| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ancram: I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 12 of the communique between the two Governments, which makes it clear that all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and
non-violence set out in the report of the international body. On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State read those six principles into the record again, to make it completely clear that those are the six principles to which total and absolute commitment by the participants would be required.
Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before Sinn Fein-IRA can participate in any discussions following the elections, they must sign up to every one of the Mitchell principles without qualification? Is that the position--yes or no?
Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend should look closely at the communique, which makes the position clear. I shall develop that point later as he has asked a proper question. The communique makes it clear that there must be total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles at the beginning of the process if those making that commitment are to continue to participate in the process. That point has been clear for a long time--certainly since 28 February--and it is reiterated in the Command Paper in order to make it clear beyond peradventure that it is not simply the statement of the two Governments, but is part of the ground rules that we hope will provide the basis for beginning the negotiations.
The Chairman: Order. Before the Minister goes any further, I remind him that we shall be dealing later with amendment No. 2, which appears to refer to some of the detail and covers some of the issues being addressed by hon. Members.
Mr. Ancram: I seek your guidance on that point, Mr. Morris. As the new schedule introduces all of the provisions, I am uncertain as to whether I am duty bound to respond to comments about them.
The Chairman: The Minister is quite right: the new schedule is far reaching. However, if a Member takes an intervention and realises that the points will be covered by subsequent amendments, he or she should decide whether to resist responding to that intervention.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for offering that gentle advice. I shall try not to cover areas to which we shall return when considering later amendments.
Mr. Marlow: In the interests of clarity--we do not need to read out the text again--will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is yes?
Mr. Ancram: Yes. I have said that the participants--the parties to the negotiations--will be required to make clear their total and absolute commitment. I do not think that I can say more than that: it is clear not only on my part, but on the part of the two Governments and in the Command Paper. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will recognise that the first change to the Command Paper would not necessarily help--in many ways it would be more restrictive than the existing provisions.
Mr. William Ross:
I seek the Minister's assistance with one or two matters about which I am not clear.
Mr. Ancram:
It means the parties to the negotiations--which is not just the political parties, but the two Governments.
Mr. Ross:
And the individuals?
Mr. Ancram:
The delegates to the negotiations attend on behalf of their parties.
In the light of your comments, Mr. Morris, I shall not detain the Committee unnecessarily. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne referred to two sets of changes, but I shall deal with them as one. They deal with the ways in which the process will move forward after the beginning to which I have referred. The communique and the ground rules make it clear that at that stage the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning and the other confidence-building measures must be addressed.
I do not think that it serves any great purpose to lay down hard and fast rules in this place before those consultations take place and different views are expressed. I think it is correct to proceed on the understanding that we must be clear about the matter before negotiations begin. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the strength of that argument--it was employed with effect by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in his speech last Thursday. My hon. Friend should recognise that his suggestions are perhaps not the best way to proceed.
I turn now to the point that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North--who has now left the Chamber--raised about the referendums, which are referred to at the end of the Command Paper. Paragraph 26 of that paper reaffirms the intention already made clear by each Government respectively--I emphasise the word "respectively". In October 1994, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that any outcome agreed by the parties would be submitted to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum for their approval before being put to Parliament. That makes it clear that there will be a referendum on the outcome of the talks held in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland to agree or disagree to the propositions being put forward before the matters may come before Parliament. That was the position set out by my right hon. Friend some time ago and it remains the position today.
Equally, it is common ground that a successful outcome would require, among other things, constitutional change in the Irish Republic. That, in itself, would require a referendum. Therefore, the two Governments have stated that the outcome of the negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums in the north and in the south which will come under the jurisdiction of each Government respectively.
Mr. Wilshire:
As to my right hon. Friend's point about a referendum in the south, I did not refer to that for the simple reason that I consider it impertinent to mention the internal affairs of a foreign country--and I wish that Dublin would have regard to that principle when it comes to Northern Ireland affairs. As well as restating that there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend put me out of my misery by confirming that, if the referendum does not produce a majority, the matter will not be brought before Parliament?
Mr. Ancram:
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the triple locks: the requirement for the agreement, first, of the parties; secondly, of the people of Northern Ireland by way of a referendum; and thirdly--and in that order--of Parliament. My hon. Friend is correct: if the people of Northern Ireland were to vote against the propositions, they would not be brought before Parliament.
Although my hon. Friend says that he does not wish to intervene in the affairs of another country, it is important that he should appreciate that the negotiations and the balance of the package might require changes to the Irish constitution, which in turn would require a referendum in the south. It is therefore not possible to look at these matters in isolation, even though we might like to.
Mr. Robert McCartney:
I am sure that the Minister appreciates that words are very important when it comes to the confidence-building measures. Reference was made earlier to referendums in "both parts of Ireland--North and South", or words to that effect, rather than in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. The Minister must appreciate that the terms of the Downing street declaration gave great offence to an overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland as that document never once referred to the British citizens of Northern Ireland. That confidence-building measure appears to be absent from the terms of this document also.
Mr. Ancram:
The word "respectively" is there for a good purpose, but I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman from the Dispatch Box that a referendum will be held in Northern Ireland, which will require the assent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, if any proposition is to proceed to Parliament as a result of the negotiations.
Mr. Marlow:
I am sorry, but I had to nip out for a second. I do not think that my right hon. Friend answered the point that I made. Would it not have been more straightforward, traditional, and clearer and easier for his colleagues on this side of the House if instead of reading "Ireland--North and South" the document had read "Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic". Why did it not say that?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |