---

Mr. Peter Robinson: I speak to amendments Nos. 138 and 25, which are in my name. The first amendment deals with a matter just referred to by the hon. Member for Spelthorne--namely, how soon after the election it is appropriate for the forum to meet. I am quite content with

23 Apr 1996 : Column 294

the terms of the amendment of the hon. Member for Upper Bann to have a precise date and I am also quite content with the date that he has suggested.

However, I have allowed a little more flexibility and said that the forum should meet within seven days so that no precise date would have to be set so far in advance. I have made it clear that within a short period of people being elected to the forum they should sit down in the forum. That is something that the Secretary of State should have permitted. The terminology that he used was a little vague. First, there was reference to four weeks and now it might be more than four weeks--no one can be quite sure exactly how long it may be.

Let us look at this in terms of the period of time that we are talking about. Four weeks from 30 May--the result probably being known on 1 June--would take us to the beginning of July and a little longer may take us to 11 or 12 July. What other good ideas does the Secretary of State have for the opening day of the forum? The proposals put forward by the Ulster Unionist party and my party would be the most appropriate in the circumstances. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider them at this stage.

Amendment No. 25 also deals with the word "may", but it has been dealt with slightly differently by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and me. It relates to the Secretary of State's powers to determine that it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet if there are to be meetings of the negotiations. Schedule 2, paragraph 2(3) says that if, 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",

the Secretary of State could inform the chairman of the forum that the forum should not meet. There may be negotiations every day of the week so, effectively, that provision makes it possible that the forum would never meet. To sharpen the paragraph slightly, amendment No. 25 would insert the words "are intended to" instead of the word "may" so that, if it is specifically intended for the negotiating teams to meet, the Secretary of State would be empowered to exercise the power that he has under this provision.

It would be useful for the Secretary of State to clarify, so that we all have it on the record, that we are not talking about two political parties meeting in a bilateral forum, or even about three parties meeting. I presume that the reference in the Bill means that we are talking about what might be described as plenary sessions of the negotiating teams. It is important that we have that on the record, so that there is no doubt afterwards.

Mr. McGrady: Dame Janet, I do not intend to press amendment No. 59, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We see in the proposals before us another attack on the forum. I was reading in Hansard of 24 January 1996 that the Prime Minister, replying to the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, had some interesting things to say about the forum. I was not in the House the day he made that statement, but he said:

"I see the election providing a pool of representatives from which party delegations to the talks could be drawn, and a means to index the strength of the parties' delegations in the talks process. Apart from that, of course, I see the election providing, by weighted

23 Apr 1996 : Column 295

majority vote, an initial mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process."--[Official Report, 24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]

The Prime Minister promised us that that is what the forum was to be. Amendments were moved in an attempt to establish the promise made, but they were rejected by the Government.

On 21 March 1996, the Prime Minister said:

"The legislation"

that will bring the forum about

"will also provide for the forum to be able to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies or individuals can be made."--[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]

There is no such provision in the Bill. We are told that there is nothing to prohibit it, but we were told that it would be legislated for--that it would be provided--and there is no provision.

Now we have another attack on the forum. We are told that it can be elected and people drawn from it can be on the negotiating body, but that the forum itself will not meet for four weeks or perhaps more after its election. We know that we can get a date of 10 June, and that that must be kept at all costs because it was agreed with Dublin, to placate the IRA and get things moving. There is no suggestion of a date of 10 June or as near to it as we can get. Another attack has been launched to postpone the meeting of the forum. I suggest to the House--I support the comments of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)--that we are witnessing more and more opposition from those who initially launched a vicious attack against the very idea of elections and a forum. We now have a new parliamentary procedure: it is called consensus. We do not take any votes; we simply have consensus. We would wait a long time to achieve consensus in this place--not one Bill or Order in Council would be passed.

10.30 pm

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a majority of people were to express their willingness to leave the United Kingdom and join some form of all-Ireland body, they would do so by a majority of 50 per cent. plus one and not by consensus?

Rev. Ian Paisley: If it is a one-way street to a republic, there will be majority of one and 50 per cent., but any decision to remain within the United Kingdom will be attacked because there has been no consensus. That is the way it works.

The forum will mirror the thinking of the people of Northern Ireland in a unique way because of the strange manner of electing candidates and topping up election results. Perhaps the Government are making preparations for an election that they expect to lose: if they were to introduce the Northern Ireland system here, they could remain in power by topping up from another list and increasing their numbers.

What is it all about? It is an attack on the forum. If the Secretary of State thinks that the forum will be his puppet--to be stopped when he stops it and to go when he wants it to--he will be strangely surprised. The forum will not fill that role. Those who do not agree with my

23 Apr 1996 : Column 296

political views will not be kicked around either--the Secretary of State may find them even more intransigent than I am.

Mr. Wilshire: Having listened to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman and of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I am feeling extremely guilty, as I started the hare. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my amendment limits the obstruction to eight weeks or to four weeks and that without it there would perhaps never be a meeting? It may be an advantage rather than an obstruction.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We do not blame the hon. Gentleman at all. We welcome his amendments and we are very glad that he squeezed the Secretary of State to agree to four weeks. However, he has himself underscored the fact that his joy turned to grief and pain when he noticed that the wording referred to four weeks or soon after that, which could mean 12 July or black Saturday--most hon. Members will now know what that is. Anyone who wishes to know can seek out the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) who will be able to tell them, as an imperial grandmaster of that particular organisation.

The hon. Gentleman should be happy with his great accomplishment. I hope that the four weeks will be enforced. However, I do not think that the Prime Minister should tell us that the forum is a

"mechanism for testing widespread acceptability within Northern Ireland of the outcome of any talks process".--[Official Report,24 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 357.]

That idea was voted down yesterday. I do not think that he should say that the legislation

"will also provide for the forum to conduct hearings at which public submissions by relevant bodies . . . can be made".--[Official Report, 12 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 498.]

We know that the legislation does not provide for that. Again, we see the forum being de-horned.

Mr. Illsley: I wish to speak specifically to amendments Nos. 53 and 54. We believe strongly that the meetings of the forum should not take place until after the negotiations have commenced. I am sorry that certain hon. Members appear to consider that an attack on the forum, but in our view the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the negotiations: hence its title. The negotiations should therefore be given precedence over the meetings of the forum.

All hon. Members who have attended these debates have heard expressed the fear that the possibility of a forum, assembly or convention could be considered as a return to a Stormont-type situation, with legislative or administrative powers. Those fears have been allayed by comments in Committee, but it is clear that Unionist members would like to see the forum upgraded or enhanced, and given precedence over the negotiations.

We maintain that the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate elections that will provide delegates to the negotiations. The purpose of the Bill is not to facilitate delegates to the forum, and the negotiations should take precedence.

---