| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): The Leader of the House will have heard the question put to the Deputy Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), about the incident today in southern Lebanon. May I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention early-day motion 731?
[That this House deplores the air strikes by Israel against civil Lebanese targets, including Beirut, and the collective threat forcing 400,000 Lebanese civilians to flee from their homes, and while in no manner giving any support to armed action by Hizbollah, notes the illegality of Israel's occupation of South Lebanon in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 425; welcomes initiatives to bring about a cessation of Israeli military action; and urges the United Kingdom Government to act in co-operation with France and other willing European countries to broker a ceasefire and to explore the widest range of options which could lead to a just and lasting settlement on the basis of UN resolutions.]
The motion draws attention to Israeli action in Lebanon and expresses the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House about what is happening and the approach of the Israelis to the problems in the Lebanon. If we do not have a debate, let us at the very least have a ministerial statement at the earliest opportunity, so that there is a chance for Members to speak directly and to question a Minister on policy on an important matter.
Mr. Newton:
I heard the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I heard also the reply of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, which I thought entirely appropriate and balanced. I do not think that I would wish to add to it.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside):
Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the observations of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)? It is particularly important that we have a debate so that people such as myself can draw attention to the fact that the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other organisations have made it clear at public meetings that I have attended that they think that we must find a United
Mr. Newton:
I simply say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what I thought to be sensible remarks.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
May we have a debate on the constitution, so that I can find a better answer to a question asked of me by a 10-year-old constituent of mine on television? He aspires to a certain job, but I had to tell him that he would never achieve his ambition because he is British. He could realise his ambition if he were American or a citizen of many other countries. Would it not be useful if we had a debate on the constitution, so that we could discover why the job of Head of State is confined to members of one undistinguished family?
Mr. Newton:
The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him down that path. I have no plans for such a debate.
Mr. Mike O'Brien (North Warwickshire):
May we have an urgent debate on the relationship between the Home Secretary and chief constables, following great concern caused to several Warwickshire Members about what appear to be allegations against the chief constable of the county by the Home Secretary during an interview last Friday, when he suggested that the view of the chief constable and the police authority, that there was a financial crisis in the Warwickshire constabulary, was a myth and that someone was making up figures?
Mr. Newton:
I have no direct account of my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks. I would not for a moment go along with the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman appears to be putting on them. It seems entirely appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend, in that or any other context, to remind people of the increased resources for the police that have been steadily made available by the Government.
Mr. Peter Hain (Neath):
Will there be an opportunity for a debate next week on the appalling level of racial violence in south Wales? According to Home Office figures, the number of reported racial incidents has increased by 29 per cent., which is more than three times the average across England and Wales in police authority regions and is extremely serious. What action do the Government intend to take on that?
Mr. Newton:
In a way, that links with the previous question. The Government have made clear their commitment to increasing the resources and to various changes in policy and legislation designed to strengthen what is shorthanded as law and order. That would very much include our wish to see a reduction, indeed a removal, of incidents of racial harassment. The hon. Gentleman may wish to bring his concerns further to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is here to answer questions on Monday week.
Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Speaker:
I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
3.55 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, and the election for which it provides, are a means to an end. Together, they open a gateway into all-party negotiations. It is the only gateway available. I will describe why the Bill is needed.
All-party negotiations, comprehensive in their agenda, inclusive in their composition and successful in their outcome, have for years been the Government's objective. I believe that they have also been the objective of the constitutional political parties of Northern Ireland.
The history and background are well known. To promote negotiations, I know that political risks have been taken by many of Northern Ireland's politicians, sustained by the fervent wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. I am glad to acknowledge that today, and with considerable admiration.
Yet always at the root of the problem has been lack of confidence: lack of confidence that proper negotiations on the way ahead were possible between all democratically mandated parties. That lack of confidence has been built on generations of corrosive mistrust in the intentions of one community towards another, and on 25 years of terrorist activity, fundamentally hostile to democracy and reconciliation.
By proper negotiations, I mean negotiations whose participants all conform to the language used by the two Governments in paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration made 28 months ago. That language spoke of parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods, and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process. Those, it is said, were the parties that were free to participate fully in democratic politics, and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.
In a democracy, nobody can be expected to sit down and negotiate politically with people who do not meet those requirements. As to that, there has never been any doubt as to the proper commitment of the two Governments, nor of the parties that represent the overwhelming majority of people on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
The House will recall the consistent efforts that have been made to bring such negotiations about. I will not rehearse them now. The Bill, however, offers a new way forward, to bring all parties together in negotiations on 10 June. It was an idea endorsed, as a confidence-building measure, by Mitchell. It was an idea for an elective process, which would give a mandate to participate in all-party negotiations, notwithstanding that prior decommissioning had not begun.
We concluded that that was, in the event, the only available route offering a viable, direct and speedy way into negotiations. So broad proposals were set out in the joint communique which followed a meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr. Bruton on 28 February. The Bill stems directly from that communique.
I now turn to the Bill and to the Command Paper published with it. The Bill is rightly entitled a Bill for "entry to negotiations". At its centre is a scheme for the elective process to which we committed ourselves in the communique of 28 February. Its motive is the creation of a mandate to sit down and negotiate with all parties, and to create thereby in all the parties the confidence to do so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |