| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford): In the lengthy run-up to this debate, there has been much rancour and criticism from all sides in Northern Ireland about the issue of a proposed forum and all-party negotiations. However, noticeable features of the debate have been the measured contributions from hon. Members on all sides, the thought that went into the speeches, and, at times, the good humour. This has been a good launching pad for the electoral process that the people of Ulster are about to enjoy. People in Northern Ireland will at last have the chance to speak, to express their views on Northern Ireland soil.
I join those colleagues who have mentioned the brief illness of my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Although he knows that, for obvious reasons, I do not vote for him, he is my Member of Parliament, and on a personal level we have a very good relationship. I wish him a speedy recovery and a quick return to the House. I am disappointed that he is not here for the debate, because, for the past few months, he has been giving good leadership to the nationalist people of Northern Ireland as we try to bring all communities into the political process.
This is an interesting and historical moment for the people of Northern Ireland. We have had 25 years of terrible events and tragedies, from which few families in Northern Ireland have escaped. We want an opportunity to put that in the past and to build a new future, in which everyone in Northern Ireland can enjoy a free, democratic society and the benefits that flow from that.
We in the Ulster Unionist party welcome a Bill that provides for elections in Northern Ireland. We stand firmly behind the principle of consent for the people of Northern Ireland. That principle should be underlined time and again in the debate, because if it is not accepted, the process will fail.
We were disappointed to note that, in the nominated forum in the Republic of Ireland, among the nationalist people of Ireland the principle of consent could not be accepted by all the participating parties. That is a bad omen for what is about to take place in Northern Ireland, and I hope that, when we have our forum, which will have been created by the people of Northern Ireland themselves, we shall have greater success in establishing the principle of consent and of having it accepted by all the participating parties.
In addition to the principle of consent, there is the principle of decommissioning. I was glad to hear the speeches by hon. Members in all parts of the House, but I was disappointed to note that only three Conservative Back Benchers have attended this historic debate on the future of part of the United Kingdom. Only one Conservative member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee was present. That reflects badly on the interests of the Conservative party; and the presence and participation of Labour Members was little better.
However, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the way in which he has placed Northern Ireland at the top of his agenda in 10 Downing street. He is the first Prime Minister for many years who has given priority to the difficult issue of politics in Northern Ireland, to the issue of relations within the island of Ireland, and to the totality of the relationship within the British Isles. We should also pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for his bipartisan support for the efforts of the Prime Minister,
to try to steer us in Northern Ireland into a situation where we can build the foundations upon which there will be lasting peace and reconciliation within our community.
While I am expressing my appreciation of the leaders of both the Conservative and Labour parties, it would be remiss of an Ulster Unionist to ignore the role of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and, in particular, the present Prime Minister, Mr. Bruton. Although I disagree with his Government's point of view, Mr. Bruton's approach has been measured and reasonable--at times. At other times, we have had to criticise him severely, but it is only fair to place on record the fact that he has been endeavouring to help to create the conditions in which nationalists and Unionists within Northern Ireland can have a better future.
I referred to the tragic years of the troubles, and we later had the ceasefire of 1994. There were those--including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)--who, on a weekly basis, stated that the ceasefire would collapse next weekend, or at Christmas, or at Easter, or new year or any other date they could think of. Nevertheless, the people of Northern Ireland enjoyed peace for almost 18 months.
If the people of Northern Ireland had been given the chance to speak last September--as they now will be--when the idea for elections was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), it is likely that the ceasefire would not have collapsed. But people stalled on the electoral process, and the main opposition came from the Dublin Government and the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). They are partly responsible for contributing to a situation in which--regrettably--the ceasefire in the United Kingdom collapsed.
We must not recriminate about the past, and we welcome the Bill that is now before us. We also have Cmnd. 3232. I want to ask the Secretary of State--or the Minister in his reply--to explain and clarify some queries that I and my colleagues have. Paragraph 1 of Cmnd. 3232 deals with the basis for negotiations, and refers to
That is an important phrase. Paragraph 5, which deals with the structure of negotiations and refers to strands 1, 2 and 3, does not say that strand 3 covers the relationship between the peoples of the islands--rather, it restricts strand 3 to being simply relationships between the two Governments.
There is a big difference between the totality of relationships between the peoples of these islands and the narrower issue of the relationship between the British and Irish Governments. I would like some clarification from the Minister that, in the negotiations that will probably take place from 10 June onwards, we will be able to discuss the totality of the relationships between the peoples of these islands, and not simply how the two Governments will co-operate.
Paragraph 3 says:
I thought that we had been told by the Secretary of State and by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland that the Republic would have no role whatsoever in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and would therefore
not be participating or involved in the strand 1 talks. What does paragraph 3 mean? It seems to imply that the Dublin Government will have a role--including on constitutional issues--in strand 1. We must have further clarification on that issue, so that my doubts can be pushed to the side.
We in the UUP welcome paragraph 4, which emphasises that both the United Kingdom and southern Irish Governments
We certainly want to see a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which today--11 years after its imposition on the people of Northern Ireland--is resented as strongly as it has ever been.
Paragraph 18 deals with the format, and states:
It adds that negotiating sessions in different strands will not be held simultaneously.
Does that mean that, on the first day, all three strands will meet one after the other or at the same time? One set of negotiators for a party can hardly attend three sets of negotiations at the same time. On the first day, will we have a strand 1 meeting from 9 am to coffee time, a strand 2 meeting from coffee time to lunchtime and a strand 3 meeting from lunchtime to afternoon tea time?
Mr. Trimble:
And the rest of the day off.
Mr. Taylor:
Yes. The first day seems slightly confusing, and we need to have greater clarification.
Paragraph 20 refers to negotiations on strand 2, and states:
The participants will agree the rules, but who will agree on the independent chairperson? Who will recommend that chairperson? How will he be appointed? Are the Government in a position to suggest a name tonight? We have seen names being suggested in Dublin.
I hope that this matter will be left to the people of Northern Ireland through their elected representatives and negotiators to agree among themselves. But the Minister has a responsibility tonight to define more clearly how that person will be appointed. [Interruption.] It could not be Mr. Dick Spring. I just heard hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench recommending him. I have already defined the standing of that honourable gentleman in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that I should expand on that. I could not consider him to be independent.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South):
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Having read the Bill carefully, I am worried that it does not say how the chairman should be appointed. It should be for the forum to appoint the chairman in a general meeting. The Government might take that on board, because those who participate and negotiate should appoint
"relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands".
"Any participant in the strand in question will be free to raise any aspect of the three relationships, including constitutional issues".
"as signatories of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, reaffirm that they would be prepared to consider a new and more broadly based agreement".
"Negotiations will address all three interlocking sets of relationships as a totality. Negotiations in each of the three interlocking strands will open on the same day and proceed in parallel."
"formal meetings will be chaired by an independent Chairperson operating procedural rules, agreed by the participants."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |