| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman nods--I thought he said so.
That view has held throughout the process. It is Sinn Fein's refusal to decommission that prevented us, some time ago, from going forward to all-party talks. That was not due to the stubbornness of the British Government, the stubbornness of the Unionist parties or the stubbornness of the people of Northern Ireland, but it was due to the fact that Sinn Fein would not decommission. When it would not do so, an alternative mechanism was found through patient negotiation and agreement, so that all the parties could sit down with a proper mandate to discuss, and decommissioning could take place in parallel with those discussions. The moment that that proposition became apparent, the reward for finding an alternative method was the bomb that murdered people just the other day in London.
I know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) feels deeply about this, but he is wrong: plain, common-or-garden wrong.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South):
We have used the phrase "IRA-Sinn Fein" many times in the House, as if the two parts were part of the same entity. Is it correct to treat them in that way now, because I was never sure whether the IRA controlled Sinn Fein or the other way round, or a combination of both? Certainly the events of the past few days would suggest that the IRA Provisional Army Council has ignored Sinn Fein, and, in the current circumstances, Sinn Fein could not now deliver
The Prime Minister:
As for the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA, I think that they are both members one of another. That is the position, and has been so for a very long time. Were that not the case, perhaps Sinn Fein would be more prepared to condemn openly activities that no civilised person could possibly condone.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East):
The Prime Minister will be aware that one of the people murdered on Friday was my constituent, John Jefferies. John was a talented young musician, and extremely popular in his local community. I know that the Prime Minister will join me in sending our condolences to his family. Does he agree that we must ensure that John's life is not lost in vain and that everyone in the House and those parties that might want to be part of it must do all in their power to ensure that the peace process gets back on track?
The Prime Minister:
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue and I agree entirely with every word she said. I hope that she expresses my personal sympathy to Mr. Jefferies's family. In a sense, the death of Mr. Jefferies, and the death and the injury of others, is a stark commentary on what we have seen for a long time in the dispute in Northern Ireland. They were innocent victims; they had no connection whatsoever with the ancient feuds that light these hatreds and have kept them burning for so long. The hon. Lady is entirely right: the best memorial to Mr. Jefferies and to the other people who have been murdered over the past 30 years would be for us to bend all our will to find a proper, full-term solution.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West):
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems highly likely that in the end we shall be confronted by the old, hard choices in Ulster? Will he remind the democratic nationalists in the Province that they would have a secure and honoured position in a united and integrated United Kingdom? Will he also remind them that they would be able to exercise real power in some areas if we were to restore a proper measure of local government in Ulster?
The Prime Minister:
As my hon. Friend is aware, for he knows Northern Ireland well, most of the choices in terms of how to carry this matter forward are hard choices--there are very few easy choices in the matter. I pray that we shall not come to the old, hard choices that my hon. Friend has in mind, for that would mean that violence and terrorism had taken full root and were flourishing again.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that a whole generation of politicians in Northern Ireland have aptitudes and skills not yet fully utilised in the way that they could be and should be in their constituencies. I hope that we shall be able to reach a position, by agreement, where those politicians can use their talents in that respect once again.
Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith):
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his desire for negotiations as a
The Prime Minister:
The Irish Government seek proximity talks to clarify, essentially, what would be the position during elections and after elections. I am discussing, bilaterally, exactly the same points with the democratic political parties. The difficulty with proximity talks--I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I put the point flippantly--is that we would need to have people in proximity, and there is a certain disinclination to do that at the moment. I have never denied the underlying need for discussions prior to the elections--indeed, I embarked upon those discussions from the moment that I set out to the House the possible electoral route forward.
Several hon. Members rose--
Madam Speaker:
Thank you. I now draw questions on the statement to a close.
Mr. Benn:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This matter is of great importance and a number of hon. Members have been rising in an attempt to participate in the statement. Have the Government indicated that they will allocate time for a debate on this issue? Many hon. Members were excluded from today's debate and this is a very big issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) reminded me that we have not had a debate on Northern Ireland since the ceasefire--something has had to occur to trigger this statement. May we try, through you, Madam Speaker, to persuade the Government to make time available for a debate?
Madam Speaker:
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that is normally done through the usual channels. He is quite right: we have not had a debate on these matters for some time. Many hon. Members always stand to put a question as there is a lot of interest in these matters. I regret very much that it is not always possible to call all hon. Members who are standing. I have kept the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box for more than an hour. I have a list of all the hon. Members who have been standing--I always keep a list of such hon. Members and I try to call them alternately. I shall at least try to give hon. Members who have not been called an opportunity to put a question either to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or to the Prime Minister during subsequent statements. I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but it is a matter for the usual channels.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is obviously your decision to terminate questions at this point, but you must recognise that all those hon. Members who still want to ask a question would seek to be called in a debate on Northern Ireland, in which, we would hope, speeches would be time-limited so that those of us who wanted to
Madam Speaker:
I have just made it clear to the House that, every time there is a statement or a debate, I keep a list and I put stars against the names of the Members who have been called once, twice or three times--or not at all.
Madam Speaker:
I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East):
I beg to move,
It is often said that the United Kingdom has no written constitution, which is technically inaccurate, although it may be substantially correct. It undoubtedly conveys the message that much of the practice and many of the principles of our constitution depend on convention, and one such convention is that of ministerial responsibility.
What are conventions? They are merely habits and practices that do not have the force of law. If a convention is broken, no law is broken. Conventions are habits and practices that depend on their observance for their validity. A breach of a convention may, however, do serious damage to the integrity of the constitution, and it may do intense--even immeasurable--damage to the reputation of the Government and of Parliament.
The observance of some conventions is exclusively the responsibility of the Government; self-evidently, ministerial responsibility is one. Ultimately, enforcement of the convention of ministerial responsibility is a matter for the Prime Minister. He leads the Government; he selects his Ministers.
It follows that, when a breach of convention is tolerated, that breach is the Prime Minister's responsibility. He alone has the right to determine who should be in his Government and who should continue to be his Ministers. If, by a breach of the convention of ministerial responsibility, the reputation of Parliament is damaged, the Prime Minister is liable for that, too.
We should ask ourselves how far ministerial responsibility extends. It has been the subject of some dispute in the past three years, in an inquiry the results of which we may shortly hear, but I start with a proposition to which there can be no objection--that the personal actions of a Minister must be his own responsibility.
If a Minister knowingly deceived Parliament or Members of Parliament about a secret change in Government policy, that would be his personal responsibility, and I have no doubt that such a Minister should resign. A Prime Minister who did not require him to do so would be culpable in the extreme because, jointly and severally, they would be guilty of a gross breach of the convention of ministerial responsibility. Together, they would damage the reputation of Parliament.
Let us take another example. If, by his actions, a Minister knowingly created circumstances in which a person facing serious criminal charges was denied information necessary for his defence, would that not be his personal responsibility, and should not that also require resignation? Indeed, if, in either of the examples
that I have offered merely as hypotheses, resignation did not follow, the doctrine of ministerial responsibility would have been seriously eroded.
We must ask ourselves, how do we predict that the present Government might respond to either of those two hypotheses? We shall have to wait to know precisely, but we can obtain a clue to their future behaviour by examining their past behaviour--for they are a Government who have already been party to a substantial erosion of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility.
Sir Robin Butler, in a written statement to the Scott inquiry, appeared to absolve both Ministers and Whitehall permanent secretaries--of which he is, by some distance, the most senior--from almost any mistake, misdemeanour or malpractice in the government machine. In his written statement, he said:
I fancy that, in a report to be made public later this week, issue may be taken with some of the propositions in that statement.
Let us take the statement at its face value, however. Let us take what I understand to be perhaps an updating of the Maxwell-Fyfe propositions, but which essentially is the assertion that, where personal responsibility is concerned and where personal knowledge is available, a Minister is likely--indeed, bound--to be held to be responsible. Let us test that modern statement of ministerial responsibility against two recent examples, the first of which is the Pergau dam affair.
The Minister with responsibility, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), against the advice of the permanent secretary of the Overseas Development Administration, expressly authorised the commitment of aid for the Pergau dam. He did so as his personal responsibility; as I understand it, that formed part of the submissions made on his behalf when the matter reached court. Notwithstanding that, he was found by the court to have acted illegally. In a decision in which he overruled the advice of the most senior civil servant in the Department and for which he took personal responsibility, he was found by the court to have acted illegally.
Did resignation follow? Did remorse follow? Was there even an apology? There was none of those--the Foreign Secretary no doubt possessing all the Christian virtues except resignation--yet the circumstances that I have just described fall fairly and squarely within the Butler definition. The failure to resign or to accept responsibility unquestionably eroded the convention of ministerial responsibility.
4.37 pm
That this House deplores the erosion by Her Majesty's Government of the principle of ministerial responsibility.
"While ministerial heads of department must always be accountable for the actions of their departments and its staff, neither they nor senior officials can justly be criticised for shortcomings of which they are not aware, and which could not reasonably have been expected to be discovered, or which do not occur as a foreseeable result of their own actions. Ministers and senior officials can only be criticised personally for deficiencies in the organisation if those deficiencies occur as a foreseeable result of their instructions, or they could reasonably be expected to have known about them or discovered such deficiencies and taken action to amend them. While ministerial heads of department must always be accountable for the actions of their department and its staff, neither they, nor senior officials, can justly be criticised in a personal sense for shortcomings of which they are not aware."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |