| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.37 am
Dr. Hendron: I was pleased that the Secretary of State and his Minister placed much emphasis on the importance of the all-party talks rather than that of the forum. In making that point, I do not in any way belittle the points made by others about the forum. I fully understand why
the forum is wanted. My party has felt from the beginning that it was not necessary, but it will be a fact of life, so there is no point in going backwards.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said that some stomachs would be turned among those people who went into the forum because gunmen or former gunmen would be there. The whole point of all-party talks and the political process is to take the gun out of Irish politics permanently. It is not just the turning of stomachs but the slaughter of our people that has taken place over so many years.
The Secretary of State emphasised the fact that the functions of the forum would be deliberative. I have been present for most of the debate today and yesterday and, as I understand it, no amendments which were intended to upgrade the forum or make it more significant were accepted.
From my party's point of view, the big date is 10 June for the all-party talks. The Mitchell principles--which have been mentioned over and over again--are not preconditions; they are to do with democracy. I agree with the hon. Members who have said that anyone who really intends to make this process work should have no difficulty in accepting the Mitchell principles because they are about democracy.
My party will enter into the talks on 10 June in good faith. We are aware, as is every hon. Member, that we are divided by history. As a nationalist, I emphasise the fact that some people believe--I am thinking mainly of Irish Americans--that the Protestant Unionist people are blow-ins of the last century. However, they have been here in this country--at least in Ireland--longer than the white star of the United States of America has been there. Obviously, I could develop that point at great length.
Reference has been made to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and questions asked as to whether it worked. The exercise that we are now going through is leading to all-party talks and, hopefully, the promise will be fulfilled. We are replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement with another agreement--a broad agreement between the two communities. As one who participated in, totally supported and still supports, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I have no difficulty in saying that there was no consultation with the representatives of the Unionist people. That was wrong.
To say that the agreement did not work is untrue. The agreement was to do with equality between two communities, between two traditions. If one reads the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the various aspects of it and looks at what has happened, one cannot blame those who brought forward the agreement for the terrible violence that took place on our streets. When two Governments form an agreement, paramilitary people do not say, "That is the answer--we will now lay down our guns". That is absolute nonsense. One cannot say that the agreement did not work.
I conclude on a point that I have raised with the Secretary of State in the past. Yesterday the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) referred to young people getting their names on the register. I do not see that as a major problem. However, what is a problem is the fact that thousands of votes are stolen in every election in Northern Ireland. The votes are stolen mainly by one political group: Sinn Fein. Some years ago, the stealing of votes was an elementary thing, but now it is done professionally.
Driver's licences and medical cards are not proof of identity, and I made this point to the Secretary of State some weeks ago. Today, in the Irish Independent, a newspaper published in Dublin, there is a column on the fact that driver's licences are being produced in Dublin by some renegade organisation and being sold at quite a considerable profit. It is very easy to produce these documents. Any hon. Member could use another hon. Member's medical card as a means of identity--it does not prove identity at all. I have seen many medical cards--as I am a member of the medical profession, it is something that I know about.
In my constituency of Belfast, West personating agents--including people representing me or my colleagues or representatives of any other party--are not allowed to look at documents. When someone presents a document--be it a medical card or a driver's licence--we do not have the authority to look at it. If I am a candidate, I do not have the power to see whether it is a genuine medical card.
I am talking about people voting not once or twice, but 10 or 20 times from 7 am until 10 pm. I appeal to the Secretary of State--as I have done before; and I appreciate that efforts have been made in the past--on this issue. I hope that I am not being arrogant in making the point that medical cards and driver's licences came about over the years through steps taken by me in approaching the Government. I need not go into all that, but that point can be proven without difficulty.
I ask for something to be done between now and the election. One system uses what I believe is an ultra-violet light, under which the voter places a hand. Although that system does not identify the person, it ensures that the person votes only once. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, in my territory, even if the wrong person votes, the fact that they vote only once means something.
Mr. Peter Robinson:
Hon. Members might want to keep in mind the fact that the gangsters referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) are the type of gangsters that the Secretary of State has been falling over backwards to involve in the talks process. Those are the people who organise the young fellows to impersonate voters to steal people's votes. The House apparently believes that it is productive to involve such people in the talks process. Those are the people whom the Secretary of State attempts to accommodate and the Government want to elevate.
Now that the House has heard the mild views of the hon. Member for Belfast, West--Madam Deputy Speaker, if he had the time, he could have described to you much more of his experience of what he has to face in west Belfast from that so-called party--we need to concern ourselves with the nature of the Bill as a whole.
Disappointingly--but not surprisingly--the Secretary of State, having given the House a clear undertaking that he would go away and consult and having said that, on that basis, parties should withdraw amendments that they had tabled relating to the list because on Report he would
report his conclusions to the House, did nothing of the sort. Even on this Third Reading, he has done nothing of the sort.
It shows how much trust we can have in the Secretary of State when, in the space of a few hours, he makes a commitment to the House, breaches that commitment and does not follow it through. What faith can we or anyone in Northern Ireland have in a Secretary of State who makes such a commitment and breaks it in so cavalier a fashion?
Of course, we have no doubt about what the conclusion is, because the Secretary of State had the decency to whisper it to us. He does not allow the Democratic Unionist party to be on the ballot paper in the manner that the Democratic Unionist party chooses. One political party may have its leader specified on the ballot paper, but not this political party, because the Secretary of State wants to discriminate against it.
There are laws in Northern Ireland about discrimination and about the behaviour of a Minister, and the House may not have the last word on all those issues. It certainly will not have the last word on one issue at least, because the people of Northern Ireland will have the last word.
I look forward to the day when the Secretary of State visits my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim or me and says, "If you would be prepared to change one wee word in this document, it would be very helpful" and I will remind the Secretary of State how helpful he was today when we wanted one wee word changed in a document and he was not prepared to budge. He made no attempt to reach a consensus or to bring parties along with him.
I want to place it clearly on the record that we satisfied the requirements that the Government specified in exactly the same way as the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) did, and that we will fulfil our obligations in exactly the same way as he did. The Minister made it clear that, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had responded in the way that he had, his party's name and his Christian name and surname were put on the list in the way that he required. Different criteria apply to the hon. and learned Member for North Down and to my party. The Government have treated the democratic parties shabbily by not allowing them to describe themselves on the list in the manner that suits them.
In the past 36 hours, we have attempted to inject some degree of democracy into flawed legislation. We attempted to introduce some democracy into the work of the forum, whose role the Secretary of State intends to diminish. We attempted to increase the responsibility of its representatives and their role vis a vis the negotiating teams. However, our every attempt was rejected by the Secretary of State. Let us be honest: he was prepared to accept only those minor amendments that did little more than change the punctuation in the Bill. He turned down all amendments of any substance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |