| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): May I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend and the Taoiseach and all who have worked towards this welcome progress?
The international body is to be given a substantial task, and a formidably short time in which to do it. My right hon. Friend has named the chairman of the international body; can he say when he expects to be able to tell us the names of the other people serving on it?
The Prime Minister:
I hope that we shall be able to announce the other two names speedily--I hope that one will be Canadian and the other Nordic. We are going through the final processes now and, as soon as those names are confirmed, and agreed by their Governments, I shall make them public.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West):
Does the Prime Minister now agree that to make total or even partial arms decommissioning a precondition for all-party talks is rather impractical, because arms handed over today could be replaced tomorrow? And will he therefore pursue more vigorously the twin-track approach, with a firm starting date for all-party inclusive talks, which would help to find an agreed new constitutional settlement, as well as helping to bring about the total arms decommissioning that we all want to see?
The Prime Minister:
The hon. Gentleman is right that the ultimate prize is complete decommissioning, not the
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne):
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his perseverance and wish him well with his future endeavours in the matter? Does he accept that a considerable number of Conservative Members believe that it is absolutely crucial that we put beyond all doubt and misunderstanding the central issue of decommissioning? Will he therefore confirm that there is absolutely no question whatever of the Government agreeing to enter into all-party talks before a start has been made on decommissioning?
The Prime Minister:
I have indicated to my hon. Friend several times this afternoon that that is the Government's position. More relevantly, it is not only the Government's position. We must make that clear. It is the position of the parties who would be party to the talks. That is the real point. The parties would have to sit down together.
A number of the parties take the view, and I myself would not question that view--it is absolutely understandable--that they would not have confidence to sit down with Sinn Fein until they have a greater indication that Sinn Fein is prepared to disarm. That is the substantive point. It was implicit in the Downing street declaration mentioned earlier. It has been implicit ever since. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set it out in the three Washington conditions, the third of which is the one to which my hon. Friend refers. That remains the Government's position.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North):
Is the Prime Minister aware that all people in these islands will be congratulating him and the Taoiseach on having overcome some considerable difficulties and differences of opinion in achieving the communique yesterday? It is greatly welcomed. Will he answer two points? First, in talking about the three interlocking agreements, can he confirm that the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed still stands? In relation to confidence-building measures, will he confirm that the proposal of an elected assembly may in itself cause a lack of confidence in other participants, bearing in mind, as they do, the fact that the result is a foregone conclusion,
The Prime Minister:
That is of course a proper matter for discussion. But there is one thing that I hope that we will be able to do. Time after time in the history of Northern Ireland an opportunity to progress in one form or another has been pushed aside because something similar was tried at some stage in the past and did not succeed. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the assembly route was tried in the past and did not succeed. But that was in a different time and in different circumstances. That is not to say that it would not succeed on this particular occasion.
I am saying to all the parties that I hope that they will stand back and consider whether it is possible to put some of those old shibboleths to one side and decide in the circumstances of 1995, on the back of the talks that have taken place, on the back of the changed situation that exists in the everyday life of people in Northern Ireland, in the understanding that this may be a chance that may not readily be repeated in the years ahead if it slips away from us, and when everyone should be prepared to go to the limit of what is tolerable for them and their view, to see if we can reach a communal settlement.
In that sense, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to rule out instinctively the question of going down the route of an elected body. One of the proposals is that there should be an elected body--not to govern Northern Ireland, but from which a negotiating team with a proper mandate to negotiate the future is drawn.
Negotiating those constitutional points will not be easy. I am open-minded about how those constitutional talks come about, but I can see the advantage that some of the political parties in this House see in having an elected assembly--not to govern Northern Ireland but to produce nominees from that assembly to negotiate constitutional matters for Northern Ireland. I hope that that matter will not be pushed aside by anyone in these preliminary conversations.
Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds):
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on so assiduously seeking a resolution of the problems in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that a democratically elected body in Northern Ireland could be entirely consistent with the often expressed commitment of the Government not to seek to impose solutions on the Province?
The Prime Minister:
My hon. Friend is quite right; it would be consistent. That is legitimately one of the matters for discussion in the preparatory talks and thereafter. The fact of the matter is that the possibility of imposing solutions is more apparent than real. One cannot impose a solution that is not acceptable to the people generally. We need to reach agreement on those issues, and that is why it is so important that the discussions between all parties take place.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down):
Does the Prime Minister agree that, although the issue of
The Prime Minister:
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, Sinn Fein cannot be admitted to talks with other parties until the other parties are prepared to talk to it. Therefore, the principle of consent, in that respect, lies in the hands of all the parties. There is a bigger issue on the subject of consent, and it is one that I sought to deal with some months ago. I have made it clear, and I happily reiterate it this afternoon, that if we are able to get through the preparatory talks and then move into all-party talks, and if those all-party talks reach an agreement, the agreement that emerges from the all-party talks will have to be put in a referendum to the people of Northern Ireland for their consent. Given the nature of what is under discussion, that is proper. I reiterate that that consent, in that respect, remains at the heart of the Government's plans.
Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam):
May I welcome my right hon. Friend's courageous determination to keep up the momentum? Will he confirm that the international body has a clear remit to consider only illegally held weapons, and that there is no question that the legally held weapons of the security forces in Northern Ireland will be dragged into the process?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |