| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.7 pm
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): In her opening remarks, the Minister of State referred to the party election broadcast by the Conservative party. Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of seeing it, as I travelled over for this debate last night. However, I noted that she referred to a comment in that broadcast to the effect that the Conservatives were the only national party to contest the elections in Northern Ireland.
I have a bit of information—if I dare use that word—for the Minister: among the candidates in the Northern Ireland election are people who are applying for membership of the Labour party. I look forward very much to those people being able, at the next election, to run under the colours that they want to run under, and not having to run under other colours. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
Jane Kennedy : For the sake of clarity—and in case the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me—what I said was that it was the Conservative party that claimed that
it was the only one of the three main parties to field candidates in the election. The Conservatives were putting that forward as something worthy of support and note.
Mr. Trimble: I take the Minister's point, although she did not dissent from the Conservative claim. I thought that I would be the bearer of information for her, so that she could appreciate the situation more fully.
The Government lost me when I read the first line of their amendment to today's motion. The first line of the amendment states that it
- "notes the importance of confidentiality to effective decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland".
When we look at decommissioning schemes, which are made under the legislation, we see in the first scheme a reference to confidentiality. The relevant paragraph of that scheme, paragraph 26, states:
- "The Commission shall ensure that all information received by it in relation to the decommissioning process is kept confidential and that any records maintained by the Commission are kept secure. Disclosure of information received by the commission may occur where disclosure is necessary: for reasons of public safety, to confirm the legitimate participation in the decommissioning process by those eligible to do so, to fulfil the Commission's duty to report to the two Governments."
Mr. Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further down this route and say that he would believe that, in the circumstances, there was a statutory duty to report?
Mr. Trimble: The phraseology of the scheme,
- "to fulfil the Commission's duty",
I turn now to the second scheme, which was made after the conference in 2001 at Weston Park. It has been the general assumption—it is purely an assumption, and it could be wrong—that such decommissioning that has occurred by republicans so far has been under the post-Weston Park scheme, and one assumes that that is why the scheme was made after Weston Park, because that was in the context of the IRA accepting for the first time, as it did in 2000 and 2001, that it had an obligation to decommission. There is no equivalent of paragraph 26 in the second scheme. The only reference to information in the second scheme is in paragraph 5:
- "The Commission may provide to a person who seeks it such information in relation to the making of arms permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable in accordance with this scheme as it considers appropriate."
The question then arises: from where does the issue come? My understanding—I am open to be corrected—is that the question of confidentiality arose only in the circumstances leading to the first act of decommissioning. What I think happened on that occasion was that republicans said to the IICD that they would decommission only if the IICD agreed to keep all the details confidential. I suspect that the reason why republicans said that to the IICD was that they were very worried about the effects within their own ranks if it was known that they were engaged in substantial decommissioning of their weapons. That supposition is reinforced by the fact that republicans have told their members a set of fairy tales about what has happened and what has not happened. One picks up comments from time to time from various sources as to what rank-and-file republicans have been told on that, and if Members wish to explore that matter further, I refer them to some of the articles in, for example, a dissident republican magazine called "The Blanket", which details some of the rumours that have been put about. I mention that simply to make the point that the republican movement is nervous about the impact of decommissioning within its own ranks.
At the time that that first decommissioning occurred, clearly, we welcomed the decommissioning act, because it was something that we were told would never, ever happen, and the mere fact that it had happened and that the republican slogan "Not a bullet, not an ounce" had been discarded was significant. Even if it had only been a bullet or an ounce, it would have been significant and worth welcoming on that basis. In terms of the first event, therefore, the quantities and the methodology were of secondary importance to the fact that it happened. None the less, we expressed to the general our doubts at the time as to the wisdom of him accepting or imposing on himself this obligation of confidentiality. As it turned out, our doubts were well-founded.
When the second act of decommissioning occurred, its impact on the public, although I believed, and still believe, that it was substantial as well as significant, was nil, for exactly the reasons given by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) in his comments. People
believe what they see, and what they know about, and are sceptical of those things that are referred to only in the most general of terms. A considerable degree of scepticism therefore existed with regard to decommissioning. If my supposition as to what happened with regard to confidentiality is right, I can understand what the IICD was doing. Clearly, it wanted more than one act of decommissioning, and it believed that by agreeing to confidentiality it was making possible a process that would lead to subsequent ones—I understand that.The point that I would make—and have made—to the IICD is that it underestimates its influence and the strength of its position. We are now in a situation in which those same republicans who, three years ago, were brought to the issue of decommissioning extremely reluctantly and nervously now realise that it is necessary for them to do it, and they want to do it to advance their political project. Their approach to decommissioning is not the same as it was three years ago, so the IICD's approach does not have to be the same either. It would be entirely open to the IICD in the present circumstances to say to republicans, "Look, we agreed to confidentiality then, but when you promised to decommission"—this is a significant point to bear in mind—"you said that you would do it in a way to maximise public confidence." Building on that, it is perfectly open to the commission to say to republicans that to build public confidence now it must be done in a transparent way, and that it will not co-operate further in secret decommissioning. If it did that, it would be effective.
We should be moving into open, transparent decommissioning to build confidence. Ultimately, the decommissioning process is all about a confidence-building measure. The point has been made repeatedly over the last few years that people can acquire new weapons and that decommissioning is not important. It is important in terms of getting rid of weaponry that otherwise might fall into the wrong hands or be used to harm persons, but its importance beyond that is in building confidence that people have given up violence permanently and are now committed completely and unambiguously to political and only political means. As a confidence-building measure, therefore, it is of no value if it does not create confidence.
We have made that point repeatedly to republicans this year. We did so in the discussions that took place in the abortive attempts to advance matters in April and we have done so again in the past couple of months. On more than one occasion, I said to the republican movement, "If you are thinking of another secret decommissioning event, forget it. You'll only be throwing the guns away." I said it as starkly as that so that there would be no misunderstanding at all about the need for transparency on this occasion.
Republicans agreed that there would be greater transparency—that was the term they used. Hon. Members and citizens of Northern Ireland will have heard Martin McGuinness's radio interview on the BBC more than a month or so ago in which he said that he accepted the points that had been made with regard to greater transparency and that he thought that the points that had been raised with him could be met. Therefore,
there was a clear expectation that there would be greater transparency, and I suppose republicans might now claim that there were a few extra words in de Chastelain's report. However, to think that those words amounted to greater transparency is simply plain daft.Republicans have done themselves and their credibility huge damage by not following through with greater transparency, particularly as we now have—thanks to General de Chastelain's verbal slip at the Hillsborough press conference—the confirmation that the IRA's contact person with the de Chastelain commission is Martin McGuinness. The person who agreed that there was an issue and thought that it could be dealt with is clearly also the person who said to de Chastelain, "No, you cannot say any more." The republican leadership will have to sort out that conflict.
The contradiction between what Mr. McGuinness said to us and the public in Northern Ireland and what we must suppose he said to the IICD is a much greater contradiction than the one we are debating today. I shall come to that latter contradiction later. However, I must underline the fact that, in the background, is something that in terms of confidence, trust and advancing the process is hugely more important. Republicans and Mr. McGuinness will have to face up to that issue and, at this time, speak clearly and honestly and stick to the position that he sets out and not say one thing to us and a different thing to the IICD. That matter has to be resolved.
For the avoidance of doubt—in case anyone thinks that the omission of this point is significant—I must also say that, as well as greater transparency, it is just as vital to us that it is clear that decommissioning is now an act of completion. It should therefore be not just another few steps along a process, but a situation in which the completion of that process is clearly there before us in the immediate future. That is just as important.
I have dealt with the issue of confidentiality, because it is hugely important that the House realises that there is no requirement for confidentiality and that it is undesirable in terms of creating public confidence. We should have gone long past any prudential argument with regard to that. Until we do, we shall face considerable difficulties.
I now want to deal briefly with a point that is contained in the motion. Hon. Members have said that there is a certain amount of confusion between what the Prime Minister and General de Chastelain said. There is confusion, but there is no absolutely necessary contradiction between what has been said. However, that all comes down to the question of what we mean by the word "information" and whether information can include the sort of comments made by Andy Sens in the press conference. We may find that one party is using the word "information" precisely and that the other is using it in a loose sense.
We are all familiar with occasions when the Prime Minister, in his enthusiasm, has used words somewhat loosely and sometimes made commitments without taking full advice and without fully appreciating what he was making commitments to. That is precisely how the Government got themselves into a mess with regard to fugitives from justice, which other people call on-the-runs. The Prime Minister made commitments without
precisely understanding what he was doing. I am not suggesting that that is what happened in this case, but it has happened occasionally.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |