): As a supporter of the agreement, is the right hon. Lady aware that I was in the House and heard the Prime Minister convey to all of us clearly that he and the Taoiseach had factual information that the rest of us did not have? I have noted that three times today she has used the phrase that the Prime Minister had a sense of what was happening. May I therefore ask her a straight, simple question? Did General de Chastelain give the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach factual information that he did not put in his statement?
Jane Kennedy: The general put into his statement and into the public domain in his press conference what he was able to put under the confidentiality agreement that he had made with the Provisional IRA. In the lengthy discussion that he had with the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, however, the two commissioners were able to convey and build confidence in both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that the event that they had seen was substantial and significantly more than had happened in the past.
Rev. Ian Paisley (North Antrim): As you know, Mr. Speaker, I gave notice that I wanted to raise this issue on a point of order, but that has been superseded by this short statement.
Will the Minister tell me when General de Chastelain made any arrangements whatsoever about secrecy or confidentiality? This House made those arrangements when it set up the commission. I opposed them, but the people who are shouting so loudly today did not oppose them—they voted for them. The first point that should be made clear is that the House is responsible for the secrecy and confidentiality and only the IRA can raze that. The IRA could have done that and said, "Yes, go ahead", but it said, "We're not going to do that; we're keeping to our confidentiality."
Will the Minister tell the House about the two officers—one from the American army and one from the Canadian army—whom her Government wanted to accompany the two commissioners but who the IRA turned down as well? From the very beginning, the IRA was not going to give the opportunity for any real declaration of what took place.
When the Prime Minister made his statement at Hillsborough, I met General de Chastelain with my MPs and asked him whether I knew anything less than what he had told the two Prime Ministers. He said, "No, you know nothing less. They only know what they were told by me, and you heard my statement. I couldn't give them any more information." I said, "Suppose that you are pressed by the Governments to give more information", and he said, "If I am pushed by the Government, I will resign because I am bound under the commission that set me up and confidentiality."
The Minister said that we should all be happy—
Rev. Ian Paisley: One final question.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Not one more—the Minister must have a chance to reply.
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the opportunity to impose confidentiality on the decommissioning commissioners was allowed by the law underpinning the work of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. If he has had the opportunity to talk to the general, he will have had the same opportunity that the Prime Minister and Taoiseach had. Members of his party have acknowledged the scale of the event that was witnessed last Tuesday. Members of his party who will be fighting the election have acknowledged that an event of significance happened. I think that Members on both sides of the House should note that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |