| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Terrorist Weapons (Decommissioning)
2. Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons in Northern Ireland. [2510]
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The possession of terrorist weapons in Northern Ireland is wholly unacceptable. Accordingly, the Government will bring forward legislation of an enabling character to provide the statutory foundation for detailed decommissioning arrangements.
Mrs. Winterton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is still vital that, before coming to the negotiating table, IRA-Sinn Fein must be required to decommission their illegally held weapons? Does he also agree that it is highly unlikely that they will consent to do so for the simple reason that their power base is maintained by the bullet and the bomb, not the ballot box?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. It is of course because of that that we are determined that there shall not be a threat hanging over those at the conference table and represented by one party with friends outside the door holding a pile of Semtex and other armaments, which they threaten to use unless a settlement that is satisfactory to them is reached. That would be an unacceptable threat in any democracy--I remind everyone that Northern Ireland is part of our democracy.
I do not, however, agree with my hon. Friend's remark that there must be a complete surrender or decommissioning of weapons by Sinn Fein before any admission to the negotiating table. Our position is based on what is described in the Mitchell report, at paragraphs 34 and 35, as a compromise: decommissioning should take place during the process of negotiations. In that way mutual confidence will be built up.
Mr. Maginnis:
Does the Secretary of State agree that after six months of talks it is intolerable that those of us who sit around the table have merely been offered the gesture of enabling legislation, at some date yet to be determined, leading to the setting up of a disarmament and verification commission? What objection does the Secretary of State have to the Ulster Unionist proposal that those who will form that commission should be identified and brought together as a commission designate and enabled to conduct some of the preparatory work that will be necessary if the process of decommissioning is to begin within the lifetime of this Parliament?
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that there should be legislation enabling
14 Nov 1996 : Column 474
Rev. William McCrea:
Has the Secretary of State been made aware of talks between the Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, and IRA-Sinn Fein in recent days? Does he agree that the real proof of any ceasefire will be the handing up of the illegal guns and Semtex that have brought so much terror and murder to our Province? Does he further agree that the policy of compromise of which he speaks has brought nothing to Northern Ireland but tears, sorrow and mayhem for 25 years?
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
I do not agree that it is a policy of compromise which has brought to Northern Ireland the misery which the hon. Gentleman describes so well and has experienced himself. What has brought that has been the evil and undemocratic processes and policies of the IRA and of its counterparts on the loyalist side--we must never forget that.
I believe that it is sensible to try to find an accommodation, which is what we shall continue to do. I am not aware of any conversations between the Tanaiste and people in Sinn Fein. What I do say is that I will continue to be prepared to take criticism for seeking an accommodation, provided I do so firmly within the parameters of the policy that Her Majesty's Government have publicly laid down.
Mr. Mallon:
Does the Secretary of State agree that the political negotiations and the entire political process should not be made hostage to the decommissioning issue? Does he further agree that the Mitchell report should and can be the only basis on which that matter is resolved? And will he assure the House that the two Governments will do all in their power to ensure that we move into the three-strand negotiations without further delay, further prevarication or further attempts by anyone to rewrite the Mitchell report?
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
I do not know whether anybody has tried to rewrite the Mitchell report. It would be a difficult task and we certainly do not wish it to be done. We think that the Mitchell compromise approach is the right one. We do not want any obstacle placed in the way of entering the three-stranded discussions, save that there has to be a clear understanding as to how the question of illegally held arms shall be dealt with--illegally held arms held by those who will have issued an unequivocal ceasefire and then sought to be admitted to the talks. That cannot be brushed aside. There may be more than one way of coping with it. If we can find a way by which it can be coped with satisfactorily that will facilitate our entry into the three-stranded substantive process, we shall be very glad to achieve it.
Mr. Bill Walker:
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while one group believes that it can have
14 Nov 1996 : Column 475
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
I agree completely with my hon. Friend.
Ms Mowlam:
I welcome the Secretary of State's comments in answer to this question and assure him of the Opposition's support for the legislation that he has proposed. It is crucial and we shall give it fair passage. It would be helpful if he confirmed that his approach to decommissioning will be in line not only with the Mitchell principles but with the joint statement by the British and Irish Governments of 1 October. It would also clarify an answer he gave to an earlier question if he explained the role of the verification committee. That might help answer questions about the timing of multi-party talks moving towards a three-stranded approach. Further information on the verification committee might help the House.
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
I am grateful for the hon. Lady's expression of support for the legislation, the character of which she knows. The two Governments' draft conclusions were put forward exactly as they were expressed and they are intended not to be an end but to be a means to an end. Obviously, we are paying careful attention to the responses that the parties have given and are giving to those conclusions. What we want to do is what I just tried to describe to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We want to find a means by which decommissioning can be disposed satisfactorily that will lead us as quickly as possible into discussion on the three strands--the substantive discussions. We will continue to try to offer ways forward and continue to listen to the responses that are made.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Have not all law-abiding citizens throughout the UK the right to expect that no party will be admitted to substantive talks without first repudiating unequivocally the use of force and the possession of weapons?
Sir Patrick Mayhew:
Effectively, yes. All parties have to sign up, if they are to proceed with negotiations, to the Mitchell principles, which include precisely what my hon. Friend has said. That is axiomatic, really, in any democracy. The technical position is that Sinn Fein cannot come in until there has been an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. As I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made clear on many an occasion, in the light of events this year, there has to be more than words. There has to be, in the language used by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), a commitment to the path of peace.
14 Nov 1996 : Column 476
3. Miss Hoey:
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on compensation arrangements for those who lose their jobs as a result of the new ferry introduced between Rathlin island and Ballycastle. [2511]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Malcolm Moss):
The forthcoming introduction of a new ferry service will mean the withdrawal of subsidy from the existing operators. As a result they are most unlikely to continue with a ferry service and they have no entitlement to compensation for that eventuality. Should any employee of either operator not be offered employment by the provider of the new service, that employee is at liberty to seek compensation from that provider under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
Miss Hoey:
I thank the Minister, but surely he must accept that there is a moral responsibility to ensure that those people living on the island who will lose their jobs as a direct result of the introduction of the ferry are compensated. Tommy Cecil runs the Iona ferry, his family have run the ferry for more than 100 years and he has kept the link going between Ballycastle and Rathlin when no money had been spent on the harbours and the crossing was dangerous and attracted no subsidy. Is the Minister really saying that we will throw those people on the scrap heap and not allow them compensation?
Mr. Moss:
The Government's purpose is to provide a safer, more reliable and more comfortable ferry service. We are spending, with our European neighbours, around £7.25 million to improve the harbours. We have paid in subsidy around £300,000 to the operators since 1991 and we hope that when the new ferry service is brought in, six new full-time jobs will be created, all of which will go to the islanders. That will bring in £80,000 of permanent employment to Rathlin island.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
I am sure that the Minister is aware that Rathlin island is the only large island off Northern Ireland that is inhabited. In 1900, it had more than 1,000 inhabitants and that figure has now been reduced to 200. I am sure that he is also aware that never, in all the time up until 1991, did the Government do anything to facilitate the Rathlin islanders getting to Ballycastle and back. They did that on their own initiative. Does the Minister agree that Mr. Cecil should be congratulated on how hard he tried, and managed, to keep a passageway open from the island to Ballycastle? He sacrificed much--lives have been lost on that passage and we should keep that in mind--and he did so willingly and gladly. Mr. Cecil will lose his employment and there will not be jobs for everybody who was employed. Does not the Minister feel that he has an obligation, having taken away--through a large subsidy--that man's right to run that passageway, to do the decent and morally right thing and give him adequate compensation?
Mr. Moss:
There are two operators operating the current ferry from Rathlin to Ballycastle and Mr. Cecil is only one of them. He is the only person asking for
14 Nov 1996 : Column 477
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |