---

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has used rather peculiar language: he said that Northern Ireland fits into other relationships within these islands. Will he and the Front Bench get it through their heads once and for all that the Unionist parties are interested only in Northern Ireland's place in this kingdom?

Mr. Ancram: One of the relationships that has been referred to at times when we have spoken about these

22 Apr 1996 : Column 45

negotiations is the relationship that would exist between institutions in Northern Ireland and institutions in this Parliament. That is an example of relationships within these islands. It has been accepted for a long time that if we are to find a comprehensive answer, the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland--and, indeed, the relationships between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom--are also relevant. A number of relationships have to be taken into account.

I was making the point that if the negotiations are to succeed they must be based on consensus and agreement. If that is to be achieved, the greatest degree of flexibility to allow that to occur is necessary.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Minister appreciates, as do all hon. Members, that there are certain of these proposed ground rules--such as the renunciation of violence and the acceptance of the democratic principle--to which there must be an absolute commitment in order to participate. Does the Minister agree that it would not be necessary for every participant in the negotiations to agree to every ground rule in order to enter into negotiations and to participate?

Mr. Ancram: I believe we mentioned that on Second Reading. According to the ground rules, the participants must agree among themselves before the negotiating process begins what agreement will mean in the negotiating process. It is important that, before negotiations take place, we are able to agree on the way in which consensus--or sufficient consensus, as the Command Paper suggests--can be ascertained. Again I quote paragraph 7:

"The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations."

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at one stage described the negotiators as masters of their own procedures; I believe that that is correct, and that is the way in which progress can be made with such negotiations.

I will discuss some specific points in a moment, but first I shall say that this process, by its nature, is unsuitable for tight statutory definitions and procedures. All those likely to be involved in it would agree that there must be flexibility.

Mr. McCartney indicated assent.

Mr. Ancram: I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down nodding again.

5 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): My right hon. Friend spoke about referendums. A lot of my colleagues and hon. Friends have been stunned by the reference in one of the documents to holding referendums in "Ireland--North and South". My understanding is that there is the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom is one entity and the Republic of Ireland is another entity. If one is talking about "Ireland--North and South", the implication is that Ireland is about to become that entity. My right hon. Friend will understand that that is very disconcerting for a large number of colleagues in the House. Will he explain?

Mr. Ancram: If I may, I will explain later, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne raised this as a

22 Apr 1996 : Column 46

specific point and I wish to discuss his points in the sequence in which he raised them. I can say at this stage that if the interpretation by hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) were correct it would indeed be stunning, and I hope to satisfy him that it is not correct.

I am saying, in essence, that I believe that amendments Nos. 136 and 137 would constrain the process of negotiation. The negotiations must proceed at a pace and in a manner that the negotiators are happy with. We have set out our best judgment in the Command Paper, but if the negotiators themselves, by agreement and consensus, find it better to proceed differently, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.

I therefore urge the Committee not to make what will already be a difficult enough task more difficult by accepting the amendments, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will understand the value of the remarks that I have made in this context and will be prepared to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne firmly drew our attention to areas of the ground rules that he wished to amend. I hope to answer his points. The first related to his new paragraph 8, which would provide that participation in negotiations by any party would require

"the unequivocal and permanent renunciation of violence."

That would move away from the need for the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of 1994. In replacing paragraph 9 of the ground rules with what appears to be the rather simpler approach of paragraph 8 of the new schedule, there is a risk that some key elements have--unintentionally, I am sure--been abandoned. I cite, for example, the lack of a clear link to events on the ground.

We know from experience--I believe that it was mentioned on Second Reading--that Sinn Fein as a party is adept at claiming to be committed exclusively to peaceful means. For reasons that we well know, it is vital, in our view, and in the view of the Irish Government, that Sinn Fein's participation in negotiations be accompanied by an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. On further commitment to peaceful means, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne by saying that the fact that at the start of the negotiating process all participants will have to commit themselves totally and absolutely to the six Mitchell principles will more than cover the areas that he mentioned.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that Sinn Fein constantly attempts, when it suits it, to put clear blue water between itself and the IRA. The Government have always taken the view that the two are inextricably linked. Given the comments that he has just made, do the Government adhere to the view that they are so inextricably linked as to be one and the same organisation?

Mr. Ancram: That question has been asked several times. I believe that it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said that members of one are members of the other. The key is to consider what members of Sinn Fein, if they were to be invited to the negotiations, would have to commit themselves totally and absolutely to. I shall not go through all six principles because they are available to hon. Members, but I remind them that members of Sinn Fein would have to commit themselves to

22 Apr 1996 : Column 47

"democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues".

Another of the principles is:

"To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the outcome of all-party negotiations".

I believe that the fears that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is expressing are covered in those principles, enunciated by Senator Mitchell in his report of 24 January.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what Gerry Adams said a few hours ago--that he would present himself, with his delegates, at the negotiating table on 10 June, that he would not tolerate any conditions whatsoever, and that he would have a mandate. He said that he would also demand that the negotiations should deal with the republican consensus--that would be its business--and with getting British rule out of Ireland.

If those are the remarks that Mr. Adams made--they were widely reported everywhere--how, in the name of goodness, will the Secretary of State decide on 10 June if some other statement is made by the same gentleman, if one can call him a gentleman, that things are different and that those people have forsworn their violent ways and violent manners?

Mr. Ancram: I do not want to pre-empt discussions later in the debate on the clauses about the qualifications on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State inviting parties to participate in or send negotiators to the negotiations. I would say, however, that the two Governments have said--it is part of the Command Paper and part of the communique--that Sinn Fein could not be involved in a resumption of ministerial dialogue, or participate in negotiations, without an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. So the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) refers may talk about coming to the negotiations, but both Governments have made it clear that being invited to participate in the negotiations requires a total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles and, as we shall see later, that must be reiterated at the opening of negotiations. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the Command Paper rather than necessarily listening to some of the rhetoric that may be being spouted on the radio and elsewhere outside the House.

Mr. Wilshire: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to a point that he has made again in reply to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Did I hear him correctly when he said that everyone who takes part in the negotiations will have to sign up to every last one of the Mitchell principles, without exception or qualification? If that is so, can he confirm that each and every person taking part will have to do that before anything else happens?

---