| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robert McCartney: I entirely endorse the lofty sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses about the future for peace, but is he aware that, if the Government and the Opposition push ramstam and wholly ignore the views of the representatives of a significant number of people--I am perhaps talking about "a" majority, not "the" majority of the people in Northern Ireland--the lofty objectives--
The Chairman: Order. I made it clear at the beginning that hon. Members must stick to the amendments.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) wishes to carry the people of Northern Ireland with him, but saying that the forum is an adjunct to the negotiating body is like telling the people of Northern Ireland that they can elect a Parliament but that that Parliament does not matter--only the Government matter.
Mr. Dowd: I was somewhat depressed by the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he said that he might consider abandoning the procedures here today if he felt that he was not making sufficient progress. That would be a loss to our deliberations, although I suspect that it is not entirely unprecedented that he should consider such a course.
We are not debating a Parliament. We have to make it perfectly clear that we are not electing a Parliament. The Bill is about parties; it is about trying to bring together parties and the individuals who comprise them to describe a way ahead. The parallels with a Parliament or a wholly representative assembly, whether at the local or national level, are not accurate. This is very much a mechanism, or a means to an end.
Clearly we need to have due regard to democratic principles and practices. In response to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney),
the Committee of course has to have due regard to the opinions and voices not only of Northern Ireland but of the communities that make up the United Kingdom. However, nobody has the right to demand that that take precedence over the judgment of every Member of this House. Every hon. Member has a duty to try to give due weight to what is said by others on behalf of their constituents; but, ultimately, the right to decide rests with every individual, according to the evidence and his best judgment.
As I said, we realise that there are many obstacles, and many things that need to happen. It only needs one or two of those things not to happen for the whole process to come juddering to a halt. However, we set out on this course, if not with optimism, with hope. We sincerely hope that all those taking part in the deliberations--in the forum, in the negotiations and in the plethora of other unofficial organisations that are the inevitable spin-offs of such processes--will genuinely set out to make that process work on behalf of the people not only of Northern Ireland but of a much wider constituency.
Mr. William Ross:
I have listened to the two Front-Bench speeches with increasing depression. We were told that the Opposition Front-Bench team supported the Government's judgment. In heaven's name, I have been in this place for 22 years, and I can think of very few occasions on which I have heard the Labour Front-Bench team support the judgment of the Conservative Front-Bench team. So what has changed? What wonderful act have the Government made on this occasion so that Labour--
Mr. Ross:
New Labour has got to the point where it is swiping not only the Conservatives' social and economic clothing, but every other thing it can to make certain that, whenever the election comes, it is so much like the Conservative party that it will not be possible to distinguish between them.
Mr. Dowd:
The hon. Gentleman asked what is different on this occasion. On this occasion, the Government have come forward with a credible explanation for their position, which has been lacking in so much of the rest of their policies.
Mr. Ross:
In those remarks, the hon. Gentleman threw away the principal job of the Opposition: to probe, criticise and expose to the light of day exactly what the Government are trying to do. The Opposition Front-Bench team is very far wrong in its judgment, because it is following the Government's judgment of the matter, which is, of course, so far away from reality that it does not bear thinking about.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman said that there were principles in the amendments and the Bill. The principles in the amendments are founded on normal democratic practice, and the principles in the Bill run directly counter to normal democratic practice. No one can deny that.
The Secretary of State said that they had to guard against elevating the forum. In other words, he was saying that we must elect a body in Northern Ireland and then
bypass it as far as possible. He said that there would be much valuable work for the forum to do, but he has not yet specified it. I hope that, before these debates are finished, he will be able to specify it. I have tabled a number of very sensible amendments, some of which I hope will appear on the selection list tomorrow, so that we may explore matters in the depth they deserve, because there is much that the people of Northern Ireland would like to know.
The Secretary of State also talked about the Government delegation. Surely he meant the two Government delegations. He carefully avoided mentioning the second one. He went further and talked about the forum as a "gateway." It is, of course, a gateway to which all the nationalist parties object. Why anyone in their right senses would want to object to a forum that is democratically elected, heaven only knows--unless they have something to fear or hide.
The nationalist parties, and even the most violent republican parties, just wanted negotiations. They have already managed to get a non-conditional date of 10 June. The timetable, the whole process, is therefore tied to that date. The date was apparently extracted from the Government--whether willingly or otherwise, we have not yet been told--by Mr. Bruton, or so he says in the newspaper articles that I have read. Since we on this Bench happen to believe that this Mr. Bruton is acting as a spokesman for the IRA--
The Chairman:
Order. I have some difficulty relating a newspaper article to the very specific amendment that the hon. Gentleman moved with great lucidity. He seems to have drifted away from it a little. Could we return to the amendment?
Mr. Ross:
With the greatest respect, Mr. Morris, both Governments are involved. I was referring to the specific date of 10 June, which is written into all the proposed legislation. Although I bow to your judgment, it seems that, if I was out of order, it was by such a teeny-weeny bit that it could have easily been passed by. I regret the fact that you judge that my comments are far from the matters under discussion. No doubt, however, it will be possible to return to those points.
The Secretary of State also complained about the suggestion of using the word "shall" in place of the word "may." However, if he looks at the end of line 13, he will see that the Bill uses the word "shall". I wonder why the Secretary of State should use the word in one place and object so strenuously to it in another. The word "shall" places responsibility on him. Surely he should make it his business to accept our reasonable amendments.
The Secretary of State said that he was trying to strike a balance. In striking that balance, he has produced legislation that is so woolly that it can mean all things to all men. Given the long record of Government publications that could mean all things to all men, he cannot be surprised if people treat his words and the legislation with the most extreme suspicion.
The Government have been in office for a long time. The Unionist population have not seen anything done by the Government over the years which has helped the Unionist position. They have every reason to view the Government's words and legislation with great suspicion, not least because of the article, which I am sure the Secretary of State has had drawn to his attention, that was published in The Observer yesterday.
I also refer the Secretary of State back to November 1993, when he made certain denials in the House. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) found himself thrown out for accusations he made. Will the Secretary of State now stand by his statements on that occasion?
Sir Patrick Mayhew
indicated assent.
Mr. Ross:
I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman nodding. No doubt he will now rise to his feet. However, he will have the greatest difficulty in convincing anyone in Northern Ireland of the accuracy of any statement he may care to make on that subject, today or in future. Over the years, he and the Government have put themselves in a position whereby every single word and act of theirs is treated with the gravest suspicion. That suspicion, in the eyes of the people of Northern Ireland, has a solid foundation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |