| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. McNamara: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is in a position to answer the question about the contradiction between paragraph 24 of Cmnd. 3232 and the provisions in schedule 2 to the Bill. Under paragraph 24, as the Minister said earlier in answer to questions, a clear majority is needed in both communities; but schedule 2 contains provisions for a weighted majority.
Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that I made it clear--it may have been missed in the general discussion earlier--that we are concerned that the forum should function as a deliberative
body. I talked about how it would gather evidence and I explained in some detail how the mechanisms by which the forum could reach conclusions could be achieved. I hoped that I was making it self-evidently clear that I did not think that a voting mechanism was the way to achieve that. I stated that I thought that there might be a case for that in respect of rules and procedure, but as my hon. Friend suggested, paragraph 24 of the ground rules is in the spirit of what I would like to be the mechanism within the forum for discussion between parties. I hope that that answers his question. I made it clear that we would amend the Bill on that point because it is causing us great concern.
Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sorry to pursue the point, but the Command Paper states:
- "in all cases . . . any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland."
Rules and procedure will determine the agenda. Are we going to support an amendment which embodies the principle contained in the White Paper for those rules and procedures?
Ms Mowlam:
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I agree with his point. I do not think that we disagree on this. I said that we need to amend schedule 2 in the spirit of the ground rules document as he quoted it. I hope that in the days ahead we shall be able to consider that.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke):
It would be reasonable to argue that the appearance of this Bill should be regarded as a significant landmark in the process that started with the Downing street declaration, not least because the objective for more than three years has been the establishment of all-party negotiations with the opportunity that that provides for an agreement. One might therefore have expected the launch of the Bill to be accompanied by at least some rejoicing and a sense of achievement. I must confess, however, that that does not appear to have happened. Notwithstanding the tacit support of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), I do not detect much, if any, enthusiasm for the Bill; nor do I detect much enthusiasm among some of those who are likely to take part in the negotiations to start their business.
It is perhaps not difficult to see why. Last night confirmed, on the assumption that it was indeed an IRA bomb, that the Provisionals are very far removed from being committed to exclusively peaceful methods and demonstrated that those who argued that the ceasefire was
a de facto ceasefire were wrong. Optimism about the final agreement is in short supply perhaps because areas of disagreement clearly outweigh areas of common ground. Nevertheless, it is right that the process should go on--and right that it should go on without Sinn Fein.
As for the Bill and the elective process forum for discussion that it establishes, I will be brief. During the debate on the merits of the various electoral systems, I argued for an 18-constituency single transferable vote election. That debate is over. It is widely acknowledged that the elective process that the Bill offers is not ideal, but, as we know, none of the favoured options was likely to have commanded widespread support and the Government therefore had no choice but to come forward with an alternative that could lead to meaningful multi-party talks. No one may much like the elective process proposed in the Bill, but it is equally hard to understand how anyone could so dislike it that they would totally reject it, not least because it is the only way on offer that can lead to the desirable objective of extensive negotiations.
The elective process in the Bill can be likened to that freak of nature and extraordinary creature, the duck-billed platypus. Like the platypus, it is a peculiar mixture. Its pedigree is complex, its existence a challenge, it has a strange appearance and some peculiar features. Nevertheless, like the platypus, I expect that it will prove extremely functional.
I believe that we can be satisfied that the Bill will effectively achieve its purpose. I have questions, but I am generally satisfied with the provisions for elections, with the prescription for drawing participants for the negotiations from the elected delegates and with the power given to the Secretary of State to hold a referendum.
I welcome the changes in the ground rules that have emerged since the consultation paper of 15 March. Paragraph 4 of that paper corresponds to paragraph 4 of the final draft. I was glad to note that the controversial reference to a
which would develop and extend the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been omitted. Those words pre-empted debate, anticipated a conclusion and were therefore out of place.
Mr. Peter Robinson:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the replacement of those words by a eulogy to the framework document is unacceptable, as the framework documents are not acceptable to the community in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Hunter:
I find it acceptable because it was made clear at the launch of the framework documents and thereafter that they were not inclusive but a suggestion open to debate. Both Governments made it clear that alternative proposals were acceptable. I do not find the reference to the framework document objectionable.
Paragraph 7 of the final draft is also new. It clearly divides the negotiations from the forum. I appreciate that for some participants in the process that is an important point and I have no objection to it being made clear in the ground rules. I am not yet persuaded that those who regard the divide between forum and negotiations as less important can validly object to the divide being made in that way.
Paragraph 16 of the ground rules also appears for the first time in the revised draft. It demands:
I understand that the Irish Government were anxious that the ground rules should contain that demand and it is surely right and reasonable that it should be included. Above all, it makes nonsense of Sinn Fein's propaganda claim that the Government are not committed to the negotiations.
Greater participation by the political parties in each strand is the common theme to the additions to paragraphs 19, 20 and 21: in strand 1, through being consulted about liaison arrangements; in strand 2, through involvement in drawing up the procedural rules; in strand 3, through consultation, briefing and being able to put forward their views. I regard those alterations as healthy and acceptable. One cannot, however, ignore the related paragraphs 9, 13 and 14, and I share much of the concern that has been expressed by other hon. Members.
I continue to believe that paragraph 9, which deals with the participation of Sinn Fein, could cause difficulties. I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend's comments, which were very reassuring. I hope that we will receive yet further reassurances during the winding-up speech. The day after a bomb has exploded in London, it may seem an academic exercise to express concern about the conditions under which Sinn Fein might be readmitted to negotiations, but there remains the possibility, however remote, that another ceasefire may be declared before 10 June.
We are aware that the ground rules impose as a condition to that readmittance the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of 31 August. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) that that ceasefire was wholly deficient. It was neither complete nor permanent. We have had rehearsed to us many times the fact that during those months the IRA's structures remained in place and that it recruited, trained, targeted and raised money. It also researched and developed home-made weapons and its members threatened, intimidated, tortured and murdered. At face value, it appears that the ground rules suggest that those are the conditions to which the IRA must return, and which are therefore acceptable. That cannot be the case.
Another difficulty is that one can imagine that some participants in the process may be more willing than others to accept the genuineness of a second ceasefire. Then, the problem is who arbitrates in that dispute. That is why I think it is unfortunate that there is not less ambiguity and greater clarity in paragraphs 13 and 14. Yes, the Secretary of State reminded us of the confidence-building measures mentioned in the communique of 28 February, and again quoted in the ground rules, but again we come back to the ambiguity of the words "to address" and precisely what that means, as well as the ambiguity in the meaning of the words "in accordance". That uncertainty is disturbing.
If I understood the hon. Member for Redcar correctly, I find it hard to expect at least 10 political parties to come to an agreement on an issue on which two Governments have failed to find agreement.
"new and more broadly based agreement"
"All participants in the negotiations will take part in good faith, seriously address all aspects of the agreed agenda, and make every effort to reach agreement."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |