Decommissioning (Hansard, 9 February 2000)

§ 5. Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds)
What progress has been made on the decommissioning of arms and explosives. [107677]

§ The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson)
The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning made a further report to the British and Irish Governments on Monday 31 January. As I said to the House on 3 February, all the main paramilitary groups on ceasefire are now engaged with the commission, but there has not yet been decommissioning of arms by a major paramilitary group. We and the Irish Government continue to work intensively to secure the further progress on decommissioning that is essential to maintain the confidence required to sustain the devolved institutions.

§ Mr. Ruffley
Will the Secretary of State end the early release of terrorist prisoners if there is no decommissioning this week and the Assembly is suspended?

§ Mr. Mandelson
No, I will not, because the issue of prisoner releases is governed by other considerations and other legislation. I am obliged to keep under review permanently the issue of ceasefires, because it is by that that I judge the continuation of the prisoner release scheme. 237 I can assure the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members that I will keep those ceasefires under constant scrutiny.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)
Is my right hon. Friend in a position to estimate when he is likely to receive a second report from General de Chastelain? Will my right hon. Friend say from the Dispatch Box that he will resist the demands made in some quarters that the shelving of the Patten report and its recommendations should be part of the discussions?

§ Mr. Mandelson
I certainly echo what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already said on that subject. The Patten commission's proposals and the decisions that we have taken about them stand on their own merits, and while I will consider the nature and speed of the implementation of Patten's recommendations in accordance with the security threat, as a matter of principle my view is that we should continue with implementation.
In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, there may well—as General de Chastelain and his colleagues have already indicated—be a further report from the decommissioning body before the end of this week. In that context, I would appeal to the leaders of all the political parties in Northern Ireland not to close their minds to any further developments. They should keep alive the chance of a solution to the difficulties we are in, even at this late stage. Nobody wants any of the political parties to walk away from the peace process, because we want this to work. It is their duty to the public whom they represent in Northern Ireland not to extinguish hope that we may yet find a solution, even at this eleventh hour.

§ Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)
The Government keep talking about the voluntary act of giving up weapons, but should they not be talking about the mandatory act of giving up weapons? Surely talking about the process being voluntary weakens the Government's whole case. Furthermore, given the good relations that we are told now exist between the British and Irish Governments, what representations have the Government made to the Irish Government to find out what they know about the location of arms dumps in the Republic of Ireland? Have the British Government asked that question? If they have had any positive answers, what representations have they made to the Irish Government to raid those dumps and take out those arms?

§ Mr. Mandelson
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I do not have any power to force anyone to do anything. Just as devolution and entering the Executive and institutions were voluntary acts by the political parties, so too is decommissioning. I would just say this to all the paramilitaries, and to the IRA in particular. Nobody is asking for surrender by the IRA; nobody is demanding that humiliation be heaped on the IRA. If politics is to work, and if we are to see the decommissioning that is an essential part of the peace process, there must be certainty and there must be 238 definiteness, if confidence in all the institutions is to be rebuilt. I hope that the IRA will understand this need and, even at this eleventh hour, respond in a constructive way.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Will my right hon. Friend make a distinction between those of us who are very much in favour of the Good Friday agreement, who want decommissioning to take place and who understand the difficulties that the British and Irish Governments face, and the political dinosaurs who are totally opposed to the Government and use decommissioning only as a way of trying to destroy an agreement that they never wanted in the first place?

§ Mr. Mandelson
I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Everyone realises that if the peace process is to operate properly, if politics in Northern Ireland is to work, that must involve everyone. Everyone has a stake, and everyone's commitment is equally essential. If we are to rebuild the trust and confidence that we need for the institutions to work, they must enjoy the confidence of both traditions in Northern Ireland. We cannot sustain these institutions with the confidence or the support of one tradition alone. That is why I say that it is very important indeed that the Good Friday agreement as a whole must be implemented if confidence in the institutions is to be rebuilt.

§ Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)
Will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that if there is no actual decommissioning by the end of this week, he will suspend devolution on Friday?

§ Mr. Mandelson
I have already made it absolutely clear that if it needs to be done we will, with a very heavy heart, put on hold the operation of the Executive and the institutions. I think that the hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House would agree that most people in Northern Ireland would respond to that with a deep sense of despair. They like their Executive; they like the institutions. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that if we do not do that, the alternative would be worse. If we simply allow the Executive and the institutions to stagger on without the cross-community support that they need to survive, they are likely to shatter irreversibly. I simply will not stand by and allow that to happen. If it is necessary to do so, we will put these institutions on hold in order to preserve them, not to annul them.