Northern Ireland

HC Deb 22 October 2003 vol 411 cc643-59 12.31 pm

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about political developments in Northern Ireland. Before I do, however, I want to bring to the attention of the House the bereavement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), the Minister of State with responsibility for political development in Northern Ireland, who lost his wife yesterday.

The House will be aware that yesterday, although a day of progress, ended in disappointment. We had high hopes that a sequence of actions involving political parties, the IRA, the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning and the Governments would result in a positive new atmosphere of trust at the beginning of the election campaign.

I believe that we were close to achieving that result. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach devoted much effort to the task both yesterday and in the preceding weeks. But the significant feature of this recent phase of the process was the direct engagement between the leaderships of the Ulster Unionist party and of Sinn Fein.

These discussions and related developments have, in my view, brought us a good deal further than the position that we reached in April. Let us be clear about what has now been achieved.

First, we have concluded that an election should now be held in Northern Ireland. The date, Wednesday 26 November, was announced yesterday. Secondly, we have an important statement from the leader of Sinn Fein, which was endorsed by the IRA. When Mr. Adams says that there will be full and final closure of the conflict and his remarks are endorsed by the IRA, I regard that as a significant and welcome step forward.

Thirdly, with the Irish Government we have established the Independent Monitoring Commission to ensure that the promise of the full and final closure of the conflict is a reality. Fourthly, the IRA authorised its representative to re-engage with the IICD with a view to putting arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity. Fifthly, there was an important act of decommissioning, about which General de Chastelain reported to the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. He confirmed that the arms dealt with included light, medium and heavy ordnance and associated munitions and that the quantity involved was considerably larger than that dealt with in the previous event. His colleague Mr. Andrew Sens pointed out that the material involved could have caused death or destruction on a huge scale if it had been used.

It is, of course, a matter of great disappointment that the international commission, constrained by the confidentiality insisted upon by the IRA, was unable to report all this in a manner that was sufficiently detailed to enable the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to make a positive statement about his party's willingness to re-enter a devolved Administration following an election. However, he did say that there were very good things in Mr. Adams's speech which were encouraging.

The two Governments have made it clear in the joint declaration that arms need to be put beyond use in a manner that is conducive to creating public confidence. That has not so far been achieved.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated at Hillsborough yesterday, we shall continue to try to find a way through that difficulty. Further discussions between the parties are obviously essential. The international commission will need to be involved and the British and Irish Governments will do all they can to resolve that problem quickly.

In the meantime, the necessary legal steps need to be taken so that the election announced yesterday can take place. Accordingly, I have made an order to enable fresh elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly to be held on Wednesday 26 November. I have also made an associated order to defer the publication of the new electoral register, due on 1 December, because the necessary work cannot be carried out during preparations for an election. I am putting forward a further order to permit the Electoral Commission access to polling stations.

I cannot hide my disappointment at yesterday's turn of events. I hope and believe that agreement can be reached so that the comprehensive acts of completion for which the Prime Minister called last October can be achieved and we can move to a stable and devolved Government for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me a copy of his statement in advance. May I offer my sincere condolences and those of the Conservative party to the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), on his tragic family bereavement?

Despite the Secretary of State's brave attempt to put a good face on it, may I say what an appalling shambles we have had in the past 24 hours in Northern Ireland? I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman personally. I do not think he calls the shots in Northern Ireland—it is my view that things would be rather better if he did. The Opposition really do try to support the Government over Northern Ireland when they are doing, or attempting to do, sensible things, as we showed over Hillsborough in March. I was genuinely hoping to give them a supportive response today, but they surely cannot expect the events of yesterday to pass without comment.

It is the great importance of the prize of peace in Northern Ireland that means that the House must take very seriously indeed mistakes in tactics that endanger that peace. Of course, it is undesirable that the IRA did not allow General de Chastelain to be more open about their act of decommissioning. Indeed, it was very foolish of them, since they have denied themselves on this, as on previous occasions, the full political benefits of their actions. But surely the Government, who were a party to the negotiations since they were offering their own concessions, on elections, for example, and since they take overall responsibility for the peace process—or I think they do—would have dealt with that point in advance and would have been clear about what was coming and whether it was acceptable.

Is it not the case that one of two things has clearly happened? Either the Government left the negotiations in the hands of two of the parties, took it on trust that everything had been satisfactorily settled and never asked to see or confirm the details or have them tied down in any way, which was extraordinarily incompetent; or else they thought that the details of the statement that General de Chastelain would make and the extent of transparency displayed were unimportant, which was almost unbelievably naive and showed that they had entirely forgotten the lessons of the two previous acts of decommissioning.

Did the Government even try to negotiate the text of the statement that the IRA were to authorise General de Chastelain to make? If not, will they tell us why they did not try to do so? If they tried, will they tell us what the response from Mr. Adams was and why they accepted it?

If the Government's understanding of what had been agreed was so vague, why did they hype it up and spin up what was supposed to happen yesterday? Has that not made a bad situation even worse? Why get half the world's press corps to go to Belfast to witness what, only yesterday morning, the spin doctors were calling "the greatest day for Northern Ireland since the Belfast agreement"—[Interruption.] Yes indeed, that phrase was all over the media yesterday morning, even though the Government did not know, or had not confirmed, the details of what had been agreed.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the many, many tactical errors made on this occasion was to leave out of the circle entirely the Social Democratic and Labour party and the smaller pro-agreement parties? If they had all been party to any understanding, it would have been far less likely that any misrepresentation or slippage could subsequently have occurred, and the Government would have had quite a lot of cover if it had, whereas in fact they have no cover at all.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say specifically why the SDLP, which has done so much, so bravely, to contribute to the peace process since its inception, was so insultingly left out of the loop? Surely, the SDLP—as a member of any potential Executive—is just as indispensable as any of the other major pro-agreement parties?

On a matter that goes beyond Northern Ireland, is it not very sad that this week the Government should again have treated Parliament with such levity? The announcement yesterday that elections would be called in Northern Ireland was not made in this place, as it should have been. I gather that it was made early yesterday morning in a mobile telephone call from No. 10 to a BBC journalist waiting outside Hillsborough Castle, who then announced it to the rest of the world. Once again—but in enormously important, potentially tragically important, circumstances—spin and the media circus were the priorities. The Government took their eye off the essential details and the people of Northern Ireland have been deeply disappointed on what should have been a very good day.

Mr. Murphy

First, I do not think that the holding of elections of Northern Ireland is a concession to anybody. The holding of elections has been argued for by the hon. Gentleman, his party, the Liberal Democrats, other parties in Northern Ireland and many others as an important way of ensuring that the momentum of the peace process in Northern Ireland continues. It is not a concession to any one party, but something that is, we believe, the right thing to do. At the same time, however, we have always insisted that, if we can reach an understanding that after elections we achieve a stable Executive that is inclusive of both Unionism and nationalism, which indeed is the only way to get the Executive up and running, it is better to do that.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the question of why only two parties—the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein—were deeply involved in negotiations and discussions about the issues before us. He also touched on other parties, and I shall come to that point in a second. It is important to realise why, just over a year ago, the Assembly was suspended in the first place. It was suspended because there was a collapse of trust, especially between the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein. It was clear to everybody that until that trust was restored—we have not restored it yet—it would be impossible to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland. It was thus clearly sensible for those two parties to meet to try to thrash out their differences.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the SDLP and to other parties. In no way do the Government demean the work, activity, commitment or dedication of those parties; indeed, there would be no Good Friday agreement unless they had been involved. However, those parties were not responsible for the suspension of the Assembly last year and we have to address the issue that was central to that suspension.

It is clear to me that the work of all the parties in Northern Ireland is extremely important in ensuring that the peace process goes forward—course it is. We respect that point of view, but at the end of the day, over the last number of weeks, there have been very many meetings between the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein to try to resolve the difficulties. Clearly, some of those difficulties were resolved; I touched on those in my statement. The re-engagement of the IRA with the Decommissioning Commission, the fact that we now have an election, and the fact that Gerry Adams made a statement that certainly went further than the statement he made back in the spring, are all things to be welcomed, and because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the prize is the prize of peace, I do not think for a second that we are talking here about hype and spin. What we are talking about is everyone trying to do their best to achieve the peace process and success in that process, and we will keep on trying. We did not succeed yesterday but we will carry on, and I do hope that in the days ahead we might well still succeed.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh)

I ask the Secretary of State to accept that I share his frustration and disappointment and, to some extent, the anger at the failures yesterday to move the process forward. I would ask him three questions, if I may.

The Secretary of State agrees, I am quite sure, that the population of Ireland—the people of Ireland—took ownership of the Good Friday agreement on the day of the referendum, and subsequently gave custody of it to the political parties in their mandate in the election that followed. Was it not a foolish, and indeed a shabby, decision for the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to give exclusive negotiating rights about the future of the people of the north of Ireland—my future—and the future of the agreement, to two political parties who, in their various ways for various reasons, had damaged the Good Friday agreement, failed to work it and failed to implement it properly? In the light of the debacle that derived from that yesterday, may I ask the Secretary of State to use his good offices to persuade the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to please return custody of what belongs to us—the Good Friday agreement—so that it can be properly dealt with in the only way: that is, by all the political parties acting equally and collectively?

May I ask the Secretary of State a second question, because my mind boggles at this? For five years, decommissioning has been debated in every nook and corner and every way. Is it not down to this? Did Sinn Fein say in the negotiations that the act of decommissioning would be transparent, and did they renege? Or did the Ulster Unionist party forget to ask them about the confidentiality clause that this Parliament wrote? Can the Secretary of State answer that simply? Can he confirm that it was Sinn Fein deviousness, or was the UUP simply incompetent?

May I ask the Secretary of State a third question? Despite all the problems, will he now ensure that common sense is put back into the thinking in Downing street and Dublin, to ensure that the political process in the north of Ireland regains that which was shabbily and foolishly taken from it by two sovereign Governments?

Mr. Murphy

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making about the importance of ensuring that all political parties in Northern Ireland are involved in the political process; of course I understand that. He knows that he and I worked for many years together in such a process and I believe that in the weeks and months ahead, during the election period and indeed when we have to enter the review of the agreement in the weeks ahead of us, there will have to be an inclusivity about that process which means that everyone is involved. But I must also remind him—I am sure he would agree with me on this too—that even when we had the Good Friday agreement talks, the peace talks, for many years in Northern Ireland, that did not mean that there were not extensive bilateral talks between parties to try to sort out the difficulties that were between them. My hon. Friend himself would have been engaged in some bilateral talks. Of course he would say that that was in a different context, but nevertheless bilaterals are held between parties that have differences between them, because it is sensible to try to resolve them.

I cannot comment on who said what to whom in those negotiations. Of course I cannot do that because they were negotiations between the political parties. Indeed, hon. Members will have seen on the media that those parties have different and differing views about what was said and what was not said. But, frankly, what we now have to do is go ahead and try to resolve the difficulty that is immediately in front of us. We will not be thanked by the people of Northern Ireland if all we do is recriminate about what has happened over the past few days. We have to deal with the issues in front of us. It behoves all hon. Members and all political parties in Northern Ireland, if they feel that the effort that has gone into the negotiations over the past weeks has failed, to come up with an answer and to produce something that succeeds.

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire)

The Liberal Democrats welcome the elections that are to be held at long last, but can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the elections will proceed on 26 November, without any danger of the outcome of the Ulster Unionist Council influencing the Government and causing a further postponement? The Liberal Democrats also welcome what sounds like a pretty significant decommissioning gesture by the IRA, and I am optimistic that it is an indication of genuine cooperation in the process by that paramilitary organisation. To what extent did the language used by Sinn Fein and, indeed, the IRA signify that they accepted that they had to address all aspects of paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, including paramilitary attacks and exiling? Incidentally, may I ask to what extent the Government have now committed to implementing the comprehensive review, which is scheduled, according to the agreement, to come into effect this December?

Crucially, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Government's decision to leave the negotiations to two parties—Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists—effectively excluded the rest of the organisations, individuals and parties of good will and those who are pro-agreement, who could quite possibly have exerted sufficient pressure to ensure that we had a positive, instead of a negative, outcome yesterday? Does he not accept that he has squandered a large degree of the good will that was being offered to him and the Government by the Alliance party of Northern Ireland and the other parties, one of which has already represented itself in the debate?

To what extent—I close on this—did the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and Gerry Adams agree regarding the transparency of the information relating to decommissioning? We should already know the answer to that question because the other parties should have been there. I cannot believe that two highly experienced negotiators like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and Gerry Adams would have done anything other than arrive at a specific and clear agreement in relation to that decommissioning activity. It is in the interests of the very transparency that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has called for himself that the Secretary of State is now transparent about what was agreed, so that we can determine who has reneged on the deal.

Mr. Murphy

The answer to the first question is yes; there will be elections in Northern Ireland on 26 November. I have signed that order and elections will go ahead. As for transparency, that is precisely what we are trying to deal with in the next few days. The whole reason why we failed at the end of the day yesterday, having succeeded in other areas, was that there was disagreement about how transparent, how detailed and how significant was the act of decommissioning. As I said in the statement, I believe that there was a significant and substantial act of decommissioning—an act that General de Chastelain himself said was considerably greater than the acts that we have seen before. Also, of course, had we indeed known the full detail of what was decommissioned, we would have known that it could have caused death and destruction on a massive scale. So it was big, but clearly, it was not enough in terms of illustrating to the people of Northern Ireland and the Ulster Unionist party what indeed was transparent. Obviously, that has to be the core of the talks and discussions in the days ahead.

The hon. Gentleman talks about paramilitary activity. Of course the Governments stand by paragraph 13 in the joint declaration, and the new dimension to all this is that the Independent Monitoring Commission will now be in existence to test paramilitary activity. That is the purpose of that body.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about the Alliance party and others. Again, I met the Alliance party last week. I have talked to David Ford, the leader of the Alliance party, on more than on occasion in the past few days. I will continue to talk with all the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland and to other party representatives, too. I do not think that we have squandered anything because the leaders of those parties are still determined to try to find a way forward.

Over the years, we have sometimes stopped because the process is inadequate, and found another one. We find the best process that will do the trick and enable us to move forward. For example, some months ago, we tried meetings of the implementation group with all the parties in Northern Ireland, and we got nowhere—they simply did not work. So let us find other ways of doing things. At the end of the day, I believe that it is important that all parties are involved, but we cannot stop, nor should we try to stop, parties resolving the difficulties between themselves.

As for the review, yes, we will have that review, as determined by the agreement itself, before the year is out.

Lady Hermon (North Down)

First, may I tell the Secretary of State how very saddened we were to learn of the death of the wife of the Minister of State? Please, on our behalf, extend to him and his family our very deepest condolences.

Secondly, may I apologise to the House for the fact that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—my colleague and friend—is not in the House now? It is simply a matter of logistics—he was not able to get here in time for the statement—and I apologise to the Secretary of State and other right hon. and hon. Members for that.

I share the disappointment that the Secretary of State has expressed in the statement, but we are where we are, and, like him, I do not wish to see further recriminations. I wish to build on what the Prime Minister said before he left Northern Ireland. The fact that, after his hospitalisation at the weekend, the Prime Minister came back to Northern Ireland as his first public appearance was very much appreciated by the people of Northern Ireland as a sign of his support for the agreement and the peace process. However, before leaving, he told the people of Northern Ireland that it would be something more than faintly ludicrous if we were in a situation where a substantial act of decommissioning has taken place that he, the Irish Government and de Chastelain were aware of, but, unfortunately, the public of Northern Ireland were not aware of. Will the Secretary of State please explain to the House how we resolve this ludicrous situation and how quickly the public of Northern Ireland can be made aware of the latest event of decommissioning? That would be enormously helpful.

Mr. Murphy

The hon. Lady is right to say that much had been achieved, and that it does not make sense to people watching the peace process in Northern Ireland—particularly, of course, the people in Northern Ireland itself—that what seems to be a relatively minor matter is holding up the process, but, as she knows, minor matters can have different significance to different people. What is important is to try to resolve those issues in the next few days, because we have agreed on so much and because there has been a great deal of engagement between her party and Sinn Fein over the past few weeks. There is every reason to commend that engagement, and I want it to continue—of course, we do—so I hope that the parties will be able to talk with one another in the next few days. I hope that they will be able to talk to General de Chastelain, and we in the two Governments will do our utmost to try to facilitate such discussions and bring these things together so that we are able to resolve the difficulties that, quite clearly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to yesterday.

Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool)

First, may I dissociate myself rather strongly from the earlier remarks made by the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), which were wholly unbalanced and, in the context, extremely trivialising of what is a very serious and complex situation? The House is entitled to expect greater understanding and greater maturity from the holder of his position.

May I also, on this occasion, decline to join the criticism of republicans in relation to their actions yesterday? I rather endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend that the statement made by Gerry Adams and accepted by the Provisional IRA and their commitment to the cessation of paramilitary activity, should that now be carried out by PIRA, are both significant statements, and I only wish that they had come earlier in the Northern Ireland process and, indeed, during my time in office.

In the context of the breakdown of trust and confidence that characterises the Northern Ireland peace process at the moment, however, decommissioning in such secrecy is no longer a viable way forward. I understand the difficulties that General de Chastelain has in interpreting the legislation enacted by this House, but the need and, indeed, the environment for greater transparency in these matters has grown, not diminished, since the first act of decommissioning took place in 2000. Therefore, the bottom line if the peace process is to remain strong, as I believe it will, is that non-republicans are entitled to greater satisfaction about precisely what has been decommissioned, and of what order. Will my right hon. Friend please communicate that to General de Chastelain and encourage him to use his good office and his interpretation of the legislation to make sure that there is greater transparency in this matter?

Mr. Murphy

My right hon. Friend is right on a number of counts. First, with regard to the nature of the re-engagement of the IRA with the independent commission, he was right that that was very important for the peace process. Secondly, he was right in terms of the statements that General de Chastelain made yesterday on the scope and the scale of the decommissioning, which is also significant. He is also right, however—and he draws on his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that it is important that transparency is part of the process. I hope that the next couple of days will ensure that that is precisely the issue that is addressed. We know that the general is chairman of an independent commission, and he will have to make his own decision on how he engages with the parties. He, like everybody else, wants to ensure that this process moves on and that, ultimately, we have devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire)

I, too, welcomed what the president of Sinn Fein said yesterday. Given that we are now three and a half years beyond the point at which all weapons were to have been decommissioned, and given the well-known worries about personal humiliation among those sensitive souls in the IRA, why did the Government permit yesterday's talks to take place at all, given that they would have known in advance that what General de Chastelain was going to say would not get within a million miles of the clarity and transparency that was necessary for yesterday to be the success that most of us hoped it would be?

Mr. Murphy

The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has considerable experience of Northern Ireland. He is right to draw the House's attention to the Good Friday agreement, which says that decommissioning of those weapons is an integral part of that agreement, and it has taken too long for those weapons to be decommissioned. It is also worth mentioning that there are weapons held by loyalists, too, although we were not dealing with that matter yesterday. It is an important matter, however, and one of which the House should be reminded.

On the decommissioning event, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), General de Chastelain heads an independent commission. It was for him to decide how best to reveal what he could to the people of Northern Ireland in the way that he did. Of course, it would have been much better if yesterday we had had the transparency that was required by the Ulster Unionist party and all of us, but it did not happen. I still think that what he did say was significant, however, both in terms of the re-engagement of the IRA with his commission and because the scope, scale and details that were revealed were considerably better than they were previously.

Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough)

We can all agree that the Good Friday agreement is still the only show in town, and it is not the property of us as politicians but of the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that what is more important now is the decommissioning of minds of all politicians concerned with the continuing agreement, and the fact that they need to make a leap of faith with each other and show a degree of trust, rather than embroiling themselves too much in the issue of decommissioning of weapons?

Mr. Murphy

My hon. Friend is right about the decommissioning of minds, as he puts it, and indeed many minds have been decommissioned over a number of years. There has been an engagement between all parties in Northern Ireland, including those who have not been in favour of the Good Friday agreement, to try to make devolution work—and I believe that it did. In a way, he puts his finger on the issue: it is not just about the decommissioning act itself, but about the trust and confidence between parties that that act represents. Over the next few days, whatever the details of the discussions and negotiations that take place, it will be about trying to re-establish trust and confidence between those parties, and between other parties in Northern Ireland, too.

Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North)

May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, associate myself with the expressions of condolence with regard to the tragic loss of the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar)?

The Secretary of State will recall that last week I warned the House that the two parties invited to Downing street to negotiate would not deliver sustainable peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and I have been proved to be absolutely correct. Were the Government taken by surprise by General de Chastelain's report yesterday, or did they think there was a deal in place? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the terms under which the general operates—terms of secrecy—were agreed by the Government, legislated for in this House and agreed by the pro-agreement parties? Indeed, on many occasions the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) told us that he would be satisfied with the word of General de Chastelain, while others, including ourselves, warned that it would not be enough.

Does the Secretary of State accept that regardless of issues of transparency or visibility, what happened yesterday in terms of statements and actions fell, to coin a phrase, a million miles short of acts of completion? Where was the commitment by the IRA to disband? Where is even the commitment to paragraph 13 of the joint declaration? Where is the commitment to acts of completion, not another act of decommissioning? I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has committed to elections come what may, and I look forward to the people of Northern Ireland at long last delivering their verdict. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that when the people speak, he should not put his head in the sand but should listen to the verdict of unionists as well as nationalists when they deliver their verdict?

Mr. Murphy

I hope that I never put my head in the sand. When the elections are held, and when the people of Northern Ireland have spoken, it will be the democratic wish and desire of those people who exercise their vote to give the parties their mandates. I was disappointed yesterday, as I said in my statement. I believed that we were on track for success in getting agreement between the two parties concerned that they would go into an Executive together if they were elected into such a position. At the same time, I repeat that there were some good signs yesterday. One sign is that the people will be given their say, which the hon. Gentleman has already welcomed. Secondly, there was the re-engagement of the IRA with the commission, and the fact that there was decommissioning of a different nature than we have had previously. In addition, there were words said by the leader of Sinn Fein that went beyond what was said in the spring.

Taken all together, what was important was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), namely, that trust and confidence had been building up between parties over a number of weeks. Unfortunately, yesterday may have dented that. I sincerely hope, however, that those parties will be able to talk together, along with other parties in Northern Ireland, and exercise their minds as to how best to ensure that we move forward.

Mr. Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich, West)

I welcome the progress that has been made over the last few days in these negotiations and the public statements that have been made and recognised on both sides of the House, but regret that we were unable to come to an agreement at the end of the day. The reality is that since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, the threshold of trust within the Unionist community required for the smooth working of the agreement and the Northern Ireland Assembly has risen. Will my right hon. Friend impress upon Sinn Fein the need for a degree of transparency in the decommissioning process, over and above the confidentiality level that was originally agreed, if we are finally to complete this process to everybody's satisfaction?

Mr. Murphy

My hon. Friend, who serves on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, is aware of the difficulties that we face in Northern Ireland on these issues. I certainly assure him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will do our best to try to ensure that we resolve the difficulties that we currently face, the main one of which, of course, is transparency.

Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell)

As a strong supporter of the Anglo-Irish agreement who has been very critical of the fact that it has not been fully implemented, may I put it to the Secretary of State that I was impressed with the president of Sinn Fein's speech yesterday? It seemed a major move forward. Therefore, it was all the more surprising that nobody had seemed to understand that there was a need for much greater transparency in General de Chastelain's statement. May I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that that transparency is forthcoming soon? If it is not, there is going to be a dreadful tragedy.

Mr. Murphy

The right hon. Gentleman has spent many years considering the questions around Northern Ireland. I know that he understands that these things are never easy. As I said earlier, issues that appear to be relatively simple can sometimes be very difficult for the parties concerned, for all sorts of historical and other reasons. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman is right. The Governments have a duty to try to ensure that the parties come to some agreement on these issues, and particularly on the issue of decommissioning and its transparency.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

On behalf of my party, may I express our deep sympathy to the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) on his recent bereavement? I reciprocate the sympathy that he has expressed to me.

In terms of the debacle yesterday that had been billed as the most historic event in Irish history, will the Secretary of State perhaps ponder the fact that, by excluding all the custodians of the development and implementation of the Good Friday agreement, he did a grave disservice to it? In negotiating only with Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist party, he was, in fact, putting our future democracy and development into the hands of the decision making of the army council of the IRA on the one hand and a split and divided Ulster Unionist Council on the other. That has excluded those people who had driven the process all these years, particularly my party, which people seem to forget is the largest party in Northern Ireland, as well as being the most democratic and the one without hang-ups about full implementation. Does the Secretary of State further recognise that the two parties with which his Government were negotiating are the two parties that have failed to implement their agreement, have failed to honour what they agreed to and signed up for five years ago, and have brought down the institutions in the process and put us in the mess that we are now in?

May I make two further points? Will the Secretary of State explain to the House why, in this so-called new beginning, Sinn Fein has not committed itself—it has done the very opposite—to joining and developing the new Police Service of Northern Ireland? Local Sinn Fein representatives refuse to allow the PSNI to enter certain areas of my constituency and instead say that they will administer their own justice.

Will the Secretary of State also address the issue of the continued paramilitary activity by Provisional Sinn Fein and the loyalist paramilitaries? Provisional Sinn Fein kidnapped and abducted one of my constituents 10 days ago, and a Sinn Fein member has been charged with participation in that activity. Is that the sort of peace that this so-called negotiation will deliver to the people of Northern Ireland? If it is, it is doomed to failure before it starts.

Mr. Murphy

Even though my hon. Friend gave me a bit of a hard time, may I welcome him back to the House of Commons after his difficult time over the past few weeks? I wish him well.

On the issue of process, there is no intention by either Government to exclude anybody. I have gone through this on a number of occasions and I will repeat it for my hon. Friend—it is important that if there is to be a settlement between two parties in Northern Ireland—which must be reached for the stability of any future Executive if the elections go a certain way—it is right and proper for them to try to sort out their differences. That is what the past few weeks have been all about.

I repeat that I do not for one second underestimate the work and the commitment of my hon. Friend's party to the peace process in Northern Ireland. There would not have been a Good Friday agreement had it not been for the work of the SDLP and his colleagues. In particular, we would not be in the position that we are in today with regard to the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend's party took courageous action in ensuring that Catholics not only join the board but become policemen and women, too. I think everybody acknowledges its stand on that.

I do not know what lies ahead of us, except that there is nothing wrong in people talking to try to resolve their difficulties. The negotiations, as my hon. Friend put it, between the Governments and the two parties were of an exclusive nature because the two parties have to talk. Of course, they came to the Governments to clarify certain issues but, at the end of the day, the negotiations were between themselves. The success or failure of the negotiations did not determine whether we would have elections. I have announced today that there will be elections irrespective of what now happens. At the same time, I think that it is in everybody's interest for those two parties to try to sort out those differences and move the process ahead.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I gently remind the House that, on a statement, only one question should be put to the Minister. In other words, hon. Members must be brief.

Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley)

Is it not the case that the Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Ahern, was raising concerns about transparency on Monday, well before the events of yesterday? Will the Secretary of State explain why our Government did not have those concerns before then?

Will the Secretary of State also explain why he said in his statement that he was looking forward to and hoping for comprehensive acts of completion? Does that not imply that what happened yesterday did not represent comprehensive acts of completion? Will he also confirm to the House that the Government have given a commitment to legislate for IRA terrorists who are on the run? What is now the status of the joint declaration?

Mr. Murphy

The hon. Gentleman may have misheard what I said in the statement—I was referring to matters of public confidence. Nevertheless, he raised the issue of transparency, and I have touched on that many times this afternoon. I do not think that there is anything that I want to add to what I have said already.

On acts of completion, the statement yesterday by the leader of Sinn Fein was very significant in that it was much advanced on what happened in the spring. Commitments were made that all of us must welcome. I also welcome the re-engagement with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning as that is so important to re-establishing public confidence. However, at the moment, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we now have to address the issues that are immediately in front of us and try to resolve the difficulties that are faced.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I thank my right hon. Friend for pressing ahead with the election date and for ensuring that elections will, indeed, be held on 26 November, despite the events of yesterday.

Can my right hon. Friend throw some light on what happened between yesterday morning, when Downing street and his office were trailing the events of yesterday, and the point later in the day when the leader of the Ulster Unionist party apparently had a change of heart and a change of mind? Will he enlighten us on how that was communicated to him and why it came about?

Discussions are taking place about this historic IRA decommissioning statement, but what equivalent statements have been received from loyalist paramilitary groups? What does my right hon. Friend propose to do about the current state of the loyalist paramilitary groups who are not on ceasefire?

Mr. Murphy

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to the loyalist paramilitary groups because they have not gone away and their decommissioning is also necessary. They told us in the past that they would decommission as soon as the IRA does, but it is our view that acts of decommissioning should happen at the same time—we will continue to make that view publicly known. I do not want to get into a position of talking about who said what to whom and who is to blame because I am not sure that that would help the peace process in Northern Ireland. We have to try to move forward from the substantial, but not complete, progress that was made yesterday to enable us to find the success in what the Ulster Unionist party and Sinn Fein were trying to achieve, which was an agreement between them that they could go into government with each other if the elections fell in a specific way. As I said earlier, that is a matter for the two parties to consider. I must not underestimate for a second the fact that progress was made yesterday morning, although I was disappointed when we reached the afternoon and did not get the transparency or confidence needed to take the process forward. These things happen, so we have to keep trying.

Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke)

Will the Secretary of State clarify the specific point, paragraph or sentence in yesterday's speech by Mr. Adams that he regards as adding something to, or being different from, the position that Mr. Adams adopted last April and May? Is it not the case that the Provisionals' position remains that the Belfast agreement contains the potential to remove the causes of conflict, as they see them, and that unless those causes of conflict are removed there will be no final act of completion?

Mr. Murphy

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman read yesterday's speech by Mr. Adams. I mentioned it in my statement when I referred to the full and final closure of the conflict and said that the IRA endorsed those remarks. The significance of that, which the hon. Gentleman knows because he studies these matters carefully, is that the IRA's historical position over the years was that there would be no end to the conflict until a united socialist republic of Ireland was created, but that has changed. The reason why there may now be final closure of the conflict is the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, which is a world away from what used to be the case. I believe that full and final closure of the conflict is the intention of Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Mr. Tony Clarke (Northampton, South)

I wish my right hon. Friend success in future negotiations. Does he agree that the Good Friday agreement can be implemented only when all illegally held weapons, on all sides, and paramilitaries are removed? Do we not run the risk of over-concentrating on transparency and confidentiality, the terms of which, incidentally, were agreed by this House? Do we not run the risk of building trust in one community at the expense of diluting it in another? I echo what was said earlier about the need to move forward on the decommissioning of arms that are illegally held by loyalist paramilitaries that are not participating in allowing us to get the Good Friday agreement implemented in full.

Mr. Murphy

My hon. Friend is aware that the reason why there has been such heavy concentration on republican decommissioning is that Sinn Fein is a party of such a size in the Assembly that the d'Hondt system gives it an entitlement to Ministers. There is no such comparison with loyalist representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly. My hon. Friend is right that the Good Friday agreement contains a specific reference to decommissioning being essential. He touched on the fact that trust is at the bottom of everything. The balancing act is always to ensure that trust may be achieved right across the political spectrum.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

Reference has been made to the decommissioning of minds, and I wonder whether part of the problem is that minds have been decommissioned. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that 26 November is the date that is earmarked for state opening. Was a subliminal message being given to others in Ireland about Northern Ireland's relationship with this House, given that it would not be possible for some Members to be here for that if there were an election in Northern Ireland? May I press the Secretary of State a little further? I agree with the point about the decommissioning of weapons right across the division because not only loyalist groups, but other republican groups, exist. Surely it is in the psyche of the Northern Ireland people, which is fed by the media and intelligence reports, that although the Provisional IRA has been prepared to decommission some weapons, its current chief of staff has been purchasing new pistols that will be used to obviate a forensic trail and used once so that he may continue his extortion rackets.

Mr. Murphy

Obviously, I cannot comment on the last matter, but it is clearly of no use to decommission a quantity of weapons only to replace them. Everyone who was involved in the negotiations that led to the Good Friday agreement understands that decommissioning is a matter of trust as much as a matter of decommissioning the weapons themselves. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the date of the state opening was not in anyone's mind when the election date was discussed.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

While Gerry Adams made an important statement yesterday, after things collapsed and he later answered questions asked by an assembled audience he said that there must be no humiliation of the Provisional IRA caused by giving details of its decommissioned arms. However, will not the real humiliation be that caused if it is discovered that insufficient arms have been put out of use and that we are not moving toward acts of completion? Could General de Chastelain at least give us an indication of how close to, or far away from, acts of completion we are, because that will show us all where we stand?

Mr. Murphy

The general indicated yesterday that he had taken inventories of all three acts of decommissioning and that the last act was much bigger than previous acts. He is in a difficult position because he is bound by legislation that includes provisions on confidentiality, although I believe that he said significant things in his statement. When my hon. Friend refers to the speech made by Mr. Gerry Adams and the humiliation of the IRA, I assume that he is referring to the IRA's historical position of not wanting to surrender, to use its terms, and especially not to the British Government. Things have changed dramatically since the Good Friday agreement, as has the way in which we look at each other—the world has changed. The peace process and its success must come first for the IRA and political parties in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Iris Robinson (Strangford)

Is it not about time that the Government grasped reality and accepted that no deal—secret or otherwise—has any chance of working unless the majority of both Unionists and nationalists support the institutions and the Government value equally the views expressed by all people of Northern Ireland through the ballot box? Will he assure me that he will respect the will of the people after 26 November, especially if the Democratic Unionist party represents the majority of Unionists? Will he allow for new negotiations?

Mr. Murphy

Of course we will respect the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland, although we will all have to wait and see what that will be. Responsibility will then fall on the hon. Lady's party and other parties. Her party puts forward views on the renegotiation of the agreement. We know that we have to enter a review under the terms of the agreement, but the larger parties in Northern Ireland, especially, have a responsibility to bring back devolution to Northern Ireland so that local Ministers can make local decisions for local people. We can achieve that for Northern Ireland only if there is agreement between nationalists and Unionists.

Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)

We welcome the announcement that there will be elections and that the election date is set in stone. In the light of the parts of the statement on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State describe the steps that will be taken to ensure that voting in the elections, which might be based on an out-of-date register, will be as transparent and correct as possible? Further to points that have already been made, will he tell us the principles that he will use after the elections to ensure that devolved government begins once again in Northern Ireland as soon as possible?

Mr. Murphy

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the electoral register and other changes that have taken place over the past few months. We will use the register published on 1 September 2003. He knows, as other hon. Members do, that many improvements have been made to the way in which people cast their votes in Northern Ireland to ensure probity. I sincerely hope that those measures will be effective.

As for devolution, as a fellow Welshman the hon. Gentleman will know that it can benefit the people of our different nations and regions. I hope that it will happen as quickly as possible in Northern Ireland so that I can shed my direct rule responsibilities and hand them back to people from that part of the UK.