| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: it was the SDLP that boycotted it. We were present.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman's party was out of the assembly twice. It went in and out like a yo-yo. The Ulster Unionists came to the assembly only because a Westminster election had been called. They knew that if they boycotted the assembly, they would not do well in the election.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the assembly's remits was to prepare a report on how Northern Ireland should be governed. Because others were not prepared to do that work, we abstained until they became sensible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not adjudicating on any of this.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not propose to go into why they did not attend the assembly, but it had nothing to do with what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Read the record.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have read the record.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the Bill.
Rev. Ian Paisley: You took the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it was not made by me.
If the basis of the negotiations is not right, the outcome will not be right. I plead with the House to let the people of Northern Ireland speak. Make the changes that need to be made in the Bill. I hope that the Government will not ramstam the Bill on a guillotine to get it through the House, but that there will be adequate time to discuss it. I emphasise that, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, also made that point. We are not here to wreck the Bill. We want an election and it was my party that originally proposed one. But it must be on a basis that will lay a foundation not of sand but of rock, so that a solid outcome will result for all the people of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about the method of the election. I was told by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that if the parties could reach broad agreement about the method of the election, the Government would accept it. I thought that the Government wanted us to do that, so I went to my party's opposite, the SDLP. We had big differences, but we sat down and found that we could bridge the gap by having a list system. We went to all the smaller parties and they also agreed to that, but the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance party said no. We did our best to get broad agreement.
Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West):
The legislation is totally unnecessary because it purports to pave the way for all-party negotiations. But such negotiations could and should have started a long time ago, and could have been based on earlier electoral mandates. I am not opposed in principle to elections in Northern Ireland or anywhere else--no democratic politician could oppose elections--but in this instance the Government are putting the cart before the horse by saying that elections should be the passport to all-party negotiations. Elections should be the outcome of all-party negotiations and should be based on a new constitutional framework that has been agreed at all-party negotiations.
The idea for elections did not come from the Mitchell commission. It was an Ulster Unionist idea, and it is therefore understandable that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland fears a resurrection of Stormont and a return to majority rule. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) insisted that he never wanted the forum to have legislative or executive powers. He said that he wanted it to be simply a forum for all the people of Ulster. I am not sure about that, because I see no provision in the Bill for the inclusion of representatives from the people of Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal.
Clause 3(3) states:
That is fair enough, but perhaps the Minister can explain subsection (4):
I hope that, when the Minister replies or in Committee, we shall get a satisfactory explanation of that point. If the forum and the negotiating body are to be separate, we are entitled to a clear commitment that there will be no statutory link between the forum and the negotiations.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram):
Paragraph 7 of the ground rules papers permits that any reference or interaction with the forum
At the agreement of the negotiators, a reference can be made to the forum. It would be very wrong if there was a provision in the Bill that prevented the forum from considering that which had been referred to it by agreement following the negotiations under the ground rules.
Mr. Canavan:
I understand the Minister's point, but there is a fear that in-built Unionist majorities in the negotiating body and in the forum could be almost tantamount to a Unionist veto if the negotiating body decided under the ground rules to refer something to the forum. We may return to that matter in Committee, but I am not satisfied at this stage with the Minister's response.
Mr. Robert McCartney:
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has not heard at any time from any pro-Union Member of Parliament in the run-up to this debate any suggestion that there should be a return to a Stormont form of majoritarianism, or any suggestion at any time that any such elected body should have any administrative or legislative powers? If that is the case, is there any foundation for any fear that there will be a return to a Stormont form of administration?
Mr. Canavan:
The hon. and learned Gentleman should read in detail the Hansard report of the speech made by the hon. Member for North Antrim, whose position seemed to be that, as there is a Unionist majority, that majority should prevail. That is not my perception of democracy. It is a case not simply of the majority prevailing, but of the majority respecting the rights of minorities within the community. That is the only basis on which any democratic settlement can be reached in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley:
I would like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the negotiating bodies will not have a Unionist majority, because all parties will go into the negotiations with the same number of people. Unionists will be overwhelmingly in the minority at the negotiating table. That must be said clearly. We are entering into negotiations where the Unionists are in a permanent minority, and they should not be in that position.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if the Labour party has a majority in this House, it should govern the country. Surely the majority in a democracy must have a special place, although that does not mean that the minority do not have rights.
Mr. Canavan:
The hon. Gentleman may be anticipating the results of the elections, which brings me to my next point--the method of the elections. The hon. Gentleman and I might reach at least a partial agreement on this matter.
The Government claim that they consulted all parties, and concluded that they could not please everybody. They have now produced this hotch-potch scheme, and have ended up apparently pleasing nobody. This is probably the first time in UK history that such an electoral system has been tried--it is probably the first time in world history.
The Government are laying themselves open to accusations that they have shifted the goalposts, and not just with regard to the system of elections. For example, they are deciding what is a party, and putting down in statute what constitutes a party. I take the view that any party--however large or small--should be able to contest the elections, but the Government are saying what a party is in the schedule. In addition, the Government are giving the Secretary of State the power to decide who is the leader of that party. I can imagine the derision that would result if the Prime Minister were to be given powers to decide who the Leader of the Opposition was to be.
Mr. Ancram:
He might choose the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Canavan:
Yes, it might be me.
"the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, or any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned in section 1."
"But if, in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum, subsection (3) shall not be taken to prevent the forum from considering that matter."
"to be convened following the elective process held to determine which parties will participate in the negotiations may take place solely by agreement among the negotiating teams to this effect and only at their formal instigation".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |