| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.45 pm
Mr. McNamara: In the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), the House witnessed the intensity of feeling and sense of identity that belongs to both gentlemen and to the communities that they represent. Their words illustrated to the House the necessity of seeking to find an accommodation that is based on both communities and is acceptable to both communities.
It must therefore be an agreement that does not talk in terms of majority and minority, but recognises the traditions, aspirations and hopes of each of those
communities. That, I trust, is what the Prime Ministers of both countries will talk about when they have their summit, whenever that may be. I hope that it will also form the content of what the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will discuss when they talk to the leaders of the various parties in the House. That means that there must not be triumphalism on either side, but there must be compromise on each side. One side must regard and respect the Britishness of the other and the other side must regard and respect the Irishness of the other. That should be the aim of the policies that we are seeking to achieve.
That is the important message that we must take from what my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and the hon. Member for North Antrim--who has been my hon. Friend on occasions--have said. I think that the hon. Member for North Antrim and I are the only two Members of the House who took part in the first debate on the emergency powers Act and served on the Committee together.
The leader of the Ulster Unionists referred to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who now has the honour of leading for the Opposition on Northern Ireland. He was derogatory to both of us. Both of us have advanced the principles and policies of the British Labour party, laid down at Labour party conferences and enunciated by a great number of shadow Secretaries of State from the Front Bench long before I had a position there.
The reason why we have, in the past, opposed the Act and measures in it was not that we did not think that there was a problem of dealing with terrorists in Northern Ireland--far from it. We opposed the Act because we felt that the mechanisms and measures contained in it were not necessarily the most productive means of dealing with the problem.
Taking away someone's right to jury trial is a serious matter. We looked for a way of reinstating it in a more positive manner. The indefinite internment of people without trial is a serious matter. We sought to take that power away, because in the past it had been used only against one section of the community. Those are the reasons why the Labour party, over the years, has opposed those powers. They are not the selfish possessions of myself or of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, but the principled reasons of the British Labour party.
The Secretary of State made a number of interesting comments on the current situation. I should like to make one point very loud and very clear. Neither the Prime Minister, the British Government nor anyone else can be used as an excuse by anyone for what happened at Canary wharf last week or at the Aldwych last night. The only group responsible for the carnage, the deaths, the woundings and the terrible loss of property is the Provisional IRA. It is spurious to seek excuses in the way in which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister handled the negotiations, and no justification whatever.
The essence of democracy is that one has to deal with situations as one finds them. As the Secretary of Statewas keen to point out, he had the support of my Front-Bench colleagues for his policies--especially for decommissioning, which was one of the reasons why I parted company with my Front-Bench colleagues. I parted company with them because I thought that it was a foolish policy. I never thought that there would ever be any decommissioning. It was wrong to pursue it.
Equally, however, the Secretary of State, by a sleight of hand tonight, has tried to suggest that he accepted the Mitchell proposals. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and did not accept them. He foisted uponthe House elections that came from one of the confidence-building measures and went on to say that he accepted the six principles, but the main thrust of Mitchell's first and main recommendation was for talks to start and then for there to be progress on decommissioning.
The Prime Minister sought to pre-empt that recommendation and the report in precisely the same way that the Government sought to pre-empt the Scott report. Sadly, that is water under the bridge, but we cannot allow it to be said that the Government were pursuing a perfect set of negotiations, because they were not. Before the bomb, there had been a divergence of view between our Government and that of the Republic on the best way forward for the talks. It is important that that should be put on record.
Mr. Maginnis:
Even if it is untrue and inaccurate.
Mr. McNamara:
If I want untruths and inaccuracies, I shall always come to the hon. Gentleman, because he can put them forward far better than anyone else.
My point is that a lot of that is now water under the bridge and we have a serious and difficult situation. I do not believe that our Government should in any way negotiate with IRA-Sinn Fein at ministerial level while it is engaged in any sort of campaign of violence. However, there is great urgency for the two Governments to get together as soon as possible, to iron out their differences and work together. Real progress in Northern Ireland has been made only when the two sovereign Governments have been marching forward together, not when there has been divergence between them.
I do not wish to end on an antagonistic note, but I believe that another veto has been operating throughout the peace process--that of the Ulster Unionists. They were not prepared to accept the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they pick and choose the bits in the Downing Street declaration that they like--their position on that is typical--and they have not accepted the framework document. If we are to succeed in this endeavour, we must return to--
Mr. Maginnis:
We accepted the Mitchell report.
Madam Speaker:
Order. There are too many interventions from the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) from a sedentary position.
Mr. McNamara:
The problem with the hon. Gentleman is that his charm is exceeded only by his beauty. The same goes for the remarks that he makes from a sedentary position.
The position of the Ulster Unionist party has caused some problems. It, too, has exercised a veto over the discussions and it has used its position very skilfully to extract concession after concession from the Government. That is where I believe that the Secretary of State has gone wrong.
Mr. McNamara:
I shall list the concessions for the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara:
I shall either list the concessions or give way. I think that I shall list them and, if there is time, I shall then give way--although the Secretary of State may wish to reply to the debate.
A Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has been established. Its formation was denied by all parties in this place--both Government and Opposition--until the Maastricht vote, and then it came about. The Ulster Unionists have been offered a Northern Ireland Grand Committee and they have achieved progress on their integration policies, as more and more legislation that we pass in the House covers Northern Ireland, when in the past there were separate Orders in Council or separate legislation.
I believe that further concessions will be made to the Ulster Unionist party. For example, the Government gave way to its demands for elections--without consulting the Irish Government or other parties in this place--because they need the Unionist vote. The Secretary of State will receive the Opposition's support when he behaves correctly; that has been made very clear. However, the power of the Ulster Unionists comes into play on other issues, and that fact must be recognised. That takes me back to where I began.
Mr. Maginnis:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara:
No. The hon. Gentleman has had his say and he has nattered away during my speech. I shall now finish my nattering.
Mr. Maginnis:
I wish to comment on some of the fairly blatant inaccuracies that we have heard in the past few minutes. It is rather peculiar that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does not recognise that the Ulster Unionist party accepted the Downing Street declaration and that Sinn Fein did not. The Ulster Unionist party accepted the Mitchell commission report in total, as a package, without picking and choosing various elements from it. I had the privilege of being the first to speak live to the cameras after Senator George Mitchell delivered his report. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said, "I welcome, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, the Mitchell commission report. We
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |