| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement. Like him, I wish to pay handsome tribute to the work of Senator Mitchell. Without his seemingly limitless patience, we would not have made anything like the progress that we have made--not only during the latest review, but since he was first asked to examine decommissioning way back in 1995.
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, throughout the process, we too have been strong supporters of the Belfast agreement and that our overriding objective has been to implement it in full? Does he appreciate that our disagreements with the Government occurred when we believed that the agreement was not being implemented in full, with no decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives, and no end to violence while 300 terrorist prisoners were released on to the streets early?
We believe that real progress has been made in the review, which could lead to achieving the twin goals of decommissioning and devolution. We welcome, as far as they go, the quite encouraging statements from Sinn Fein and the IRA last week. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said during the debate on the Queen's Speech last week, we have always made it clear that we would support the establishment of the Executive as long as it was accompanied by
I agree with the Secretary of State that we must not plan for failure, but we are of course being asked to take much on trust. Does he agree, therefore, with the words of the Anglican Primate, Lord Eames, who said last week that
Mr. Mandelson:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for all that we are doing and for what the parties, together with Senator Mitchell, have achieved over the past few weeks. Whatever differences of emphasis have existed between those on the two Front Benches in the past, I am very grateful for his recognition that real progress has been made and his agreement with me that the steps that I have outlined today should now be taken. I look forward to receiving his continuing support, and that of colleagues, for what will no doubt be a difficult, occasionally painful and fraught process as we move step by step through the series of changes and measures that have emerged from this successful review.
I do not want to dwell, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, on what will happen if we do not achieve the success that we all want. There is always some danger that our doing so would run the risk of reinforcing, rather than addressing, people's doubts and fears, and I do not think that it would be right to do so at this stage. I of course share his view, and that of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, that some of the reported comments made by certain individuals in Boston and elsewhere have not been helpful. They are, none the less, the comments of particular individuals; they do not speak for an entire movement.
Although I do not speak for Mr. Doherty, it is worth noting in parenthesis that later in his interview he was invited to offer a pledge that the IRA would not
decommission. He declined to give that pledge. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, Sinn Fein has issued a statement in his name in which it makes it clear that
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann):
My colleagues and I associate ourselves with the references to George Mitchell. Let me also express our appreciation to United States Ambassador Philip Lader, who tolerated our occupation of a substantial proportion of his residence for two weeks during our discussions there.
I agree with the Secretary of State that we have a basis on which we can proceed to both devolution and decommissioning. I emphasise that the one must accompany the other. I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that without decommissioning devolution will not survive, if only because our position would otherwise become untenable. I should also say that we would not wish to remain were that the case.
The Secretary of State referred to the de Chastelain commission, and the discussions that it will have with the contact persons appointed by the paramilitaries. Can he confirm that those discussions are expected in the first instance to relate to the modalities of decommissioning--the number of weapons involved, and the ways in which they will be decommissioned? Reference has been made to General de Chastelain's statement that his commission will report on the discussions on modalities within days. Does the Secretary of State share our expectation that the report will indicate how the next phase of the process will be handled? That next phase will relate particularly to timing.
The Secretary of State referred to what might happen in the event of a default in terms of decommissioning and devolution. He said that the two Governments, British and Irish, would take the steps that were necessary to end the operation of the institutions. Are the Irish Government fully bound in on that? Given that steps to end the operation of the institutions will involve legislative and other measures, may we have an assurance that, should the situation arise, those measures will be introduced as soon as possible, and will include the winding up, as soon as is practicable, of the special administrative arrangements for cross-border co-operation that will automatically come into operation on decommissioning? It is important for those matters in particular to be dealt with, for the purpose of reassurance.
Mr. Mandelson:
I am happy to offer the right hon. Gentleman all the assurances that he seeks.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman's thanks to Ambassador Lader for the extremely generous provision of his residence, his dining table and much else besides. That came at a timely moment. I especially welcome the right hon. Gentleman's view that what has been achieved now offers the basis on which we can and should proceed. He is right to say that the job of the de Chastelain commission is to consider, in co-operation with the appointed representatives, the full modalities of how, when and on what basis decommissioning should occur.
It is not for me, for the Irish Government or for any other person to seek to impose any sort of timetable or artificial deadlines on the commission; it is independent--truly independent--and that means that the rest of us must observe a certain self-denying ordinance in expressing what will no doubt be our impatience to see progress.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the interlocutors will be appointed, and will take up their roles, on the day devolution occurs. That means that the process of decommissioning will effectively start at the same time as the beginning of devolution, which, I think, is the outcome that the right hon. Gentleman sought--an outcome that has been achieved through painstaking negotiation on his part.
"the beginning of a credible and verifiable process of decommissioning".--[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 17.]
Does the Secretary of State accept that devolution and decommissioning must take place virtually simultaneously? That means that the Provisional IRA
should appoint an interlocutor as soon as the Executive is set up. Does he also share our concern about the reported comments of senior republicans Pat Doherty and Martin Ferris in the United States last week? Will he echo the remarks of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party in calling on Mr. Adams totally to dissociate himself from those comments?
"if arms decommissioning does not take place within the timescale that is being mentioned at the moment, then the world's condemnation will rest on those who have not delivered"?
Will he again clearly state that, in those circumstances, he would give his full backing to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), whose political leadership and courage we applaud? Following that, does he also agree that the appropriate course of action for him as Secretary of State, supported by the Irish Government, would be to invite the formation of a new Executive composed only of those parties that have committed themselves, in the words of the agreement, to
"exclusively democratic and peaceful means"?
We passionately want this to succeed, but we might all be wrong. We might all be let down. We might all be being misled. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if that happens, it will not be the fault of the democrats in the House or in Northern Ireland and that not they, but the paramilitaries and their political mouthpieces, should face the penalties? The time has now come for the paramilitaries--republicans and loyalists--at long last to deliver.
"Sinn Fein are not in the business of double-crossing or misleading anyone. Such a course of action would be disastrous. We are in the business of making peace".
It behoves us in the circumstances to take those comments at face value in the knowledge that, in the coming weeks and months, they will remain to be tested.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |