---

9.15 pm

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has pointed out that, under the amendments we are discussing, it would presumably be possible for the forum to discuss almost anything. But schedule 2 says:

"the forum shall not meet at any time notified by the Secretary of State to the chairman as being a time when, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet because negotiations within section 2 may take place."

I fear that that brake could be used by the Secretary of State to gag the forum.

Mr. Trimble: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, to which I should respond by making two points. First, amendments have been tabled which would clarify the matter, which we shall discuss when we reach that schedule. A second and more general point--it may be more relevant in practice--is that, as the Minister said earlier this evening, the conduct of the negotiations will be for the parties themselves.

If the Secretary of State was minded to use that provision in a manner that would be unduly restrictive of the forum's operation, there is a very simple remedy in the parties' hands. I imagine that a sufficient number of people will be engaged in the talks who are committed to the forum's success to ensure that meetings will not be held in a manner that would frustrate the forum's operation. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that this is a matter in which the remedy is in our hands, and we can exercise it should the need arise.

It will be possible for the forum to discuss matters and for those discussions to conclude in whatever manner the forum decides, subject to whatever rules of procedure the forum may adopt. That reference to rules and procedure of course carries with it built-in safeguards, which are spelt out in greater detail in schedule 2. If the debates and discussions in the forum result in any form of conclusion, it will be entirely open to the parties engaged in the negotiations to refer to those matters.

This process and this legislation, in trying to separate negotiations from the forum, are flying a little against the reality that the same people from the same parties will be present in the forum and in the negotiations, and that some interaction will be inevitable.

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 28 and 29. Amendment No. 29 proposes to delete the second half of clause 3(3). I do not think that the second half of clause 3(3) says anything at all. The beginning of clause 3(3) states:

"the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions".

22 Apr 1996 : Column 103

If it does not have any executive or administrative functions, it obviously does not have the power to determine anything in relation to the negotiations or to anything else.

The words in the second half of clause 3(3) are redundant and do not say or do anything because the forum does not have an executive or administrative function. The forum does not have power, and those words are unnecessary to the meaning. I understand that those words have been put into the Bill to meet the paranoia shown by certain parties about the forum, but one must make the point that the words are devoid of content.

Dr. Joe Hendron (Belfast, West): Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question for me? In Northern Ireland we are divided by history. I can understand the amendments that have been moved today to strengthen the concept of a forum. I agree with some of the points that have been made, but others do not agree. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, within the broad nationalist community in the north of Ireland--I am not talking about paramilitary people--there is apprehension about the forum, and that it would be even greater if some of the amendments were carried? The apprehension relates to the fear of the old Stormont coming back at some stage in the future.

Mr. Trimble: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. He will have noted that, in referring to clause 3(3), I quoted with approval the statement that the forum would not have any legislative, administrative or executive functions. No effort is being made in this debate to amend that part of subsection (3) or to give the forum a function or power to determine. I understand the concern, and I understand that the additional words to which I have referred have been included as a result of that concern. I merely point out that the additional words in subsection (3) add nothing to what is already in the first half of subsection (3). That should give the hon. Gentleman adequate assurance.

Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete some words from clause 3(4). The reason why it has been tabled--I should be grateful for the Minister's response on this point--is that I find the reference to the rules of procedure to be adopted by parties to the negotiations somewhat curious in view of the detailed set of ground rules that have been formulated. I wonder what else there is, and what is meant by the reference to the rules of procedure. I should be grateful if the Minister would elucidate that.

Mr. McNamara: Listening to the speeches of the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rekindled my fears about the purpose that the forum might pursue if the amendments were accepted. I cannot help feeling that it is a little naive of the hon. Member for Upper Bann to believe that, merely because the forum will not have any legislative, administrative or executive functions, the rest of the clause is redundant.

Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Antrim have said that the forum will make recommendations, come to conclusions and suggest things

22 Apr 1996 : Column 104

that should or should not happen. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that the forum could discuss almost anything under the heading of promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland. It is a broad definition. The lines he sought to draw between what might be discussed in the negotiations and what might be discussed in the forum were very blurred--indeed, positively overlapping. Therefore, I should like to have some clarity from the Minister.

The Minister will recall that matters relating to the negotiations may be referred to the forum under clause 3(4) if the parties to the negotiations are agreeable. The only reference we have to the rules of the negotiations and of the business committee is what we find in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper. I shall read what is contained in brackets:

"The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules will ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland."

They are the rules that are being laid down for the negotiations to take place. I take it from that that, with regard to clause 3(4), no decision will be taken to refer anything to the forum--unless by the parties to the negotiations--unless it has passed the hurdle that it will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland. Am I to take it from that that they mean in terms of Northern Ireland--the representatives so elected to the forum by the communities in Northern Ireland--and that it will be the parties that have been elected and the negotiators who will decide when that is to happen?

If that is the case--although I regard the forum as something of a nonsense--if that power lies with the parties to the negotiations, my fears and those of my hon. Friends might be assuaged to a degree. However, if that is not the case, what we have created is a forum that will discuss all manner of things, that will be able to come to conclusions and that will have things referred to it from the negotiations, which it will seek to debate.

After the framework document, we wanted to have negotiating parties and negotiations rather than going into the election. We wanted the negotiators to have the ability to sit and negotiate without fearing that they had to look over their shoulders all the time to other people in another assembly who would be passing judgment, day in, day out, on the process of the negotiations. There might be cries of betrayal. We wanted to have negotiations before the elections to prevent that from happening--to come to some agreement and then ask the people of Northern Ireland to accept it or to reject it in a referendum as laid down in the framework document.

However, here we have the parties elected with a forum. If that all-embracing phrase in paragraph 24 relates to what can or cannot be said and debated in the forum on the recommendation of the negotiating parties, that is fine. However, if the argument were to be adopted that negotiations were likely to be conducted under rules and procedure for the negotiating parties--as they are to be for the rules of negotiations for the forum--that would be a dangerous matter.

22 Apr 1996 : Column 105

Mr. Robert McCartney: It would be of some assistance if all hon. Members realised that the purpose of the legislation is essentially to have a set of negotiators going about the business of trying to arrive at a consensus about the best way that a peaceful and, hopefully, permanent settlement can be achieved for the people of Northern Ireland.

However, such a settlement--first, if it is to be achieved and, secondly, if it is to receive the democratic endorsement of those for whose benefit it is alleged to have been put in place--must have validation. There is no point in a set of secret negotiations taking place and a package being produced like a rabbit from a hat and placed before the people of Northern Ireland, who have not been made conscious and made aware in general terms of what those pledged to negotiate on their behalf have in mind.

---