I thank Deputy Kenny for his ongoing support in this effort. I will make a more detailed statement later. What we sought yesterday was to address the complex issue, as Deputy Kenny said, of closure of the conflict based around an act of completion – the phrase we have used for the past year – and to generate confidence and hope for the future.
I would not be honest if I did not say that I am deeply disappointed that our efforts failed. We will continue in our efforts with the British Government and others to try to find a solution to the issue. It is important that we examine what was achieved because it must be maintained. We set out with certain aims and we must be careful that we build on what we have achieved and not lose it. That is my greatest concern.
No one contradicted me when I said to the parties yesterday that one issue remained to be resolved, namely, decommissioning. However, the level of understanding that had been reached before that difficulty arose should be stressed. The British Government announced the date of the election to the Northern Ireland Assembly – 26 November. Many people, North and South, felt this election should have taken place last May. It is proceeding now. We wanted to ensure it took place in a positive environment. Through intensive engagement, agreement was reached between the Ulster Unionist Party and Sinn Féin that suggested the possibility of new hope and confidence for the future.
Deputy Kenny's first question was whether we believe that what we understand to be paragraph 13 was included in that. We have discussed it with both parties. In our view, together with the endorsement by the IRA which we have always said was essential, it represents an unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. It also defines for the first time the goal to which we are working, namely, the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. These two points are essential.
The Deputy's second point is slightly more complicated. I was aware of the details of the different issues that arose in the conversation between David Trimble and Sinn Féin through Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and different delegations that changed on several occasions. I was aware of these discussions and what they were going to say during the day. The nuance might have changed but I was aware of the content. I also exchanged that information with other parties to whom I spoke.
My concern all along, and it was obvious to anyone observing this closely that there was a problem, was that the one person with whom we were not dealing was the IRA representative in the area of decommissioning. We had no contact with this person who was dealing with the International Independent Commission on Decommissioning. While General John de Chastelain is a polite and gracious man, he is also very conscious of his independence and the legislation and regulations under which his commission is established. He deals strictly on that basis. That was the issue to which I was referring in recent days when I said there were some issues over which we have no control.
Until 2.30 p.m. yesterday, until General John de Chastelain presented his report and told us what he could or could not say – in many cases what he could not say because he had a confidentiality agreement under the regulations which he was totally within his entitlement, we did not know the outcome. Of course, if we did not know, then Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness did not know and neither did David Trimble. I always felt that was a difficulty, even though we got through on 24 October 2001 and in April 2002 on that basis. People could immediately say that more clarity and detail were required.
General John de Chastelain gave a large amount of detail. For instance, he said it included automatic weapons, ammunition, explosives, explosive materiel. He said the act of decommissioning was the largest ever, significantly more than was ever seen. The weapons being put out of use were modern, useable, fully operational, in proper working condition and permanently beyond use within the terms of the decommissioning legislation. The materiel if used could cause death and destruction on a very large scale. There were different types of weaponry than on previous occasions. This was all stated by General de Chastelain but he could not say it consisted of 95 of this, 36 of that or 11 of the other and I knew that he could not say that. I always said the potential was there for somebody to say that they needed to know the exact amount. Equally I have been dealing with this for long enough to fully understand why he could not say so and I appreciate all the difficulties that causes. It might be complex but it is easy to have a one-liner – and nobody in this House has done that – such as it could have been a rusty bullet or gun. The fact is that it was not and everybody knows that.
There is the difficulty as it exists. I do not believe in recriminations that serve no purpose and will get me nowhere. I admit I was deeply frustrated last night but this is a new day and we must get on with it. We have a point to clarify but we should not ignore the fact that we made significant progress yesterday. We came down on the detail of one issue and we have to move on from there.